1929-03-22

VACANCY

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that a vacancy having occurred in the electoral district of Prescott, I have issued my warrant addressed to the chief electoral officer.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


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

Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved:: That the first report of the select standing committee on public accounts be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I have not read the report. Did it appear recently in the press?


Mr. BENNETT:: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: About a year ago Sir John Bennett, then representing the Newfoundland government, came to Ottawa and we negotiated a trade agreement on behalf of the Dominion of Canada and the colony of Newfoundland, giving Canada most favoured nation treatment, including the British preference, and giving to Newfoundland the same concessions in Canada. It was also arranged that we should assist in some way, through the Department of Trade and Commerce, in the maintenance of a steamship service carrying mails between a port in Canada and a port in Newfoundland. The necessary orders in council were put through here and the necessary legislation passed in Newfoundland, but subsequently it was learned that there

' Business of the House
was a difference of opinion in Newfoundland as to the interpretation, and until that matter should be straightened out we have made no payments on account of the subsidy. Recently Sir Richard Squires, the present Prime Minister of Newfoundland, has been in Ottawa and has had a conference with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) and myself, and we understood that we were reaching an agreement that would be mutually satisfactory both to Canada and to Newfoundland.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would that involve the termination of the present agreement?


James Alexander Robb: So far as we understand, the present agreement still stands.



MEDICAL RELIEF FOR INDIANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timis-kaming):: I would ask the Minister of
National Health (Mr. King) in the absence of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), if any official report has been received from the Ontario government with respect to providing medical relief for the Indians in James Bay basin. A despatch from Toronto dated March 19, reads:
Hon. William Finlayson, provincial minister of lands and forests expressed the willingness of the Ontario government to cooperate with the Dominion authorities in carrying medical aid to the stricken Indians in the Moose Factory district in a letter forwarded to the Department of Indian Affairs at Ottawa to-day.
Provincial air force machines will be placed at the disposal of any doctors the Dominion government may decide to send to the Indians' aid. Captain W. Roy Maxwell, director of the force, is ready to lead the expedition.
Hon.. J. H. KING (Minister of National Health): In the absence of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) I may say that the matter of medical relief for the Indians comes under the Indian department. I shall bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of the Interior and he will be able to give my hon. friend an answer later.



GRADING OF GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremorut):: I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) if the government has been made aware of a statement issued by the chairman of the harbour commissioners of Montreal, and published in the press of yesterday, denying that grade .mixing has taken place a,t Montreal.
Hon. -JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Yes, the government has received a copy of a telegram which was sent to the chairman of the Saskatchewan commission I think, by the Montreal harbour commission.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this would be an opportune time for the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie Kang) to indicate in as general a way as possible what government business will engage the attention of parliament during the remainder of the session.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if .my hon.
friend will regard my statement as a general one and not hold the government too closely to it, I would say that I think the house has now before it, either under government notices of motion or government orders, practically all the legislation that we intend introducing this session, with the exception of four bills of which I will make mention. There may also be a bill from the senate dealing with the Companies Act; it does not appear on the list before me. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) intends to introduce a bill respecting the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and another bill respecting the administration of justice in the Northwest Territories; the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning), a bill with respect to the Montreal terminals, and the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) a bill respecting certain postal employees. I think those bills cover all the legislation to be introduced.



JACK MINER BIRD SANCTUARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: I desire to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to grant any financial assistance to the Jack Miner bird sanctuary at Kingsville, Ontario.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The intention of the government will be announced in the supplementary estimates; but it might please my hon. friend and Jack Miner if I were to say that we are favourably contemplating such a grant.

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson



RELIEF TO WELSH MINERS

[Stage Direction]
Oil the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. Prime Minister be good enough to say whether the government has taken into consideration the question of making a grant for the relief of the distressed coal miners in Wales?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already intimated
to the house, in answer to a similar question which was asked by my hon. friend from Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), the position of the government in this matter.
INQUIRY FOR RETURNS On the orders of the day:


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, on March 4 a motion standing in my name passed the house for the production of correspondence between the government, the British High Commissioner and the British Federation of Industries with respect to the British preference. I have not yet received the papers, and I would adk that they be presented as soon as possible. On the same day another motion standing in my name passed the house for the production of papers in connection with the sale of section 26, township 32, range 32, west of the first meridian. I should very much like to secure these papers at the earliest possible moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall ask the Secretary
of State to take note of my hon. friend's wishes regarding these matters.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 19 consideration of the motion oif Hion. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Hugh Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, all things come to those who wait. About sixty hours ago I began a few observations on the budget and spoke for four or five minutes before the house adjourned. At the time of the adjournment I was dealing with the speech of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) delivered in criti-

cism of the budget. He admitted, at least in a half-hearted manner, something that his colleagues who have since spoken have not admitted, namely, that there is some prosperity throughout the Dominion. He qualified his admission by saying that this prosperity, he thought, was confined to the larger centres, such as Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg. My hon. friend from West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) in his speech a few days ago went a great deal further than the hon. member for South Wellington in denying that Canada is prosperous. In fact my hon. friend from West Hamilton may be called- and I do not say this in any offensive way- the leader of the pessimists and the wailers of woe and calamity on the other side of the house. To show the house that he has not changed his views in that regard, I propose to quote from a speech that he delivered in the session of 1926. On February 2 of that year he was making, I think, his maiden speech-at any rate, it was a speech, and he referred to the conditions in the city of Hamilton, in which he was bom and which he now has the honour of representing in this house. Time will not permit my reading the whole speech, but I may be permitted to quote a portion of it from page 664 of the 1926 Hansard. He said:
I speak now of the city of Hamilton in western Ontario, the plight of which is similar to that of many other cities in that part of the country; a city where for the last three years thousands of people have been face to face with the grim spectre of starvation. When in the recent campaign it was part of my personal duty to acquaint myself with the actual situation as it existed in that city, I ascertained from the only official records available, those of the chamber of commerce, that employment in Hamilton at any time during the past year was at best but 42 per cent of the normal-42 per cent, not of the possible, but of the normal. In other words, one-half of the living of the people had been swept away by failure to provide safeguards for such manufactures as those people live by.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Hear, hear;
that is right.


Frederick George Sanderson: He continued:
That is a condition which is not of any recent making, it has existed continuously for the last three or four years, and it shows no improvement to-day.
Then the hon. gentleman went on to tell of the people in Hamilton climbing up the mountain to pick bark, herbs and leaves which they took back to their homes to burn and keep themselves warm.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: 
Frederick George Sanderson: The grass that grows in South Perth is the verdant grass of the farm, the backbone of the country. I am not a farmer nor a playwright, but I am passing this on to my hon. friend.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I knew that before you started.


Frederick George Sanderson: Now, if my hon.
friend will permit me to proceed, I should like to direct the attention of the house to some of his remarks in a recent debate this year. Speaking in this house on March 12, he made certain statements to which I shall refer. However, just before I take that up, let me say this. The hon. member speaks of South Perth. I want to say that during the 1926 campaign the hon. gentleman undertook to do a good deal of campaigning in the province of Ontario on behalf of the Conservative candidates. At that time he had two songs; one was poverty and the other scandal. He went into several constituencies in western Ontario, and I. am credibly informed that the result was not very satisfactory to his cause. I hope I d'o not do my hon. friend any injustice, and probably if he had not interrupted me I might not have brought this matter to the notice of the house.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Go as far as you like.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am going as far as I can. The hon. gentleman made three or four speeches, and rumours had it that the board of strategy, who were directing affairs in the Conservative campaign in Ontario, sent him home, because instead of gaining Conservative votes he was making Liberal votes. I am sorry he did not come into South Perth, I should have been glad to have him there, because had he come into South Perth and delivered one or two of the speeches he made in some of the other constituencies my majority would have been 100 or 150 more than it was.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I will be there
next time and you won't come back.


Frederick George Sanderson: I shall be glad to
welcome the hon. gentleman. I want to tell him, however, for his own sake-and I may be foolish in doing this-that if he comes to South Perth he had better forget the poverty and the scandal. Now to turn to what the hon. gentleman said when speaking on March 12 in reference to the city of Toronto. He did not say anything about Hamilton-and, by the way, before I get away from Hamilton perhaps I might make this
observation: I do not know the city of Hamilton as well as my hon. friend does; he was born there, he lives there, and he is one of the representatives from that city. But I am credibly informed by people who have lived in Hamilton for many years that that city was never before in the state of prosperity in which it finds itself to-day. I am told that all the manufacturing plants are busy, running full time, that there is a great deal of prosperity, that trade and commerce in the city is flourishing, and that Hamilton is in a very healthy condition financially. My hon. friend may deny this; I do not know. However, I am merely giving information which I have received from people now living in that city.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Why do you object?


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not objecting;
I am delighted. I was just wondering whether the hon. gentleman would admit it. Perhaps he will not. However, to get down to the speech of my hon. friend from West Hamilton delivered on Muroh 12. At page 872 of Hansard he is reported-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friends
cannot rattle me; let them go as far as they like. Speaking of the great city of Toronto, he has this to say:
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,-[DOT]
I am sure no one would accuse my hon. friend of bias.
-I will refer to two great Liberal journals: to the two great pillars of the Liberal party iff 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, .... 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 unadidterated.
. Mr. GEARY: When are you going to make your own speech?


Frederick George Sanderson: I have listened carefully to some of the speeches of my hon. friend and I have not interrupted him.


George Reginald Geary: I will not interrupt you.


Frederick George Sanderson: But I would ask my
hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Gear}-)


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Is there anything in the paper about labour conditions in Hamilton, as to whether or not there were any strikes or whether everything was peaceful?


Frederick George Sanderson: Nothing that I can see; if there are any strikes in Hamilton or if there were any difficulties in regard to labour, the hon. member, for West Hamilton would have been on his feet before this, so I think we may take it for granted that conditions in the city of Hamilton are far from what my hon. friend would like us to believe.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to prosperity in this country, it was stated by the

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson
hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) during her address the other day that perhaps the great basic industry of agriculture was not sharing in the prosperity to the extent that some other branches of trade and commerce were and I am frank enough to admit that at present perhaps the agricultural industry is not enjoying its full share of prosperity as compared with different branches of manufacturing. I want to say, however, that there were reasons for this condition during the past year. We have had some very interesting debates in this house, one of which was concluded last night, and anyone who has followed conditions in the prairie provinces knows that while there was a wonderful crop in the west last year, which promised to be perhaps the best paying crop in the history of that part of Canada, many thousands of acres of wheat were touched by frost before they were harvested. This resulted in a good deal of trouble and difficulty with regard to the grading of wheat, so that the financial returns from that magnificent crop were below what they would have been if Providence had not sent the frost.
* Then I come down to western Ontario and particularly the county of Perth and adjoining counties. The crop of last summer at one time promised to be good, but harvesting weather was bad and lihe result was that the yield was away below the average not only in wheat but also in oats, barley, flax, and all other grains. I think my hon. friend from South Huron will bear me out in this. In addition, last fall there was a considerable increase in the price of cattle; many farmers purchased cattle at a 'high price and then the market slumped, with the result that they were left with these oattle on tiheir hands. These were conditions which no one could control; they were conditions over which this government or any other government which might ibe in power in Canada would have no control at all. I would like to point out, however, that as between the Conservative party and the Liberal party, the Liberals always have recognized agriculture as the basic industry of this country while the Conservative party have not done so, although at present in order to gain some votes, they appear to be flirting in a political way with the agricultural sections of Canada. However, you only have to look over this house to notice the farmer members on this side and to compare them with the farmer members on the other side.


Mr. COTNAM:: Liberal-Progressives?


Frederick George Sanderson: I will include the
Liberal-Progressives with the Liberals in this statement.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I am afraid they are included outside the statement, also.


Frederick George Sanderson: I will say to my hon. friend that so far as I am able I will take them inside the statement


Milton Neil Campbell: There is no reason why you should leave them out.


Frederick George Sanderson: It was quite unintentional. What I am trying to get at, if I may be allowed to go on, is this:	I do not
think the Conservative party will be able to bring many farmers into their camp by any high protection policy in Canada.
Now I want to refer to the speech delivered a short time ago by the bon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). As I 'have observed my hon friend in this house I have noticed that be has the ability in speaking to build up an argument out of very little and bring it before the house as though he really believed it himself; he has that ability more than any other member here. He took credit to the Conservative party in his address for very many things; he started in to credit the Conservative party with what he considered advancements in legislation and in everything pertaining to the development and progress of Canada; he would not give credit to the Liberal party for anything. He gave the Conservatives credit for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; for the national policy; for the Canadian Pacific Railway; for the Canadian National Railways and for the Welland canal. He left out confederation and the discovery of America; perhaps he only overlooked them, but at any rate he ended with the war.


Mr. GOTT:: Signing the peace pact.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) usually talks about onions, but now he is talking about the peace pact. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre mentioned, near the close of his speech -a very admirable speech to listen to-about the part-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Tell us about it.


Eccles James Gott: He is looking for onions now.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member
said:
Then there was the conduct of Canada's part in the Great war. Nevertheless, that great task was conducted by a Conservative administration.



The Budget-Mr. Sanderson
I always considered that the Union government had something to do with the prosecution of the war. If my hon. friend had not interrupted me so much perhaps I would not have mentioned the fact that I have always considered that the successful prosecution of the Great war was due to those men who went overseas, to their dependents who were left in Canada and to the loyalty and sacrifice of all the people and that the government of the day, whether a Conservative or a Union government, deserves very little thanks.


Mr. MANION:: Quite a number of the men who went overseas are over here on this side of the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: Quite true, and my hon. friend was one of that gallant company. Now that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) lias spoken I will remind him that he joined the Union government shortly after the war, but he -must not forget that the opinion of the people of Canada with regard to the prosecution of the war by the Conservative and Union governments was shown quite definitely at the first opportunity they had of marking their ballots. The hon. member for Fort William was not in the ministry very long, and he had another brief stretch of about thirty-six hours in 1926.


Eccles James Gott: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick George Sanderson: No; you will have an opportunity to make your speech a little later on.
The governments in power at Ottawa, whether they were Conservative or Union, did -many things in connection with the war, with regard to war contracts, munitions, boots and shoes and other matters which were not creditable to them.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is that all you did?


Frederick George Sanderson: I did as much as my hon. friend. I must beg my hon. friend's pardon; I had forgotten that he lost a son in the war. I am not going to permit my hon, friend to get away with these interruptions. I will tell the hon. member that I did not stay at home and profit by war contracts; whether he did or whether he did not,
I do not know.


David Spence: Because you could not get any.


Frederick George Sanderson: Am I to be -permitted to continue my remarks without further interruptions?


David Spence: Talk some sense.
fMr. Sanderson.]


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. memiber for Parkd-ale (M-r. Spence) is not -talking sense.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


David Spence: You are making a joke of the whole house.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: You are certainly not
taking it as a joke.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. members
cannot distract me from my speech. I intend to say a word or two with regard to the^ tariff advisory board. A great deal of criticism has come from the other side of the house regarding that board. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) referred in his remarks to the expenditure of $120,000 to cover the work of -the board. I will -take this opportunity of congratulating the member for West York (Mr. Lawson) on his maiden speech in the house, but I must draw attention to the fact -that he stated the total expenditure for the tariff advisory board was $191,000. I would point out that both hon. members were incorrect in their statements; the total expenditure last year for that board amounted to only $71,000. The board is doing a great work as a factfinding organization. Information is obtained from those who apply to the board, whether for an increase or reduction in the tariff, which could not be obtained in any other way. I direct the attention of the house to the fact that the government introduced last year about one hundred and eighty new or amended items, all of which had been brought about through the work of this board. The revision this year is somewhat smaller, but the government has revised in the course of two budgets close to 20 per cent of the total items, in the customs tariff, which revision has been brought about through the work of the tariff board. This -board has also brought out many differences of opinion among hon. members on the other side of the house. I hold in my han-d the record of the public sitting, reference No. 2, on iron and steel. This covered the application of the Algoma Steel Corporation for a;n increase in the duties on steel and iron products. That application was bitterly opposed bv some of the so-called high protectionists. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), while he was not there in the flesh, was there in the spirit by proxy through his manager, Mr. Taylor, and advocated a -lower tariff. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) was there, but he stuck to his guns and combated the arguments of Mr. Taylor, the manager of the company of which the hon. member for Lincoln is the president. Several other gentlemen were there but I will n-ot -take up the time of the

The Budget-Mr. Matthews
house in naming them, other than to say that it only proves that the tariff board is bringing out facts with regard to the manufacturing interests, costs, markets, production, and everything pertaining to manufacture, which could not be brought out in any other manner.
I want to read to the house something from the proceedings of the third annual convention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which was held in Quebec city on June 7, S and 9, 1928. These remarks were made by Mr. C. H. Carlisle, president and general manager of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. I do not know his politics, but perhaps my good friend, the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) who has interrupted me once or twice and who is also, or was, interested in a rubber company, can tell me what this man's politics were. Mr. Carlisle goes on to say:
I question whether the average individual has given enough thought to the export business to know just what it means to this or to any other country. There is not a great deal of difference between conditions governing an individual and those governing a business or a nation. An individual who spends more than he makes finds himself indebted, and, being indebted, lie is not happy, he is not an asset to his family, nor to his community, nor to his country. If he can produce more than he spends, then he accumulates wealth; his whole trend of life is changed, he is a better citizen, he becomes an asset to his family, his town and his country. The same is true with a company. The company whose expenditures are greater than its income must necessarily be in an unhappy condition; its securities will not sell at a normal price; the people who have invested their money in that company have not a sure investment; the bank with which that company deals is not dealing on a very sound basis.
Mr. SPEAKER; Order.
Mr. R. C. MATTHEWS (Toronto East Centre); Mr. Speaker, I propose to address a few words to the house on the question of the retirement of our public obligations. For a number of years there has been in the minds of many Canadians the hopeful expectation that among its financial proposals, the budget would deal with a definite plan for the retirement of the public debt. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) cannot have been unaware of that expectation, but for some reason he has not, seen fit to give parliament assurance even of consideration of the question.
In the last two years there have been several addresses delivered in this house, in which particular reference has been made to the retirement or amortization of the public debt. In 1927 I called attention to the national importance of an orderly plan of debt
elimination. I also took the liberty of pointing out that the Minister of Finance stopped in his budget speech at the current fiscal year and went no further. I then urged an investigation and the formation of a definite plan to extinguish the whole of Canada's funded obligations within a given period. My leader (Mr. Bennett), and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), have spoken specifically and forcefully to the same, end. Indeed, with a more profound knowledge, and a better grasp of affairs than I can command, they have brought home to the government the economic necessity of providing by statute for the extinction of our funded debt. The leader of the opposition pointed out last year, that in fairness to the taxpayers, to the country and to posterity, this problem should be met. He stated that the sum of $19,829,904 set aside annually at four per cent per annum would retire the debt in forty-five
years.
If we take this year's surplus of $69,000,000 and deduct $20,000,000 as one year's portion of such a debt retirement plan, we have left $49,000,000, which is an amount within $9,000,000 of the estimated total sales tax for the present fiscal year, or if applied to income tax, it is more than double the whole amount collected from individuals.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the position of the debt? And what is the reason for debt
retirement? Why do we urge it, and why does the government refuse to apply the principle of amortization? Let us first look at
funded debt itself.		It consists of the		
wing issues of securities:				
5 00,000,000	54%	bonds	due	192920,000,000	44%	bonds	due	193045.000.000	4 %	notes	due	193025,000,000	5 %	bonds	due	193152,931,600	5 %	bonds	due	193173,325,150	54%	bonds	due	1932446,058.800	54%	bonds	due	1933511,910,050	54%	bonds	due	193423,467,206.27	34%	bonds	due	1934874,000	5 %	bonds	due	193540,000.000	44%	bonds	due	1936236.299,850	54%	bonds	due	193790,166,900	5 %	bonds	due	19378,071,230.16	3 %	bonds	due	193818,250,000	3 %	bonds	due	193810,950,000	3 %	bonds	due	193815,056.006.66	34%	bonds	due	193875,000,000	44%	bonds	due	1940147,000,000	5 %	bonds	due	194350,000,000	44%	bonds	due	194445,000,000	44%	bonds	due	19464,888.185.64	24%	bonds	due	1947137,058.841	34%	bonds	due	1950100.000,000	5 %	bonds	due	195293,926,666.66	4 %	bonds	due	1960

This is a list of twenty-four issues of bonds, and one issue of notes. Of these twenty-


James Alexander Robb: I do not like to interrupt the
thread of my hon. friend's argument, but could he tell the house how the debt of Ontario compares to-day with the debt of 1925, when this plan was introduced?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I am sorry I have
not the figures at hand in regard to the total debt, but I do know that the old debt of Ontario under the plan has been reduced by six million dollars. Since it was put into operation three further bond issues have been made, and they have been either on the serial or the annuity plan.
What about other countries? Well, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a booklet describing in detail all foreign bond issues made by governments, states, public utilities, and so forth, in New York, representing post-war financing up to December 31, 1928.
In all there are 437 issues representing $6,448,000,000, distributed over five continents and thirty-eight countries, including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark,


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: I am impelled to take part in this debate because of certain utterances of hon. gentlemen opposite. Statements have been made from the opposite side of the house which had much better been left unsaid, and policies have been advocated which if carried into effect could have none other than a disastrous effect on Canadian trade and on Canadian industry. When members of parliament get up in their places and openly advocate a policy of retaliation against a country which as yet has done us no harm; when they openly demand a fiscal policy of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; when they even go so far as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) did, and urge that parliament abdicate its powers and surrender into the hands of the ministry full control of the tariff and taxation, in order that that power might be used to wage a tariff war against another country: when members of parliament do these things, I say, it is time for all those members who believe that we are sent here to look after the affairs of our own country, and not to vent our spleen on other people, to raise our voices in protest.
I wish to correct a wrong impression that has been circulated throughout the country by a portion of the press in regard to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). The minister delivered his budget speech on the 1st day of March, and the next morning a section of the Tory press came out with great black headlines, " Robb threatens retaliation." I listened closely to the speech of the Minister of Finance, I have read it carefully in Hansard since, and I can find no word or sentence in it that would indicate in any way that he had any thought of retaliation.

The Budget-Mr. Young (Weyburn)
The sentence in the minister's speech on which the press bases its opinion is this: "It is our desire to trade freely with any and all who are willing to trade with us." Was there any suggestion of retaliation in that statement? In order to understand clearly what the minister meant by these words we should keep in mind what has gone before. In 1911 the American government, under a Republican president, offered Canada better trade relations. The government of the day was about to accept, but it was defeated at the polls, and a government of the party represented by hon. gentlemen opposite came into power. They refused that offer. They refused it, not politely but rudely, churlishly, boorishly. They said to the Americans, "We don't want to have any truck or trade with you."


Mr. McGIBBON:: Does my hon. friend know that everything in that treaty was given later and that they did not keep to it six months?


Edward James Young: (Weyburn): I am coming to that. A short time after, the American government, under a Democratic president this time, gave us free of charge many of the things contained in that treaty. This was the second gesture in the way of friendly relations made to us by the people of the United States. The same party was in power in Canada then, and how did they respond that time? Was there any talk then of retaliation? Was there any talk then of paying them back in kind, when they reduced their tariff against us? When they reduced their tariff did that" party in Canada say, "We will respond"? They said, "No; we have those Yankees where we want them. We have made them give us something and we have given them nothing in exchange."


Peter McGibbon: Does the hon. gentleman make thak statement seriously, that we gave them nothing in return?


Edward James Young: I said, that is
what your party said.


Peter McGibbon: No, they did not.


Edward James Young: That party openly boasted that they had secured from the Americans what we expected to secure from them in 1911 and that they had not given them anything in exchange. Now, there were two separate occasions on which the people on the other side of the line made friendly offers of better trade relations with this country, both of which were rejected by the party opposite.
Now let us come back to the statement of the Minister of Finance. What did it mean?
78594 -771
It was an intimation to the United States government that if they are still in that humour, if they are still disposed to have better trade relations with this oountry, they will find us in a more amiable mood, ready to trade with them. As the minister said. "We are willing to trade freely with all those who are willing trade with us." That was not a threat of retaliation. It was an olive branch, held out to a country which had twice held out the olive branch to us.
M|r. MANION: Is my hon. friend making that statement authoritatively? I see the Minister of Finance in his seat, and he does not contradict it. Is that the interpretation we are to accept?


James Alexander Robb: Is there any objection to a
statement of that kind?


Robert James Manion: I have no objection; all
I want is a frank interpretation of the statement.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. gentleman is making his speech.


Robert James Manion: The minister does not deny it and we will accept that interpretation.


Mr. McMILLAN:: There is nothing wrong about that.
Mr. YOUNG t Weyburn): I am accused of having a definite aim in life. I think it was the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) who said that my ambition was to destroy the fruit and vegetable industry. In reply to that, all I have to say is that it is the ancient privilege of a man who has no case to abuse his opponent. But in all these matters of the tariff I frankly confess that my concern is for the interest of the consumer. I believe with Bastiat that all economic questions should be studied from the consumer's standpoint, for the consumer's interests are the interests of the human race. Let me repeat these words, for I want them to soak in. "Study all economic questions from the consumer's standpoint, for the consumer's interests are the interests of the human race.'' What after all is prosperity? In what does it consist? Does it not consist in having plenty of everything for everybody? Commodities good, cheap and abundant, so cheap and so abundant that everyone can enjoy them? And every measure you take to increase the volume of commodities in the country and to lower prices widens the circle of people who are enabled to enjoy the use of those commodities, and is a step in the direction of prosperity. On the other hand, every measure you take to restrict the volume
1208	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Young (Weyburn)
of commodities coming into the country and to raise the prices of them, confining their use to a narrower circle of people, is a step in the opposite direction.
I know that is not the idea of prosperity held by hon. gentlemen opposite. Their idea of prosperity is a smaller volume of commodities sold at high prices, and at a handsome profit, to a restricted circle of consumers. Perhaps I can 'best illustrate it this way. I go into the restaurant in this building and I see hon. gentlemen who, although they may not be wealthy, are at least sufficiently well off to be able to buy anything they want to eat without regard to the cost. I see them eating bread and butter on the fifty-fifty basis -half bread and half butter. It does not matter how dear the butter is, they eat it. I see them eating tomatoes at 30 and 40 cents a pound and strawberries at 50, 60 and 75 cents a box. They are not eating celery but the hearts of celery. They are willing to pay a good price for these things; they are willing to pay an extra few cents a pound for butter or an extra few cents a bunch for their vegetables. And they call that prosperity. But that is only one side of the picture. From there I go into the cottage of the working man. There I find the mother eating bread without butter in order that the little butter which there is may be spread on the bread of the children. She tells me that she has been downtown and has looked into the shop windows which she sees filled with the best fruits and vegetables. But they are beyond her reach. However, she says that perhaps later in the season they may be cheap enough for her to buy some. That is the Conservative idea of prosperity- plenty of everything at high prices for the few who can afford it, and scarcity among the masses who cannot.
Mr. MANION; And plenty of work for the people to buy it with.


Edward James Young: We will see
about the work later on.


George Reginald Geary: You say either too much or too little.


Edward James Young: I will say the
rest presently. We on this side have a different idea. We believe that prosperity is measured by the manner in which people live.


Mr. QUINN:: Faith without works is dead.


Edward James Young: If my hon.
friends would do some good work on the other side it would help somewhat. As I say, we believe that prosperity consists in a higher

standard of living for the people. We are not alarmed at a feiw 'million -pounds of butter coming in from New Zealand because we know it is going into consumption; we know from the returns of the department that the people of this country are living better than ever before; we know that in spite of the fact that a few million pounds of butter are coming in from New Zealand, the people of Canada to-day are consuming dairy products to a greater degree than ever before. In fact, they are consuming products to such a degree that if the increased consumption were reduced to terms -of butter it would amount to no less than 70,000,000 pounds of butter annually within the last fefw years. How can the people of Canada afford to consume so much more of dairy products than they were a short time ago? The answer is obvious; it is because they are more prosperous. I am not dismayed when I hear these stories of carloads upon carloads of freA fruits and vegetables coming into this country, because I know every one of these articles is going into consumption; someone is eating them, and a larger importation simply means that a wider and ever wider circle of people are enjoying the fruits of the earth. That is prosperity, and that is being extended under the policy of this government.
All this talk about the importation of fruit and vegetables breaking -the home market and ruining our own producers is arrant nonsense. The argument they put up is this: they do not care how much comes in during the winter time when our fruits are out if season, but when our Canadian growers are ready to put -their fruits on the market they say the importation of a few carloads breaks that market. I think most of us remember when transportation conditions were such that we could not transport these articles any distance, and what was then the condition of the local grower? The fluctuations in price were far greater than they are -to-day. In those days the consumer had nothing at all in the way of fresh fruits and vegetables until our own crop was ripe; then we had such quantities that they were sold very cheaply and it was not very long before -they were all gone. To-day, with modern transportation facilities and with the tariff as far out of the way as we have been able to get it. we find an ever^widening circle of peop.c who are able to enjoy the fruits of the rartli.
No-w I would like to discuss for a mo neat the fruit situation in British Columbia because from that quarter comes the greatest agitation for prohibitive duty on fruit? and vegetables. The fruit growers of British Columbia went to their provincial govern-

The Budget-Mr. Young (Weyburn)
menit two or three years ago and persuaded that government to form what they called a Committee of Internal Direction, or something of that kind. To this committee they gave power to handle all the fruits and vegetables grown in that province. This was not a voluntary pool but a compulsory arrangement under which every grower was forced to sell his products through that concern at a price named by them, to the party named by them and ait a time named by them. If he dared sell his products anywhere else or in any other way he could be taken into court and fined. This matter came to light in an investigation which was conducted before the tariff board, and the observations of the chairman of that board are well worth remembering. I am sorry I have not them with me but I will give them to the house from memory. He said that this was the most remarkable thing that had ever come to his notice; it Was not voluntary cooperation but an attempt on the part of the people of one province to control the supplies of the people in the prairie provinces, and the strange thing about i't was that the people in the prairie provinces were powerless to help themselves.
That organization was set up, and one of the first things they did was to fix the price of onions at $40 per ton. With freight and handling charges added, that brought the price of onions on .the prairies to the point where we thought we could buy them cheaper elsewhere, so we bought our onions in Ontario and left British Columbia holding the bag, so to speak. Then what happened? Last winter these people came to Ottawa from British Columbia to hold a conference with the fruit and vegetable growers of the east, and put up this proposition:	They said,
" You form a committee similar to ours and you control the supplies in the east as we control them in the west. Then we will get the government to shut out all supplies from the south and we will have the people of the prairie provinces in the hollow of our hands." Parliament was sitting at the time. We who are supposed to fix the tariffs of this country were in session here, and these gentlemen over in the Chateau Laurier drew up a list of values which were to be the values for duty and which would fix the duty on fruits and vegetables for the coming season, in utter contempt of parliament. That was the aim of the fruit and vegetable growers in British Columbia; that is the aim of the people here who are clamouring for higher duties on fruits and vegetables. They want to shut out supplies from all sources but their own; they want to form h monopoly
and hold the people of the prairie provinces in the hollow of their hands. Why, in a good many cases they cannot even supply our requirements; they cannot supply more than one-tenth of the prairie market for peaches, yet they would have us pay a duty of 80 per cent on imported peaches in order that they might extract an exorbitant price for that one-tenth of our requirements which they can supply.
When I first came to this house three years ago the thing that struck me most in the debates was the solicitude of hon. gentlemen opposite for the farmers. Bankers, professional men, manufacturers, and business men generally would get up and constantly urge protection. Protection for what? They urged protection for the farmer, and as I listened to those debates the question kept recurring to my mind, " What have we done to be so much loved? Why do our friends in these other professions seem so anxious all of a sudden for the welfare of the farmer, when we had always considered that they had no interest in the farmer at all except as a lamb to be sheared?"


George Reginald Geary: Did you expect us to be
hostile?


Edward James Young: No, but I expected you to tell us what was really in your minds. However, here was the position: After the close of the war a great wave of high protectionist sentiment swept over the world. That wave did not make much headway in Canada, and the principal reason was that the farmers of Canada, from coast to coast, were a unit in opposing it. Those in Canada who were interested in high, protection, some because they honestly believed it would be good for the country and others because they believed it would be good for their own pockets, realized that they could never force the government to increase the tariffs in this country unless they first succeeded in dividing the farmers on the issue. So these were the tactics they adopted: They tried to pick out those isolated groups of farmers specializing in certain commodities and persuade them that if they would accept protection on their particular commodity they would benefit at the expense of the rest of the community. We must admit that they have met with some degree of success, because to-day we find poultry producers asking for higher duties on eggs; we find fruit and vegetable growers asking for higher duties on fruits and vegetables which will exclude these articles; we find dairymen asking for higher protection on dairy products, and so on. They have persuaded these farmers that
1210	COMMONS
The Budget*-Mr. Young (Weybum)
it would be to their particular advantage to eat a little of the protectionist pie, but in this respect I think the farmers would do well to take warning from what has happened to the farmers on the other side of the line.
In the United States protection has been carried to ridiculous extremes. The farmer has been told that protection -would be a benefit to him and he has been given protection on all his products. If there is any country in the world where protection would benefit the farmer it is the United States, because there he has such an enormous home market of his own. The farmer fell for that argument and voted for protection, and what has been the result? The farmer of the United States to-day is in a far more pitiable plight than any other farmer of whom I know; he finds himself in this position, that no matter what price he receives for his products his production costs are always just a little higher. He is like the ox in the treadmill, forever climbing but never ascending; or like the ancient Tantalus, dying of thirst with water all around him or starving to death with food in abundance just beyond his reach.
I have here a copy of The New Republic of New York, which contains an article dealing with the condition of farmers in the United States to-day. It reads as follows:
With the failure of farm income, deflation occurred, followed by a land crisis. Bankruptcies and foreclosures were widespread and inevitable, and the tragic procession of defeated farm families began to move citywards, seeking livelihood in other occupations than those to which they had been trained. By 1924 it was a migration; then a rout. To-day we know that we suffered a net loss in farm population of four millions, and still land panic is with us. Farms are still being foreclosed in numbers by mortgagors, and land prices are strikingly subnormal.
The Ottawa Journal, an independent paper published in this city-


An hon. MEMBER:: An independent
paper?


Edward James Young: I am just taking it at its own valuation. The Ottawa Journal of May, 1928, speaking of farm conditions in the United States, has the following ;o say:
Agriculture has not shared in United States prosperity. Of 6.371,640 farms between Maine and the Golden Gate one in five is mortgaged for 40 per cent; two in five are on unimproved roads; only one in twelve lias improved machinery. So says the United States Census Bureau.
The result is that to-day the farmers of the United States are demanding such fantastic schemes of relief as the McNary-Haugen relief 
bill, and you cannot blame them because they have been promised better prices if they would vote for protection. They voted for protection but the better prices never came, and now they are asking congress to guarantee those better prices.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) made a reference to a particular case in his speech which I cannot allow to pass unnotioed. He referred to a shipper, I think it was in Toronto, who sent a consignment of dress goods to Detroit, only co find that the United States tariff had been raised overnight and the shipment could not enter. In the United States tariff there is a provision which is called the flexible provision, and which permits the president to increase the duty by 50 per cent under certain conditions. The inference was that this flexible provision had been used and the duty raised so that this shipment could not enter the country. That story has been going around in different forms for the last two or three years; sometimes it is ladies' dresses sometimes it is sweaters, and sometimes it is iron and steel goods. I have tried repeatedly to trace these stories down but have been unable as yet to find that there was one authentic case.


Robert James Manion: I will give you one.


Edward James Young: Give me the
particulars of the case, the name of the shipper, the name of the consignee, the date of the shipment and the description of the goods.
I will undertake to investigate any cases and for every one which proves to be authentic I will produce five cases where our own Customs department has done the same thing, or even worse.


Robert James Manion: That has nothing to do
with the question I asked a minute ago.


Edward James Young: It has a whole
lot to do with the question of retaliation. If we are going to resent that sort of thing on the part of the United States government, they have much more cause to resent it on our part.
The member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) referred in his speech to a matter-on which I would like to comment, the classification of the new combined harvester-thresher. When the customs tariff was drawn up there was no such machine coming into the country. Harvesting machines were put in the 6 per cent class, but this machine has been put in the 10 per cent class. I consider the request of the hon. member that it be put in the 6 per cent class to be a very reasonable one, and I urge the minister to do this. I

The Budget-Mr. Young (Weyburn)
would urge that it be done during the present session of parliament and not leave it to the tender mercies of the customs board, because in that case it might never be considered.
There is one sentence in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance which I view with grave concern. It is as follows:
Resolutions will be submitted for your approval empowering the governor in council, when satisfied that copper bars are being sold in the country of export at a lower price than for export to Canada, to impose, under the general tariff, a duty on copper rods of one-half cent a pound, to equalize such differential as may exist.
I am opposed to the granting of that power to the ministry. In the first place, it is not economically sound; and in the second place, it. is subversive of the powers of parliament. A peculiar situation exists with regard to copper. Ninety-five per cent of the world's copper is controlled by the United States; it is not ail mined there, but it is controlled from that source. The only smelter of any size outside of that American ring is the smelter at Trail, British Columbia. This small ring of men who control the copper situation in the United States have formed what they call the Copper Export Association. They would like to fix the price for copper for all the countries in the world, but when they attempt to fix the price for the United States they run foul of the Sherman anti-trust law. But the American government permits them to fix the price for export, and after they have fixed the price for export each member goes back to his own factory and quietly quotes an American price of half a cent per pound below the export price. It is a very simple arrangement, but how it would stand investigation in the United States, I do not know. Since they fix the price at half a cent per pound higher for export than for domestic consumption, the Canadian who has to buy copper bans is forced to pay half a cent per pound more than do his American competitors. There is a small concern at Brockville, Ontario, which makes a business of manufacturing copper rods out of copper bars. They obtain 60 per cent of their copper bars from the smelter at Trail-that is all they can get there-and the other 40 per cent they have to buy in the United States, and for that they are forced to pay $8 to $10 per ton more than do their American competitors. When they go out to sell their product they find themselves faced with the competition, of American firms who have bought their bars at a lower price, and the proposal is that we give to the governor in council the power to put a duty of half a cent per pound on copper rods so that this
Brockville company will not be subject to this unfair competition. The obvious answer to the American Copper Export Association has been made by Noranda mines, who have decided to build a smelter of their own. But that cannot be done for some time, and the question is: What will we do in the meantime? This concern at Brockville employs about thirty-one .men and, as I said, they obtain 60 per cent of their copper from Trail and 40 per cent, which is subject to this extra price, from the United States. The proposal is to add a half cent per pound to all rods coming into Canada in order to protect this industry which employs only thirty-one men and obtains only 40 per cent of its raw material from the United States. In order to offset a handicap of $8 a ton on 40 per cent of the raw material of 31 men it would add $10 a ton bo the price of the raw material of several Canadian factories that use copper rods as raw material. It would increase the price on 100 per cent of the raw material used by other factories in Canada which employ many times 31 men. You cannot put that duty on without increasing to every factory the price of their raw material, and in that way it is economically unsound.
But the worst feature of the proposal is that it is subversive of the powers of parliament, Parliament has been maintained by the British people throughout the ages for one purpose above all others; to restrain the power of the king or of the government of the day. If we never do anything else but hold the ministry back -from usurping powers which do not belong to them, we justify our existence; if we fail to do that we cannot justify our existence. It may be said that the ministry is honest and we can trust them, but these gentlemen will not always be in office.


Edward Joseph Garland: The matter of restricting the powers of government is a very vital .one, and I agree with the hon. member in that regard, but is he prepared bo vote against a government that proposes this?


Edward James Young: The hon. member will get his answer in due course.
Parliament, has always been maintained for the purpose of preserving the rights of the people against encroachments by the crown. The ministry might be entrusted with this power and not abuse it, but we must not forget that it was always during the reigns of good kings that the people lost their liberties. They said, "The king is good, the king is wise and he may be trusted with this power." They gave him the power and he used it with wisdom and with mercy. But in time another king sat on the throne
1212	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Fanshcr (Lambton)
and he abused the power. If we give this power to the ministry we know they will not abuse it, but some day hon. gendlemen opposite may be in power and we certainly will not be able to trust them.. If we grant this power to-day We will be asked tomorrow to grant similar powers with reference to something else. "T'will be recorded for a precedent and many an error by the same example will rush into the state," I am not in favour of granting this power to the ministry. I hope the Minister of Finance will not press it.


Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hen. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), and I was very much interested' in his last argument. But I wondered all the time how he would apply his reasoning to the present budget, the subject that is now under discussion, and my curiosity in that regard was not satisfied, because he sat down without giving us any idea of his opinion regarding the value of the budget.
The financial statement as presented this year is, from some aspects, very gratifying. The contribution through various forms of taxation of $450,000,000 to the public treasury by less than 10,000,000 citizens is a notable achievement. The contribution on an average of $45 for every man, woman and child, or $225 for every family of five, speaks well for the thrift and industry of the Canadian people. If we add to this amount the taxation levied by the provinces, counties, townships and municipalities, we commence to realize the huge amount that is annually provided to the different governments and taxing bodies by the Canadian citizens.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) this year, as has been his custom in years past in presenting his financial statement, has divided his tax receipts under three main divisions. In the first he includes those taxes derived from customs and excise duties; in the second, war revenues, and in the third, receipts from the postal department, interest on investments, money received through the administration of the Canada Grain Act, and various other miscellaneous receipts. He estimates that by the end of the present month, which is the end of the fiscal year 1928-29, he will have collected in taxes from the first group, $248,400,000, made up as follows:
Customs import duties.. ..	$185,000,000
Excise duties	 63,400,000
[Mr. E. J, Young.l
Under the heading of war revenue he estimates that the amount that will be collected will be as follows:
Sales tax and	stamp	taxes.. $ 81,500,000
Income tax		58,500,000
Delayed business	profits	tax..	450,000
Miscellaneous	  2,200,000
Total	$142,650,000
In the third group he expects to receive the following:
Interest on investments.. ..	$11,600,000
Post office	 31,000,000
Dominion lands	 4,000,000
Canada Grain Act	 3,000,000
Miscellaneous receipts	 9,350,000
Total	 $58,950,000
This makes up the grand total of taxation this year of $450,000,000. Not until our entrance into the Great war were any of the taxes enumerated in the second group imposed; all our taxes were derived from the sources mentioned in the first and third divisions. Since our entrance into the war large sums of money have been levied through war taxes, but never during any single year have receipts from war taxes been sufficient to meet annual war expenditures. There has always been a deficit. Year by year the minister has given us a statement of the actual receipts from these war taxes, but never in any year with the exception of one-and I believe that was the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925 -has he given us a statement of the actual annual expenditures on war account. That year he showed that receipts from war taxes amounted to $147,000,000 and expenditures to $167,000,000, or a deficit of $20,000,000. This year the minister estimates that receipts from war taxes will amount to $142,650,000 and expenditures to $162,911,000, leaving a deficit of more than $20,000,000. This deficit on war account becomes a direct charge on other forms of taxation, and as long as we have deficits on war account, it seems strange to me that reductions in taxes from year to year should be simply in connection with war taxes. It is my firm belief that war taxes should be sufficient to meet annual war expenditures, and I would go further than that and say that war taxes should be sufficient to meet the annual charges on war account consisting of interest on war debt, pensions, soldiers' civil re-establishment, and so forth, and also to provide whatever sum is paid annually upon our war debt. If that were the case, this year we would have to raise under the heading of war taxes $20,000,000 more to meet our annual war expenditures, and another $70,000,000, the amount applied on war

The Budget-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)
debt, or a total of $90,000,000. That $90,000,000 has to be taken from other sources of revenue, and it simply means that out of the $248,000,000 provided by customs tariff and excise duties we have to take $90,000,000 to meet our expenditures on war account, and to make our annual reduction in war debt.
As I said a moment ago, to my mind war taxes should meet war expenditures. In 1927 and 1928 we had large reductions in the income tax, the sales tax has been reduced year by year, and in no financial statement that has been presented have we ever received sufficient revenues to meet war account. The income tax should be put back where it was before 1927. The sales tax is being continually reduced and it is one of the most direct means of raising revenue with the least expense. It often appears curious to me why we should be persistently reducing the income tax and the sales tax, while the customs tariff, the tax that the Liberal party specified they would reduce, has not received any material reductions during the life of this parliament. If the reduction in war taxes goes on each year, we will soon be faced with the fact that we shall have to take half the revenue derived from customs and excise duties to meet our deficit on war account. And then we shall soon begin to realize what Sir Thomas White meant when he said that the war debt, if it was paid, would be paid out of the top six inches of Canadian soil. If our war expenditures and the reduction of our war debt is to be paid through the customs tariff, we can readily see that the financial burden of the war is going to be placed on the shoulders of the people on the soil, because those on the soil bear most of the tariff burden.
The Minister of Finance says that the policy of this administration is not a high tariff policy, but a low tariff policy. But having said that, he at once proceeds to lower those forms of taxation which do not bear upon the tariff at all, and he leaves the tariff practically untouched. As far as this budget is concerned, it seems to be somewhat of a watchful waiting affair-watching to see what the United States will do at the next session of congress in regard to raising the tariff, and waiting to see how much political capital the Conservative party might make out of such a step if it were taken. To a certain degree I am somewhat in sympathy with this watchful waiting policy. If the government of the day ever had an excuse for not giving tariff reductions, perhaps it has a better one at this session of the house than it has ever had before during the term of this parliament. There are fields in which
the Minister of Finance could, I believe, have implemented some of the promises given in the Liberal platfoi'm of 1919, and one of these I believe to be the lowering of the duty against British goods. Although it might be advantageous to adopt a watchful waiting policy this session as regards the United States. I see no reason why it should not be to our advantage to lower the duty against British goods. Then, too, the policy espoused by the United States is to be directed largely, we understand, against agricultural products. There is therefore a large number of commodities with which they would not concern themselves, and I can see no reason why we should not proceed to give tariff reductions upon some of those commodities upon which the tariff board has already passed. It may be that the government has let the opportune time slip by for giving substantial reductions. I notice that some members on the government side of the house seem to entertain that view, judging by what they have said in this debate. They seem to be fearful that the golden opportunity has passed by. I quote from the speech made by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). Speaking in this debate, he said:
I urge upon this government that its duty is to proceed more rapidly along the lines of a well-considered tariff reduction. I urge them again that we can do this kind of thing only in periods of good times. We cannot do it in times of adversity. Now is the golden opportunity. and we should be taking advantage of it. Apparently, however, the government seem inclined to mark time.
The hon. member for South Huron is evidently getting anxious and somewhat fearful lest we have no tariff reductions this year. He almost seems to think that the government has sinned away its day of grace so far as tariff reductions during the life of this parliament are concerned. I notice also in the speech of the hon. member for Lis-gar (Mir. Brown) a somewhat similar sentiment. He has this to say:
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.
The hon. member has evidently given up all idea of getting any meat from any of the budgets presented by the Minister of Finance, and is now wiling to be thankful if only no poison is adtainistered. I hope that the hon. Minister of Finance will bear in mind these expressions of his supporters when he prepares his next budget.
1214	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Fansher (Lnmbton)
I wish to deal for a few minutes with some of the commodities that were considered by the tariff advisory board: It is a well-known fact that the Liberal platform of 1919 enumerates a large number of commodities which they proposed placing on the free list. After enumerating those commodities, of which cement was one, the resolution concludes with this sentence:
The Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution when returned to power.
The tariff board has investigated the duty on cement, and anyone who reads the evidence which was taken in that case must come to the conclusion that the manufacturers of cement are not entitled to tariff protection. I find that during the last year for which I can get complete returns, there was imported into this country 73,652 hundredweight of cement, on which there was a duty collected of $5,875, or eight cents per hundredweight. There was manufactured1 in Canada, 35,230,527 hundredweight. There was exported 900,000 hundredweight, which left to be consumed in Canada, 34,330,527 hundredweight. Now it can be readily seen that with a duty of 8 cents per hundredweight, the protection furnished on the amount consumed in the home market amounted to $2,746,442. Putting it in another way, that amount of protection is provided, for while the government obtains one dollar in revenue, it provides for the industry, $467, or in the ratio of $1 for the treasury and $467 for the industry. In the light of those figures I can see no reason why we should not 'have had cement placed on the free list in this budget.
Sewing machines have also been investigated by the tariff board. The number of sewing machines imported during the last year for which complete returns are available was 19,929, valued at $593,657, or at an average price of $30 per machine. The duty collected was $161,953, or an average duty of $8.12 on each sewing machine. The Bureau of Statistics inform me that only one company manufactures this machine in Canada, and hence they could not furnish me figures giving the number off machines manufactured. But they did give me the value of those exported, namely, $3,464,098. Reckoning each machine at a value of thirty dollars, we find that 1,135,469 machines were exported.
I may say that I have selected some of these articles because they are in general use, and

the following tabulations will, I believe, be of interest to the house:
Stoves, coal, wood and oil

Imports	 $ 506,410
Duty collected	 126,382
Percentage	 24.95
Total manufactured in Canada. 5,675,202
Exported	 114,482
Used in Canada	 5,560,720
Protection afforded	 1,390,180
Ratio	 1 to 11
That is, for every dollar received by the treasury eleven dollars was provided the protected manufacturers.
Furniture is very necessary to the settler, and in fact to every citizen. What do I find in regard to furniture manufactured entirely from wood? These are the figures:
Imported into Canada	$ 2,271,777
Duty collected thereon	 634,980
Percentage of duty	28
Manufactured in Canada.. ..	35,733,818
Exported	   296,778
Used in Canada	 35,437,040
For every hundred dollars' worth of furniture imported twenty-eight dollars was collected in duty. It is obvious that every time a hundred dollars' worth of furniture is manufactured in Canada there is provided by way of protection to our furniture manufacturers an equal percentage, amounting to $9,922,371. The ratio between the treasury and the manufacturer is 1 to 15.7.
Now let me give some figures with regard to enamelware. The conditions surrounding the manufacture and sale of this commodity have been examined by t'he tariff board, and anyone who reads their report can come to no other conclusion, it seems to me, than that the
tariff duty should be reduced. Here are the figures:
Imported	 $ 314,369
Duty collected	 100,778
Percentage	 -32
Total manufactured in Canada. 2,171,384
Exported	 32,882
Used in Canada	 2,138,502
Protection afforded	 684,320
Ratio	 1 to 6.8
I have similar figures relating to cutlery most of which we import.
Imported	 $1,401,801
Duty collected	 341,265
Percentage	 24.34
Total manufactured in Canada. 693,100
Exports	 958
Used in Canada	 692,042
Protection afforded	 169,443
We collected 24.34 per cent on a million and a third dollars' worth of these imported goods in order to protect less than naif of that amount manufactured at home.

The Budget-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)
Now, the total duties collected on these five commodities, leaving out sewing machines, amounted to $1,209,280, and the protection provided represented $14,912,756, or a ratio of 1 to 12. Why do I mention these commodities? Largely because they are required by the immigrant and by the settler, and it seems to me that the protection afforded has a direct bearing upon our immigration problem. For years past this government and its predecessors have in their efforts to attract settlers given assisted passages to intending immigrants from the old country and in some cases provided what may be termed readymade farms. We have gone to this expense to bring in immigrants, but we have failed to tell them that when they proceed to furnish their homes with these necessary commodities, no matter whether they buy imported goods or goods made at home, they will be taxed at the high rates that these figures disclose. It seems to me that as a complement to our immigration policy it would 'be advisable to place these commodities on the free list or as nearly so as possible and thereby reduce the purchase price to the intending settler.
We have heard a good deal in this house about prosperity. Some say we have it, some say we have it not; some want to know what it is and others, where it is. It depends a good deal on whom you ask as to what answer you will receive.	If you ask the
banker, he will say yes; ask the broker, he also will say yes, we have prosperity; ask the manufacturer and he will say the same thing. But ask the farmer and he will invariably say, no. I am glad to notice that in this house there has been somewhat of a change in attitude towards the farmer and farmers' rights. I well remember that during the fourteenth parliament the members in this section of the house were termed calamity howlers because they persisted in pointing out the plight agriculture was in. Some were termed the Jeremiahs from the west. But I observe that to-day large numbers in all parties in the house are agreed that the farmer is not enjoying that degree of prosperity Which he should. On that, most of the members of the house are agreed. And with that idea in mind I turned to the census report, secured from the Bureau of Statistics, and published after the enumeration of 1921. I went over the figures given for the ridings of nearly the whole province of Ontario, taking all that portion lying south of Muskoka, Victoria county and Renfrew-what is known as old Ontario. In that area I find 385 townships, scarcely a single one of which has not witnessed a decline in population. The following table, which gives the figures from 1901 to 1921, will show the decline that has taken place., with increases in a few instances.
Electoral district-
Brant	
Bruce North	
Bruce South.. i. .
Carleton	
Dufferin	
Dundas	
Durham	
Elgin East	
Elgin West	
Essex North	
Essex South	
Frontenac	
Glengarry-Stormont
Grenville	
Grey North	
Grey Southeast.. .
Haldimand	
Halton	
Hastings East. - .. Hastings West.. .. Huron North.. .. Huron South. . ..
Kent	
Lambton East.. .. Lambton West.. ..
Lanark	
Leeds	
Lennox-Addington..
Lincoln	
Middlesex East.. . Midlesex West.. ..
Number of townships
9
8 6 6 6
3
10
6 5
7 9
4
13 10
8 8 8
5
14 10 14
8 5
Loss in population 1901-1921 950 7,131 7,605 3,268 5,050 3,975 3,425 909 3,999 1,977 1,418 4.138 3,071 3,321 6,860 10,743 2,651
4.017
3.990 6,507 5,791 3,905
6.017 5.171 4,519 4,675
3.991
2.301
5,191
Gain in population 1901-1921
4,965
1216	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)
Electoral district-
Norfolk	
Northumberland.. ..
Ontario North	
Ontario South	
Oxford North	
Oxford South	
Peel	
Perth North	
Perth South	
Peterborough East.. Peterborough West..
Prescott	
Prince Edward. . ..
Russell	
Simcoe North	
Simcoe East	
Simcoe South	
Waterloo North.. .. Waterloo South.. ..
Welland	
Wellington North.. Wellington South.. .
Wentworth	
York North	
Number of townships
8
5

5
6 9 7 7
7 6 5
6 3 3
8 G 6 8 5
Loss in population 1901-1921 4,342 4,816 2,068
2,497
1,742
2,967
3,149
2,701
2,176
1,830
3,844
5,509
2,504
880
4,764
2,248
1,404
Gain in population 1901-1921
1,142
10,019
10,150
Total..
385	177,744	27,311
Net loss
150,433
It will be seen that the total decrease in that twenty-year period is 177,744, while the increases in a few townships total 27,311. But those increases are due entirely to the overflow from cities like Hamilton, which have extended into the townships.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What was the net loss?


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: The net loss is 150,433; but I believe that the increases are due largely to the overflow. Now, to obtain a correct idea of what that loss in population means, I would point out that it represents more than one-third of the population of the city of Toronto in 1921, the last year for which we have a return; it is more than the entire population of the cities of Hamilton and London combined; it is 70,000 more than the entire population of the city of Ottawa as recorded in 1921; and it is larger than that of a dozen cities in Ontario combined. It is no wonder then that the fanners, so far as Ontario is concerned, are alarmed at the problem which faces them.
Judging by the budget one would think that we had not a real problem to face in this country, that all that was necessary was to levy taxation to meet the required expenditures and' that no adjustment of taxation should be made to alleviate some of the conditions which, as we see, have been, prevailing in Ontario during this century. I venture to say that when the next census is taken we Shall find that the loss 'has persisted

in about the same degree as it continued from 1901 to 1921, and it will then be readily understood why the farmer is concerned about the taxation proposals of any government. It is on account of this loss that he is so insistent in his demand that tariff taxation 3hall be reduced; because ever since the national policy was forced upon this country agriculture has been made the pack horse for all other industries. Or, to change the figure of speech, agriculture has been the big brother who has had1 to support all other infant industries; and although they have become strong he is still looked upon as the big brother. But as these records show, we are faced with a diminishing population and the agriculturist is not standing up under the burden.
My hon. friends of the Conservative party say, increase the tariff and protect the home market. If there is any place in the Dominion where the result of that policy should have proven satisfactory it is right in the province of Ontario, where we are closest to the largest markets which the Dominion furnishes. Yet in these twenty years for which I have given figures we have witnessed a decrease in population to the huge figure I have indicated.


Mr. DUNCAN SINCLAIR (North Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations on the budget I wish first to congratulate the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) on his wonderful address. He has placed the condition of affairs

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Wellington)
in this country before the people of Canada so that a child could readily understand it, and has shown that this is due to the action or the inaction of this government.
I agree with the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that there is a certain amount of prosperity in Canada at present, but I regret to say that this prosperity has not to any great extent touched the farmer or the labouring man. This talk of prosperity reminds me of an incident which happened while I was a salesman for one of the largest implement concerns in Canada. I was sent out to see an Irishman in order to collect a past due account; I passed a pleasant hour with him and he kept me away from the subject as long as possible. Finally, I said, "Well, Pat. we have had a very pleasant visit, but money talks and if you do not pay up the firm will sue you." He said, "Mr. Sinclair, dc you mean to tell me that money talks?" I said, "It sure does, Pat." Then he said. "That's funny it never has been on speaking terms with me." This wonderful prosperity about which the minister sipeaks is not on very good speaking terms with the farmer and the labouring man throughout Canada to-day.
Before dealing with the importation of butter into this country under the Australian treaty I wish to make a few remarks with regard to an incident which occurred in the agriculture committee a few days ago. Present at that meeting was a representative of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), and he gave us some figures which only strengthened my opposition to this treaty. He assured us that New Zealand butter did not hurt the dairy industry of Canada, and then he went on to say that the farmers in New Zealand did not need barns to protect their cattle, and that the cattle were put on grass for practically twelve months of the year, while the farmers of Canada have to stable their cattle for six months and give them high priced feed in order to meet the unfair competition from New Zealand. He also told us that the average farmer could keep from fifty to eighty cows on one hundred acres, that the land was worth from $300 to $700 per acre and that there were plenty of buyers who would pick up this land whenever the farmer wish to sell.
Knowing something of the dairy industry I have just figured this out roughly, and I find that eighty cows on one hundred acres, giving twelve and a half pounds of milk each milking, would average twenty-five pounds of milk per cow per day, or two thousand pounds of milk in all. With three hundred milking days, giving the cows sixty-five days'
holiday, which is a long enough holidaj' for any cow, that would mean six hundred thousand pounds of milk per year. I see the minister is in his seat, and I hope he will take notice of this. We were also told that the price of cheese regulated the price of butter.
If we consider twelve pounds of milk to equal one pound of cheese we find that the dairy farmer in New Zealand would produce fifty thousand pounds of cheese per year; at twenty cents per pound, which is one cent less than the figure he gave us, this would mean an income of $10,000 per year for the New Zealand farmer. If we allow the farmer $3,000 a year for expenses we find that he has a net profit of $7,000 per year, and I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can find any dairy farmer in the province of Ontario making that much money on one hundred acres of land.
Properly speaking this Australian treaty should not be so designated because Australian butter is not interfering with us at all. I cannot understand the attitude of hon. members on the government side of the house who irgue that shipments of New Zealand butter do not interfere with. the dairy industry of Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite must have received petitions from all over Canada protesting against this treaty and stating the injury it is doing to the dairy industry of Canada. Even the Minister of Agriculture, in his address, said:
There is nothing wrong with the dairy industry. See all the milk and cream we are shipping to the United States; see all the milk and cream we are using in ice cream. We may be short on butter but we are producing as much or more milk than ever.
This statement was made in face of the fact that in 1928 we had 100,000 cows less than in 1927. I fancy I see the disgusted look on the faces of those 100,000 of our best milch cows upon discovering they had to leave their good Canadian homes and go across to the United States, a disgust accentuated by the nonsense talked by the Minister of Agriculture. That is nothing, however, to the look of contentment mingled with gratitude on the faces of the 60,000 additional cows in New Zealand during the past year-which increase was brought about by the prosperous condition of the dairy industry of that country as a result of the kindness and the generosity of the Canadian government-as they wallow in New Zealand s luxurious grass, saying "We will come to your assistance, Canadian Minister of Agriculture." They came to our assistance in January, 1929, when we imported 7,660,6S1 pounds of butter, valued at $2,710,988; this
1218	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Wellington)
was in January, when our cows were all housed in expensive buildings, each of which cost the farmer from $5,000 to $6,000. They do not need buildings in New Zealand in order to shelter their oows except in rainy weather, and when it is raining the farmers cannot construct buildings anyway.
How can the minister argue that the .importation of such a large amount of butter into this country since the passing of this act has not hurt the dairy industry? Since this act went into force we have received under it, mostly from New Zealand, more than 30,000,000 pounds of butter valued at almost $11,000,000. This enters Canada under a duty of one cent per pound, while New Zealand charges us six cents per pound. Will the minister say this is fair competition?
What have the dairymen done about it? On November 29 last a deputation from the National Dairy Council of Canada waited on the government asking for some protection for the dairy industry, but they received no encouragement; at their annual meetings in 1927 and 1928 they condemned the treaty and pleaded with the government for some adequate protection for the industry. The farmers' association of Nova Scotia, at their annual meeting this year, condemned this treaty and Dr. Gumming, head of the marketing division of that province, declared that New Zealand butter was setting the price for Nova Scotia butter. Is this fair competition? Mr. Calder, president and general manager of the Saskatchewan Co-operative Creameries, declares that in three years Canada has ceased to export 25,000,000 pounds of butter annually and has imported an equal amount, and the figures given out by the Bureau of Statistics prove this to be so. I regret, therefore, that in this budget the government has made no provision for the protection and safeguarding of this great industry.
I should like to comment on the immigration policy of this government. I find the following figures prepared by the statistical branch of the government with reference to immigration during the year 1928:
Canadians entering United States. 73,154 Canadians returning from United
States	 39,887
boss of Canadians to United States 33,267 Immigrants from United States,
other than Canadians	  25,007
Net loss to Canada	 8.260
Immigrants from United Kingdom 50.872 Immigrants from continental Europe 75,718
Deducting the figure 33,267, which represents the loss of Canadians to the United States, from the figure 50,872, the immigra-

tion from the United Kingdom, leaves a net addition of 17,605 of British stock. During the same year, 75,718 aliens were received from continental Europe, which added to the 25,007 from the United States gives a total of 100,725 aliens added to the population of Canada, as compared with 17,605 of British stock. That is, during last year we added about six aliens to our population for every one of British stock, and we paid out $2,704,698 to do that. Surely our continental immigrants are costing us too much good Canadian money. This government was so pleased with the year's business that they raised the salary of the deputy minister from $8,000 to $9,000. I would ask any manufacturer in the house if he would increase his manager's salary, or even retain his services, upon such a showing.
I wish to say a few words with regard to agricultural implements. I find that the farmers of this country paid the United States the huge sum of $40,000,000 for agricultural implements purchased during 1928. Every bolt and nut on these machines could have and should have been made in Canada. The purchase of farm tractors alone amounted to $21,000,000. If the government were working in the interests of the Canadian farmer it would see that tractors were sold to our farmers as cheaply as they are sold to the farmers to the south of us.. If the government would adopt the policy of Canada for the Canadians and have the goods consumed by our people manufactured in this country from our own raw materials, thus giving employment to our own boys and girls, many of the problems of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) would be solved. Our boys and girls would be glad to come back from the United States to the country they all love so dearly. Ramsay MacDonald, a former Prime Minister of Great Britain, addressing a meeting in that country shortly after his return from Canada last year, said:
After more than twenty years' absence from Canada, I hardly recognized places I had visited before. It was an absolute revelation and a good revelation to me. If you go to the United States and try to find the soul of tlie country, you will find it to be largely materialistic. I have been trying to get in touch with whatever is the soul of Canada, and it is certainly not materialistic.
There is a vitality of expansion, a youthfulness, and a hopefulness in Canada. Her weakness is that she has not got sufficient magnetic power to keep her people, both Canadian-born and British immigrants within her own borders. The great magnet that is always pulling them is the United States, and it is of the most vital interest to Canada to devise some means whereby she can accumulate sufficient magnetic power to hold her population within her domains.

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Wellington)
The magnet which is drawing our boys and girls to the United States is that of employment. The burning question is:	How can
we keep them? The only solution I see is for the government to have our raw materials manufactured at home in Canadian factories by Canadian workmen, rather than in the United States. What an army of men would be employed if the $40,000,000 worth of farm implements purchased by Canada in the United States were manufactured here. The American manufacturers realize this and are becoming alarmed. An Associated Press despatch from Washington, dated March 6, says:
If the Canadian farmer stopped buying farm implements in this country a steady market would be gone which nets American manufacturers forty million dollars a year by taking up the slack of the over-production of American factories.
President Hoover therefore will bring his influence to bear on leaders in both houses to have the farmers tear down their tariff increases and at the same time placate the business men and persuade them to withdraw their lobby against agricultural increases generally.
I also quote the following from an editorial appearing in a Canadian newspaper:
Canada, United States Best Customer
During 1928, a Washington despatch informed us yesterday, Canada was Uncle Sam's best customer. We bought goods from him to the value of $916,155,506.
We bought more goods from the United States than England, which has four times our population.
We bought twice as much as Germany, which has six times our population.
Every day, indeed, during the whole of 1928, Canada sent $2,500,000 across the line for United States goods. Two and one-half millions a day.
What did the United States buy from us? The answer is that while ten million Canadians were buying nearly a billion dollars' worth of goods from the United States, one hundred and twenty million people in the United States bought only $488,000,000 worth of goods from Canada.
And that isn't all. Because While a tremendous part of the two and a half million dollars that went out of Canada each day to the United States was for manufactured goods -goods which had provided work and wages for Americans, and which were sold to us at a rich profit-the great proportion of what the United States bought from us was raw material. Goods the Uniaited States had to have.
The moral has been pointed a thousand times. But how long will be it be before the government of this country has the sense and the courage to act upon it?
When the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) was speaking the other day he mentioned the stock of the Massey-Harris Company. He said:
In other words, the old stock that was worth $50 is now worth $336.
I do not know whether he mentioned that as being an indication of the general prosperity of this country, but I should like to ask him-


Mr. RALSTON:: I meant it as being an
indication that the industry had not been hurt.


George Reginald Geary: On its Batavia business.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Wellington):: I should
like to ask the Minister of National Defence what the local agents of the Massey-Harris Company have made during the last four years; has their income advanced in the ratio that would be indicated by the figures I have just quoted-$50 to $336? Have the experts who set up those machines made any advance in the last four years? Have the farmers who bought those machines made any advance; and has their stock increased from 50 to 336 in the last four years? I know for a fact it has not.
I know there has been prosperity in certain places and it has something to do with financial prosperity, too. I find that our minister at Washington is experiencing wonderful prosperity and by leave of the house I should like to place some figures on Hansard:
Vote 304-Canadian Representation at Washington
Salaries and wages: Envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, Hon. Vincent Massey. $12,000, house and representation allowance, 2 m. at $18,000, 10 m. at $10,000, allowance for automobile, $2,000; first secretaries: L. Beaudry, $5,000, bouse, living and representation allowance, $3,500; II. H. Wrong, Apr. 10 to Mar. 31 at $5,000, house, living and representation allowance at $3,500; commercial secretary, M. M. Mahoney, $5,000, house, living and representation allowance, $3,500; third secretary, T. A. Stone, $3,000, house living and representation allowance, $1,250; prin. elk. bk-kpr. B. Carter, $2,400; resident correspondent, T. W. King, $1,200; H. M. Lamont, subsistence allowance, $915; librarian and file elk., B. McGregor, $1,800; sten. A. St.- Denis, 8 m. to Mar. 31 at $1,800; principal clerks: M. Maepherson, 6 m. to Mar. 31 at $2,400, S. MeCool, 6 m. to Sept. 30 at $2,400; senior stenographers: J. Des-;hamps. Apr. 12 to May 13 at $2,100, E. A. Ewen, $2,100; caretakers, $1,029.16; messengers at $840: H. Brown, 7 m. to Oct. 31, P. Lemmon, 5 m. to Mar. 31; office boy, C. Hobson, Oct. 11 to Mar. 31 at $360; telephone switchboard operators, $950.40: temporary stenographers at $5 per d., $375-$70,434.62.
Travelling expenses: Hon. Vincent Massey, $1,616.52; L. Beaudry, $281.16; M. M. Mahoney, $212.01; S. MeCool, $28.05; A. St. Denis, $42.78; T. A. Stone, $422.27; H. H. Wrong, $271.02 -$2,873.81.	_
Materials, supplies, repairs, etc: Electrical repairs and supplies: B. M. Comerford, Washington. $1,154.40; accounts under $1,000, $19.50 -$1,173.90.
1220	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair (Wellington)
Fuel:	American lee Co., Washington,
$2,024.05; accounts under $1,000,	$211.35-*

House furnishings:	Associated Purchasers,
Ltd., London, England, $3,616.73; accounts under $1,000, $534.37-$4,151.10.
Various: carpenter work, $734.34; construction of bookshelves, $287.97; floor machine, $132.50; locks, keys, etc., $158; office furniture, $426.37; photographic supplies, $148.50; plumbing, $401.59; renovating interior of legation, $780; repairs to elevator, $385.62; sundry repairs, $289.58; sundries, $443.58-$4,188.05- Total. $11,748.45.
Printing and stationery:	King's Printer,
supplies, $1,893.45; outside purchases, $1,251.67 -$3,145.12.
Miscellaneous: Appraising house furnishings, $100; cartage, $302; cleaning carpets, $110.40; cleaning offices, $672.68; customs duty, $150.16; electric light, $942.52; expenses in connection with special official ceremonies, $288.90; freight and express, $281.07; insurance, $317.45; newspapers and publications, $893.22; postage, $319; rent of offices, $900; rent of rooms at "The Mayflower" for Hon. V. Massey, Apr. 1 to June 1, $2,541.69; taxi hire, $371.35; telegrams, $1,297.76; telephones, $1,402.56; sundries, $512.14 -$11,402.90-Total, $99,604.90. less interest on bank account, $346.14.
Total as shown in summary-see index, vol. I, departmental summaries, $99,258.76.
Our minister at Washington has cost the country about S100,000 in the past year. For what purpose? Attending pink teas and other functions! What other possible excuse has the government, because, while 10,000,000 Canadians were buying $916,000,000 worth of goods from the United States, 120,000.000 people in the United States bought only $488,000,000 worth of goods from Canada. What has the ambassador done to save or protect this country after we have spent $100,000 on his expenses at Washington?
I believe the time has arrived when Canada should cease to be taking up the slack of the over-production of United States implement manufacturers, and it [DOT] is up to us as Canadians to take a firm stand in the matter.
We do not need to worry. The United States manufacturers are anxious to retain the best market they have, and they will gladly come over here rather than lose their very best customer. Why not make them come? Let us break this endless chain which the United States manufacturers are always so boastful about, and let us have this magnetism which Ramsay MacDonald claims we lack.
We have heard a great deal in the house and in the press in regard to our wonderful coal deposits. At our present rate of consumption we have in Canada enough coal to last for thousands of years. What is the government doing about the matter? Why send $100,000,000 per annum to the United States for coal when we have an abundant supply both east and west? Why not use this magnet Providence has provided, give employment to our people and keep this large amount of money in our own country? Someone has figured that if 1,000,000 tons of imported coal were replaced by Canadian coal, employment would be given to 6,666 people, who would earn an average of $1,500 a year. That money in circulation in Canada would keep up a good thriving town. Workingmen require clothing, doctors, lawyers, teachers and ministers, besides giving our farmers a good market for the products of the farm.
I am heartily in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Wellington and I regret the government has not made provision for reasonably safeguarding the interests of those engaged in agricultural pursuits or industrial employment in Canada.
On motion of Mr. Cotnam the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Robb the house adjourned at 6 p.m. until Thursday, April 4.



END OF VOLUME I