1929-03-08

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

[Stage Direction]
Third report of select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Cahill.
Third report of select standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Hay.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table the questions submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada and the formal answers thereto in the matter of a reference as to the relative rights of the Dominion and the provinces, respectively, in relation to the proprietary interest in, and legislative control over, waters with respect to navigation and water-powers created or made available by or in connection with works for the improvement of navigation, and also the factum on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada in this matter. These documents Were requested by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), the day before yesterday.


Mr. HANSON:: May I ask if the reasons
for judgment are included in the papers just laid on the table, also whether or not these papers will be printed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question
of printing is for the joint committee on printing to decide. With relation to my hon. friend's other question, the opinion and the reasons for the opinion are contained in the papers I have tabled.

Beauharnois Power Project



COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE


Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi):: I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Sinclair), that the report of the Department of Agriculture and Colonization for the year 1928 be referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to obtain the unanimous consent of the house to make a statement on a matter of public interest and importance. I desire to inform the house that an order has been passed to-day by His Excellency in council approving the plans and site of the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company, as set forth in the company's application to the Department of Public Works. As the house no doubt will desire immediate information with respect to the essential features of the approval granted, I would ask its permission to make a statement which I have prepared with regard to the more important conditions.
Under authority of an act and of an order in council of the province of Quebec a lease was given on June 23, 1928, by the government of that province to the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company. This lease grants to the company the rights of the province of Quebec to such part of the hydraulic powers of the St. Lawrence river as can be developed between lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis through a canal having a maximum capacity of 40,000 cubic feet per second. It contains the provision that if the approbation required from the federal government be not obtained within twelve months from the signature of the lease it may be cancelled by the government of Quebec. The company applied to the Minister of Public Works for the approval of the plans and site of the works proposed under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In the approval given it is expressly stated that nothing is granted except approval of the proposed works under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and that the approval shall take effect only after an agreement, in-78594-50
corporating the conditions enumerated in the order in council and satisfactory to the Minister of Public Works, has been executed between the company and His Majesty the King.
After an exhaustive investigation a committee of Dominion government engineers reported that the works proposed in the plans and application filed by the company would not in their opinion impede or interfere with navigation if the conditions recommended by the committee are met by the company; and that if the works are constructed in accordance with the plans and conditions they can be efficiently utilized in connection with and as part of a feasible and economical scheme for the deep waterway development of the St. Lawrence river. In this connection I would draw the attention of hon. members to the following conditions which are part of the order in council:
Whenever the governor in council shall decide to construct locks and appurtenant works to connect lake St. Louis with the canal reach for navigation purposes, His Majesty shall have the right, by his servants or agents to enter upon and use any part of the applicants' lands, buildings, property or works which may be required for the purposes of such construction, and for the operation and maintenance of such locks and appurtenant works when completed, and the applicants shall convey to His Majesty, the King, in the right of the Dominion of Canada. free of all cost or encumbrance, the title to the necessary land sufficient for the site of such locks and appurtenant works, and no claim for any indemnity whatsoever owing to loss or inconvenience to works, operations, installations or distribution of power will be made by the company arising out of the construction of temporary or permanent works by His Majesty, either at the entry works, along the course of the stream, or at or below the proposed works.
In other words, should the government at any future time desire to use the canal constructed by the Beauharnois power company as a part of the greater St. Lawrence shipway, this substantial link, estimated to cost $16,000,000, will become the property of the people of Canada free of cost. Another condition of the order in council is as follows:
The approval hereby granted is given upon and subject to the condition that in case it should be judicially determined that His Majesty in the right of the Dominion is entitled to any of the pow-er now or hereafter to be developed in connection with the works the subject of this approval or any works hereafter to be constructed by virtue hereof by the company or which His Majesty may construct then and in such event the company shall pay to His Majesty in the right of the Dominion such compensation by way of annual rental as the governor in council may from time to time determine, and shall comply with all rules and regulations which may be made by the governor in council with respect to the rentals to be paid to the government, the sale



*IBVISED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Beauhamois Power Project
of power, the regulation of price thereof and the other matters now referred to in the regulations respecting Dominion water-powers.
Approval by the government of the application, is given subject to conditions which also include provisions,-
That the diversion of water authorized by the province of Quebec shall be effected by and at the cost of the company by the construction of a canal 600 feet wide on the bottom, by 27 feet in depth at low stage, and at a rate of flow not exceeding 2i feet per second; that the canal, the embankments, walls, and retaining structures shall be constructed and maintained by the company in accordance with the standards of the international joint board of engineers and that the canal and every part thereof shall be constantly available for public navigation to the same extent as that provided in the case of the new Welland ship canal;
That the company shall convey to the crown in the right of the Dominion of Canada, free of all cost or encumbrance, whatever property may be selected by the government for the purpose of sites for locks, approach works, guard piers and appurtenant works leading from the canal to lake St. Dorns, and Shall provide such sites for aids to navigation and public wharves as may be determined by the government to be necessary;
That the company shall provide, free of cost to the government, electric power for the operation of locks and bridges and for lighting along the canal up to 3,500 horsepower per annum maximum demand, and in case additional power be required the company shall supply it at a rate not exceeding that paid by the customer having the lowest contract price with the company;
That the company shall not commence construction work until detailed plans have been approved, and the company shall whenever required provide any additions to, alterations in or removal of the works to preserve and maintain navigation on the river St. Lawrence ;
That the works shall be constructed by the company to the satisfaction of the engineer or engineers authorized for such purpose by the minister, and the decision of the engineer or engineers shall be final and conclusive upon all questions which may arise in connection with the construction of the works;
That the works approved or made shall at no time raise the natural level of the water 
in the river St. Lawrence above the international boundary, or in any way contravene the terms of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 or the treaty of Washington of 1871;
That the company shall save the Dominion government harmless should the construction of the work affect rights heretofore existing, and shall be responsible for and must compensate for any damage caused by the works to other companies or interests owning or operating water-powers on the St. Lawrence river, and shall settle all claims of riparians and other persons who may sustain any loss or damage in connection with the construction of the company's works;
That His Majesty shall at any time be entitled to acquire and take over the canals, works, buildings, erections or other property of the company constructed under or pursuant to or in lieu of tlhe works shown in the plans approved by the order in council, and the lands upon which they are made or constructed, or such part thereof as in the opinion of the governor in council may be necessary, paying therefor such compensation as may be agreed upon between the parties or as may be fixed by the Exchequer Court of Canada in case of failure to agree; but in fixing such compensation consideration shall not be given to rights or privileges acquired by the company under or by virtue of the order in council granting approval;
That the company shall submit to all regulations imposed in the interest of navigation, and that the works approved or any modifications therein hereafter approved shall be operated in conformity with the requirements of navigation on the St. Lawrence river, and the water to be used shall not at any time exceed the maximum quantity of 40,000 cubic feet per second;
That in any question arising upon the application the settlement thereof shall be governed by the full recognition of the dominant interest of navigation and tb" necessity of reserving therefor all or any requisite parts of the natural flow of the St. Lawrence river.
From the foregoing it will be apparent that in granting its approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, of the plans and site of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, the department has fully and adequately protected the public interest both with respect to conditions as at present existing and as regards all possible future develop^ ment. of a greater St. Lawrence shipway.

The Budget-Mr. Manion
In order that bon. members may have full information at the earliest possible moment I desire to lay on the table the order in council passed to-day.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Will my hon. friend lay
on the table the complete order in council?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Mr. SPEAKER:: They are laid on the table as "command papers," as they are termed in England. They will appear in the votes and proceedings.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Yesterday the Minister of Public Works was good enough to inform me, in answer to my question of the previous day, that I would find in a return of May 30 last the application of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company. On examining that return I find that while it is true the original application is included in those papers, the modified application is not included. That is naturally so, because it was not modified until, I think, some time in January of this year. In view of the importance of this question I desire to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he will be good enough to table the report and roords of the public hearings that took place in January with regard .to this matter before three ministers of the crown.


John Campbell Elliott: The evidence and the full report referred to by my hon. friend is being included in a return which I hope to be able to table within a day or so.



SEVEN SISTERS FALLS


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
would like to ask the Solicitor General whether the judges of the royal commission of Manitoba require authority from the Department of Justice to go to Los Angeles and, if they do, whether that authority has been granted?


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: No request has been sent to the Department of Justice. I might also point out that the administration of justice is in the hands of the provincial government, not the federal government.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 7,consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker 78694-50J
do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Hugh Guthrie.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks on the budget I should like to say that a few moments ago we had displayed to us by the government an instance of government by order in council-that form of government which was so much denounced for many years throughout the country by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-on a matter which is of -the utmost importance to parliament .and to the people of Canada, the Beauharnois power project. Yet while parliament is sitting, it has never been given one minute to discuss this question.
While on personal grounds I have, as we all have, a high regard for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not use up much of my forty minutes in paying him empty compliments, for I intend to show so far as I am able, that the budget is largely a chronicle of events in which our fields, forests, fisheries and mines have played the parts of performers while the Minister of Finance has been merely a spectator in the wings or one of the audience, once a year getting an opportunity to come to the front of the stage, point out to the world that his is the directing mind, and then modestly stand back and accept the applause. I do not blame him for this, because it has been the habit of ministers of finance of all parties. Therefore I shall criticize not his action, but his inaction. I shall criticize him not for any positive proposals, but rather for his lack of positive proposals for the betterment of our national welfare.
There are in the budget some matters with which we must all be pleased. For example, the fact that the debt is somewhat less cannot help pleasing us all. One matter which the Minister of Finance did not point out and which is due, not particularly to .the present government but to previous governments and this as well, is that four-fifths of the debt is owed to the people of Canada, and therefore four-fifths of the interest goes into the pockets of our people. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the fact that there are in the budget no tariff changes of any moment; in other words, that tinkering with the tariff which we have condemned for a long time has been done away with for some time at least, and that famous cry of "The death knell of protection" is, to paraphrase an expression of Disraeli's on another occasion, not only dead but damned.
The Budget-Mr. Manion

The budget is largely a negative affair. There are jin it few positive proposals. A few of the nuisance taxes have been removed and one positive proposal that has received great applause is the reduction in the sales tax from three to two per cent. I am not altogether sure that a one per cent reduction in the sales tax will make any particular difference in the cost of living. When one considers that it means one cent in a purchase of a dollar, or five cents in a purchase amounting to five dollars, I am not certain that you will find goods in the stores or on the marts of the country marked down on this account. If the Minister of Finance had removed the whole tax, that might have had some effect.
I cannot help thinking the minister has left whatever changes he wants to make, for next year when he is trusting he will have an opportunity of making a popular preelection budget. If I am right in that conclusion- and I think I am-the Minister of Finance is worrying not so much about the business of the country as about the business of keeping his party in power.
The government and the minister have had exceedingly good luck because, without any effort on their part, our crops have been abundant, our mines prosperous, our fisheries teeming and our forests generously productive. For example, if we compare 1921 with the year that has just passed, agriculture has increased in production by from $500,000,000 to $600,000,000, and our mines during the same period have increased in production by $100,000,000. Six or seven hundred million dollars for those two items alone make a vast amount of money to assist in increasing the prosperity of the country. Perhaps it is no wonder the government are more or less satiated and treat Providence rather as we sometimes treat our poor relations. I suppose they hope that memories are short in this country and that the people will forget those deplorable years from 1922 to 1925, the first four years of government by the party now in power, when hundreds of thousands of our people were compelled to go across the line for opportunities denied them at home, an exodus which unfortunately is not yet entirely stemmed. Even at that our prosperity has been by no means general. That has been evidenced by speeches made in the house by members of the Labour party and members of the agricultural group in the corner to my left.


Edward Joseph Garland: And the
acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie).


Robert James Manion: I quote my hon. friends
to my left because we may be said to be talking politics, which, of course, my hon. friends over there never do.
Conditions are not a criterion of the status of a government. What a government has done to bring about the conditions is the real test to which this or any other government must submit. I submit that this government has been doing nothing to bring about the conditions which prevail in this country. It has been merely basking in the sunshine of a prosperity which it has done nothing to create. It has been practising a policy of masterly inactivity, a policy of drift.	It has been virtually in a twilight
sleep on all questions which are of vital concern to the people of this country: such questions as immigration, iron ore. development, conditions among the fruit growers and dairy farmers, the shipping interests, industry in general, and economy perhaps in particular. AJ1 of these are questions upon which a strong policy is of vital importance to the people of Canada. Let me deal briefly, as I must in the short time at my disposal, with these questions.
So far as immigration is concerned, we all know that the government has had no policy on immigration worthy of the name. This is evidenced perhaps best by the fact that just recently W. T. R. Preston, a past organizer of the Liberal party, wrote a letter to the Winnipeg papers, and perhaps to other papers too, but I saw it in the Winnipeg papers, roundly condemning this government for its inactivity on immigration.
So far as the fruit and dairy industries are concerned, protests have been rained, not only on the press of this country, but upon the government, pointing out the great injury that is being done to the fruit and dairy industries by cheap outside competition.
So far as the iron and steel industries are concerned, the government has done nothing. We have hundreds, yes, thousands of millions of tons of iron ore scattered throughout this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and yet last year not one ton of Canadian iron ore was used in our steel plants or blast furnaces, and we imported nearly 2,500,000 tons of foreign ore to use in our steel plants and blast furnaces. Our Conservative provincial government in Ontario made a proposition to this government two or three years ago, that they put on a bounty to aid in the development of the Canadian iron ore resources, but unfortunately this government has refused to cooperate with them and

The Budget-Mr. Mmuon
remains in its twilight sleep so far as the development of iron ore is concerned, just as it has done in other matters.
In addition, we imported during the year ending January 31, last, 8330,000,000 worth of iron and steel products, practically all of which could have been manufactured in the steel plants and blast furnaces of this country had they been given the opportunity to produce them by a proper -tariff policy. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in his speech the other day spoke of the basic industries. I submit that outside of agriculture no industry in any country is more a basic industry than the iron and steel industry, and yet this government does nothing to help that industry in any way.	_
Let me give a few iron and steel products that we could produce in Canada, and of which we imported last year, largely from the United States, $330,000,000 worth.
Pig iron	
Rolling mill products	
Tubes, pipes, fittings	
Wire	_	
Engines and boilers	
Farm implements	
Hardware and cutlery	
Machinery	
Tools	*
Vehicles (largely automobiles) .

One might almost come to -the conclusion, in view of these facts, that this government takes more interest in the producers in foreign countries than in our own producers.^
In regard to our Canadian marine interests, they insist that the ships of the United States are treated much more generously in Canadian trade than are Canadian ships in American trade, more particularly last fall, as was pointed out last night in an excellent speech by my hon. friend from Kingston City (Mr. Ross). The shipyards of this country also point out that if a Canadian ship should get repairs made in a shipyard in -the United States, our government gives it a much freer entry back to Canada than does the United States government give an American ship that is undergoing repairs in a Canadian shipyard when it goes back to the United States, and our shipyards are at a disadvantage in that respect.	_
Regarding economy, the estimates of 1925, the year which the Minister of Finance always brings into his budget discussions, showed that we had a total expenditure that year of $339,000,000. The estimates brought down this year total $391,000,000, an increase of $52,000,000, in spite of a decrease in interest amounting to $3,500,000; and we must remember that the supplementary estimates are still to be brought down, and will probably add
another $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 to the expenditure. So that our total expenditure for the coming year will show an increase over last year, not over 1925, of about $25,000,000 or $30,000,000, and yet this government, with my right hon. friend at the head of it, say that they cannot help technical education, which is an absolute need in -this country, because the Prime Minister says that it is a luxury.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no. I always said that it was a necessity.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid I shall have
to correct my right hon. friend. The other day he said it was a luxury. Does he deny that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a necessity which the provinces ought to attend to.


Robert James Manion: I was afraid my right hon. friend had almost forgotten having said it, and so I looked it up. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) was introducing an amendment to the Technical Education Act, and I said:
Mr. Manion: Is this one of the "unnecessary extravagances" to which the Minister of Finance referred a few minutes ago?
Mr. Heenan: You will have -to ask the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Mackenzie King: It is a luxury, not an
extravagance.
I submit that it is not a luxury; it is not an extravagance; it is a necessity in this country.
My hon. friend and acting leader (Mr. Guthrie) yesterday, in a magnificent speech, a speech which was a more complete and convincing indictment of this government than I have heard of any government in twelve years in this house, dealt with the question of economy very fully, but I wish to deal with it from another angle.
The Minister of Finance pointed out that of the expenditures which the government made for the year ending March 31, 1929, 42 per cent were war expenditures, amounting to $162,000,000, to use the minister's own figure, and the balance general expenditures, amounting to $223,000,000. I looked up the figures in the public accounts, and I find that $223,000,000 is just exactly $101,000,000 more than the general expenditures of this country amounted to during the last year of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's regime in 1911, and $40,000,000 more than our expenditures in the last year before the war, and almost five times as much as the expenditures of this country in 1900. And for the coming year the estimates will be very much increased.
"90	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Manion
As my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) pointed out yesterday, the Minister of Finance is right in saying that he has lowered in some cases the rate of taxation, but, nevertheless, he has increased the amount, the burden, of taxation. As far as one can see, economy is not a popular cry with this government. I believe they have come to the conclusion that economy is not popular politics, but it might be well in these times of abounding prosperity so far as our natural products are concerned, for the government' to remember the example of Joseph, and lay aside something for the lean years that are bound to come after the present years of plenty.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Are you expect-ipg to get into power?


Robert James Manion: I expect we will be coming into power as soon as the people get a fair chance at this government, in view of the many things that are happening under this government of which the people disapprove.
Mr. hOUNG (Saskatoon): Those were the lean years you were thinking of.


Robert James Manion: 1921, under which they charge a duty of 42 cents a bushel on our wheat, 2 cents a pound
bn our cattle, 8 cents a dozen on our eggs. $4 a ton on our hay, and 12 cents a pound on our butter. From 1921, due to these duties, there has been a steady decline in agricultural exports to the United States, the difference between that year and the present amounting to $22,000,000. I admit that a large proportion of that was wheat, but these tariffs have had a depressing effect on our whole agricultural production in Canada. The United States have been virtually waging against us a tariff war-if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will permit me to use the word war in relation to that country. Over there they have a policy whereby they can, by proclamation, raise their tariff against us over night. And in fact they do. I have not time to cite many instances in support of this statement, but it is a fact that cannot be denied that on a number of occasions, by proclamation, upon the recommendation of their tariff commission, they have suddenly advanced their tariff against this country.
Last year in my speech on the budget I gave an example of a ladies' wear manufacturer in Toronto who was selling some of his products in the Detroit market, and merely because he was competing-and competing only on a very small scale-with the Detroit producers they over night doubled their tariff against his exports to that country, with the result that his goods were excluded and he had to have them returned to his place of business in Toronto.	.
Now I have no quarrel with the United States on this account; they are attending to their business, as they have a right to do. But, I contend, it is time that we did the same; it is time that we also attended to our business. Let us discontinue our subservient attitude to the United States. Let us speak to them courteously but firmly. Let us speak plainly, pointing out what we believe to be good, hardheaded, business principles, because these are the only principles they understand. In reply to that, I am sure that we shall get their respect and a good deal more custom from them than we are receiving at the present time. Let us stand by our own interests and let them do likewise; let us have a policy for our own advantage. I am speaking in no unfriendly tone to the United States; I am taking no antagonistic attitude to them; but it is time for this government to be firm and frank with the United States in an endeavour to show them the error of their ways in their business relations with their best customer; for Canada is not only their best customer but she is

the country in the British Empire which understands them better and is understood better by them than any other part of the British commonwealth of nations.
I am particularly emphatic at the moment because last evening we saw in the public press a despatch which I shall read. It is dated Washington, D.C., March 7, and is as follows:
An extra session of the seventy-first congress for April 15 was called to-day by President Hoover.
Specifically, the call proposes legislation for agricultural relief and for "limited changes in the tariff".
The proclamation says that these matters cannot in justice to farmers, labourers, and manufacturers be postponed.
Very well. But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we owe some justice to our own farmers, labourers and manufacturers. Regarding that announcement which I have just quoted, I wish to make a proposition which I believe would be supported by public opinion from one end of Canada to the other-and I submit this to the Prime Minister in all seriousness. My proposition is this: If at that special session called by President Hoover any more restrictions are placed upon our sales to the United States, this house, if it has not prorogued, should have tariff proposals laid before it by the government to lessen our purchases of all kinds from the United States; or, iif we 'have prorogued, then we in turn should call a special short session to deal in a red-blooded Canadian manner with their tariff attitude towards us. The Prime Minister laughs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not
laughing. I was struck with the words red-blooded.


Robert James Manion: I do not know why the
Prime Minister should smile; is it not a good
expression?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a good
expression, yes, but it is not one that I should have used in the circumstances.


Robert James Manion: I think we have been taking too white-blooded an attitude towards the United States all the time, and I submit that it is time for us to stand up and take a good red-blooded Canadian attitude. I say further that a speech along the lines I have just suggested ought to have come ere this from the government benches. I am reading this because I do not wish to be misquoted.
I respectfully suggest, therefore, that the Prime Minister during this debate should stand in his place in this house and speak

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
as plainly on behalf of the people of Canada to the American people as Mr. Hoover speaks on behalf of the United States to us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend think that a speech on my part along the lines he suggests would help relations at the present time?


Robert James Manion: I think it would materially help them. Did President Hoover hesitate to make a speech along these lines the other day, especially when he proposes to call a special tariff session? I am sincere when I say that in my opinion such a speech as I suggest would have an absolutely good effect on the Whole of our business relations with the United States.


Mr. CLARK:: Why should we pussyfoot?


Robert James Manion: The question is in the language of the street, but at the same time it is absolutely pertinent and for my part I repeat it: Why should we pussyfoot? What we need in this country is a stronger Canadian policy than this government shows. To my mind the government's weakness is this, that it is dealing too much with international affairs and too little with internal affairs. It is time for the government to take less interest in Canadian status and more interest in the state of Canada. Let us have, Mr. Speaker, a Canada first policy; for upon the success of our whole economic life depends the retention within our country of our own boys and girls.
I do not think there need be any apologies for speaking as I am speaking towards the United States. If they do not accept this attitude as just, if they show resentment and a tendency towards further antagonism to this country, then in my opinion we must look elsewhere for the trade which we should get from the United States; we must look, within the empire, to those countries which have shown themselves friendly to us; we must look to other foreign countries which purchase two and a half times as much from us as the United States does. We must look to the countries across the Pacific which purchased from us last year, for example, sixty million dollars worth of produce. And even if we should lose some trade by adopting an attitude such as I here advocate, I submit that it would make for gain to this country in that we should acquire not only a greater Canadian self-reliance but a greater empire self-reliance than we display at the present time and would result in our using our own coal and iron rather than American, and manufacturing to completion our own products-in nickel and asbestos for
instance-producing these things finished in our own factories instead of importing them from the United States.
But, Mr. Speaker, under any circumstances, in the interest of the national welfare of Canada, this government should awaken to its opportunities to develop Canadian economic life by means of a virile, courageous Canada first policy-a policy which would retain our urban markets for Canadian farmers; which would develop our own resources instead of having them shipped to the United States to be manufactured into finished products; which would keep our own' factories engaged rather than the factories of the United States; which would utilize our own Canadian iron ore and coal, instead of importing these commodities; which would encourage [DOT]the fruit and dairy industries of Canada instead of destroying them; which would foster Canadian shipbuilding and shipping in preference to foreign enterprise in this direction; and, finally, which would build up a truly great nation north of the international boundary instead of south of it, giving an opportunity to us to leave to our children a prosperous, progressive country in all lines of endeavour, where they and their children might remain to enjoy a free and law-abiding democracy.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I have a very pleasant task to
perform this afternoon, in extending congratulations to my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) as well as to the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie); because it is not very often that I have an opportunity to extend congratulations over the way, and I am going to take advantage of that opportunity now that I have it.
Any Minister of Finance who can keep on year after year reducing taxes and increasing surpluses, throwing away, as hon. gentlemen suggest, large amounts of revenue-estimated in the present budget, we are told, at
825,000,000-and at the same time reducing the national debt of the country-any Minister of Finance who can do this is, I say, one that, should be retained in the service of the country just so long as he is prepared to stay.
My hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition opened his remarks by expressing gratitude for the unbounded prosperity we are enjoying at the present time. I am glad he has improved on the terms used by his own leader when present,, who always qualifies such a statement by observing that we have been enjoying in the last few years a temporary prosperity due to good crops and mining activities, burrowing into the earth


The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
and turning out riches, and due to the depletion of our forests, and so forth. That is the story, always with some mournful dirge associated with it. My hon. friend began in a different tone, but before he got very far in his speech he also commenced to sing the same doleful dirge. He qualified his remarks about the unbounded prosperity which prevails, but what is the meaning of that word "unbounded"? It means without bounds, without reservations, without measurements, if you like, but he began to make a series of measurements, describing the country as being in a vortex of extravagance, with the farmers in need of relief as they are in the United States, and wound up bis remarks by proposing that we give them this relief. If I understand the situation, all the yard-sticks by which the prosperity of a country is measured go to show that we have this prosperity in Canada, not only in the cities but throughout the country generally. It is true that prosperity never touches the pockets of every man; always there will be some people who have had misfortune, as there will be some parts of the country which will not have good crops, and with the exception of those who follow the sea there is no other occupation which I know of which has to contend with the vicissitudes of the climate like agriculture. So long as that is the case some portions of Canada always will be less prosperous than other portions, but speaking generally and judging from the bank clearings, the carloadings, the building permits and the railway returns, always a big factor, or by anything you like, we can reasonably come to the conclusion that we are enjoying an amazing period of prosperity considering the situation which existed when this government came into power. In 1922 everything was depressed; our railways were in a crippled condition where now they are strong and healthy, and we have the same story in connection with other matters.
Now I would like to deal with some of the remarks of my hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition. He stated that prosperity is to be found only in the cities, but was he not putting the cart before the horse? Does not the prosperity of the cities depend upon the buying power of the surrounding communities? While I feel like complimenting him upon the style of his address I am afraid I cannot compliment him upon much of the contents. It was a strong, vigorous presentation of a bad cause; I might also compliment those who surround him upon the way in which they upheld their leader, but when my hon. friend admitted the prosperity in the

urban communities he inferentially admitted that the buying power of the country communities surrounding the cities must have been increased.
Then he described in very strong words the extravagances of this government. Surely if that were the case someone would have heard of it before. I have heard governments called tightwads because they did nothing in the way of developing the country, constructing new buildings and so on, but I have never heard them called extravagant either throughout the country or in the press except by hide-bound Tory papers which I do not believe would be pleased by any budget brought down by this party. However, the rank and file of the people are well satisfied with the budget; they do not object to any expenditure on railways and so on, nor do they object to the beautification of our capital city. My hon. friend referred to some of the extravagances in this city; how many people outside of politics really begrudge the money spent to beautify our one and only capital city? Furthermore, whbre could we start to beautify it except where we have already started? Some day these other buildings will be quite old, and then that park can be extended right along Wellington street. Canada is only starting its second sixty-year period; a hundred years ago this city hardly existed and consequently we are still in swaddling clothes to-day. We must look to the Ottawa of the to-morrow in connection with these matters.
Then my hon. friend referred to the Canadian building in London. Where would he have our staff housed? Should they be put on the street or should they be cared for in a proper building? If we are to take our part in the affairs of the world we must be prepared to provide proper accommodation for those who represent us and we must be as good as the other fellow. We have passed through our shack days, our colonial days, but our friends opposite want to linger a while; they do not want us to take a position commensurate with our progress up to the present. Then my hon. friend referred to our embassy at Washington. If there is anything for which the Prime Minister of this country is to be commended I think it is his policy in connection with these embassies. I heard that policy enunciated at a meeting in Toronto, that hod-bed of Toryism, and it met with the complete approbation of a large audience at Hart house in addition to being radioed all over the country. Yet my hon. friend, with all his ability, his enterprise and his high faculty of presentation, is still antediluvian in this respect; he wants us to

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
go out and play hobo among the nations of the world, just to make a little party advantage, in order to play to the galleries and leave the impression that we are doing something extravagant when he knows very well we are doing the proper thing at the proper time. The same thing applies to Tokyo, and beyond that I will not follow my hon. friend.
Now I come to the Australian treaty, which is an old favourite, and before I forget it I remember that my hon. friend who has just taken his seat spoke of the possibility of extending our trade with other nations and other parts of the empire, yet one of the strongest arguments advanced yesterday was against the extension of our trade with Australia and New Zealand. So they sing different songs, but they are all directed against the government. My hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition dealt with the Australian treaty, but forgot to take up one particular section of it ; I do not believe he meant to misrepresent the treaty, but simply forgot about this section. I refer to section 4, which is as follows:
That subject to the provisions of the customs tariff, 1907, the governor in council may, by order in council, extend the said advantages to goods the produce or manufacture of any British country.
That is as sweeping as the hon. member for Fort William seems to wish. That is contained in the act itself, and I am afraid my hon. friend overlooked it when he was making his point.
Now may I refer to our importations. The reason we have importation of anything is because we want it and are prepared to pay for it. During the administration of all governments since 1896 we have had a certain amount of antipodean butter come to Canada when we were short. In 1896 the amount was very small, only about 7,000 pounds; ten years later it had increased to about 16,000 pounds and by 1907 the importation had grown to about 205,000 pounds. Then, when the Liberals went out of office in 1911, the importation of this butter had increased to a little less than 1,000,000 pounds, from the two antipodean countries. In 1912, the first year after the advent of the Tory administration, this importation had increased from less than a million pounds to about 2,241,000 pounds, but no one on this side of the house took a cat-fit over that increase, because we were getting good New Zealand butter when we required it. Now let us see how it grew under the administration of our good friends opposite, who abhor this importation so much. I have given the importation which occurred during their first year in office; that
had nothing to do with their coming into power, but there was no great hullabaloo about this importation such as we hear now. In 1913 it grew to about 6,000,000 pounds and yet nothing was said except by a gratified country over the fact that they were getting good butter for their tables instead of the vile stuff which was introduced later on in the form of intestinal fats called oleomargarine. Then in 1914 the importation reached almost 7,000,000 pounds; horror of horrors, what was to happen next? Yet there was not a squeal from the Tories. From that time on it began to grow less; in 1915 it was about
5,000,000 pounds; it grew smaller and smaller until 1924, when it was about 1,296,000 pounds and then, co-incident with the introduction of the Australian treaty, if you like, but also co-incident with many other things, the importations from New Zealand grew larger.
The claim has been made that every time you have a large crop in the west the butter production goes down. That is not the case; butter production goes down, in the periods of big crops if it is not a profitable undertaking. The largest inflation in butter production in the west occurred in 1923 and again this year. So far this year's production will be double what it was at the same time last year, showing that the production of butter is due to the change in conditions out there, such as better winter weather, better fodder, improved cattle and more efficient administration of creameries. The point has been raised that we are getting New Zealand butter. When our Conservative friends were in power, and coincident with the time, my hon. friend went into the government of that day, during the last year of that adminisration, in 1920, we imported very little New Zealand butter, but 8,450,000 pounds of oleomargarine were manufactured in this country and
6,497,000	pounds were imported. Our friends are hollering about importing New Zealand butter, but they evidently preferred to feed the people of Canada oleomargarine rather than good New Zealand butter. Personally, I prefer butter rather than the mixture of intestinal fats and southern oils which were brought in from the southern states of the United States. The oleomargarine consumed in Canada during 1920, the last year of my hon. friends' administration, amounted to almost as much as the total importations of butter from New Zealand last year. That product did not possess the nutrition and vitamines, or the calories if you like, of the good butter which is given to our people today. My hon. friends' administration did not feed the people of Canada on good New Zea-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
land butter during that time of shortage. You have to consider the whole policy contained in a treaty rather than take one isolated item. When you make a treaty with a country you cannot expect to get it for nothing. You give them what they want, as nearly as possible, and in exchange they give you certain things. You have to give and take; you have to barter in negotiating treaties of this kind. Great umbrage was raised over giving them preference on their raisins, but if my horn, friends think they are going to extend the trade of Canada by a one-sided basis of dealing, they are not going to get anywhere.


Mr. McGIBBON:: What did we get from
New Zealand?


William Richard Motherwell: We gave them the preferred nations clause. It was contained in the treaty and if my hon. friends did not criticize it at the time the treaty was approved then they were negligent.
I think my bon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) made something of a faux pas with regard to his reference to the grain trade. He stated two gentlemen came down from the west and poured out their lamentations about what was happening with regard to the grain trade due to mixing and all the problems incidental thereto. The whole thing began in 1912, the first session of the government of the party my hon. friend now belongs to-he was sitting on the Liberal side of the house in 1912- when an amendment to the Canada Grain Act was brought down, and under the guise of granting sample markets, this system of mixing has been going on for years. When this government attempted' to correct it in 1925, or surround that vicious practice with safeguards which would eventually eliminate it, the act was changed by friends of my hon. friends opposite in the upper chamber of this parliament, to the detriment of Canadian grain. That is the story with regard to that. It was the same during the last decade of the last century, from 1890 to 1900, when the Conservative party were in power. No measures of protection were attempted until after the Liberal government came into power, and then the Manitoba Grain Act was put into effect in 1900. The only remedial legislation along these lines has been enacted at the instance of the Liberal party.
I rather compliment my hon. friend on the illustration he drew in comparing the alacrity of Saul of Tarsus on his way to Damascus' to that with which he imagined we would be acting in the course of a year or two with regard to tariff matters. He put it rather

well and rather pleasantly and complacently, and took all the fun he could out of it, which fun I would not deny to him at all. But the alacrity of Saul of Tarsus was nothing compared to that of Guthrie of Wellington when he was on his way to the treasury benches in 1917. Talk about conversions, there has been nothing like it in the history of this country.


Hugh Guthrie: I came in pretty good company and on a pretty good cause.


William Richard Motherwell: Saul's cause was
good, there is no question about that.


Hugh Guthrie: And so was mine.


William Richard Motherwell: Saul's conversion
has profoundly affected the world ever since, but I do not think it was a Damascus call that my hon. friend responded to.


Hugh Guthrie: Or Mr. Fielding or Mr. Graham?


William Richard Motherwell: I am talking about my hon. friend.


Hugh Guthrie: They came too.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend wants to be classified with Mr. Fielding, why did he not do as Mr. Fielding did? I want to remove any concern my hon. friend may have about our possible conversion. We do not need any conversion on this question. We have a leader who faced a crisis in 1926, and the country singled him out as a man who was capable of leading this country and this party through any crisis.


Mr. ERNST:: Was that 1926 or 1914?


William Richard Motherwell: I will repeat it, now that my hon. friend has been so clever. I said in 1928. The hon. acting leader of the opposition did not mention it, but I will; the whole policy of' British preference is within the four walls of the policy inaugurated by the Liberal party. We can meet almost any emergency or any crisis which may arise through any possible change.
There is another matter I must point out to him. In his desire to assist agriculture he has a habit of making gestures towards that corner of the house where agriculture is supposed to be; he sort of coquets with them. Why did he not do something for them when budgets began to come down after this government came into power? In the first one in 1922, there was not a big change, but surely the smaller it was the better it would please my hon. friend. In 1923 we made a further advance in lessening the cost of the

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
implements of production. In 1924 we made a decided advance in that regard, but did we get any support from my hon. friends? Not at all; they roared all the louder the more we did for agriculture.
I should like to draw attention to the specific advance in policy which this government made when we extended the reduction downwards, not only to the implements of the farm, but to implements used in developing all the natural resources of Canada. That was a distinct advance in policy and it had a distinct effect upon the development of those resources, because everybody engaged in developing them were able to go forth every morning with good, efficient tools at the least possible cost. That was a policy which brought results and had something to do with the development and prosperity that exist to-day. Why did my hon. friend not join with us in that? If he still had, shall I say, the red blood of Liberalism in his veins, he should have been able to support that; but apparently the longer he lives the more he gets into the stride of protection. At the Winnipeg Conservative convention, they were all so modest on the tariff question that neither prunes nor protection was mentioned lest the low tariff views of the western delegates would be offended. But they were back in Ottawa not five minutes until they began talking in terms of the national policy, and everything that was suggestive of protection. Then later, when the leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Bennett, was meandering around the maritime provinces and Quebec, he spoke of safeguarding industry, that old country phrase. Now my hon. friend comes out boldly-and let me give him credit for doing so-and says "protection". My hon. friend intends to talk about protection again and we are glad to know where he stands. Since a year ago last October my hon. friends have just been mincing around. In their hearts they have never changed; they have only changed their style, trying to be one thing while they are really another.
Now my hon. friend, at the end of his speech, brings in an amendment on the assumption that our farmers are in the same state as the United States farmers. That is a libel on our country. It is not so. The gross agricultural production of Canada this last year approached the $2,000,000,000 mark, the highest in our history. Our mines have produced abundantly and so have our forests. Every natural resource is buoyant and strong, and yet my hon. friend would like to leave the impression that conditions are bad and
that he must come to the rescue. The people outside do not hold that impression. The hon. gentleman is just playing a part and he played it well yesterday, but he must not think it will fool anybody very much.
From the statement of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) this afternoon, one would think we were sitting idly here wearing out our chairs and clothes, doing nothing. If you can find members of a government that have been as busy as we have been during the last six or seven years, I should like him to point them out. Nobody but men of strong physique and good health could have pursued the gait that we have maintained throughout this period, because otherwise they would have fallen by the wayside, as some have. The task is a hard one; we have pursued it diligently to the best of our ability from the time we took office and we are desirous of pursuing it still further and doing our best for the people of Canada.
The house will recall that we established a policy of standardization with regard to fruit products, especially for export. Until we came into power practically nothing was done in that direction except in connection with the grading of wheat. Some additional steps were taken by my predecessor, the Hon. Doctor Tolmie, but they were not put into practice until we came into power. I refer to the grading and standardization of farm products, and the establishment of a quality basis by selling on that basis. I know I have often wearied the house by introducing sometimes six or seven pieces of legislation in the one session. I used to be the object of ridicule by the non. member who led the opposition during those first few years; I made a favourite target for him. He knew nothing about the matter but he had the skillful use of language which sometimes embarrassed me a good deal. I felt, however, I was right and I have pursued that policy ever since until last year, when public sentiment in the house seemed to justify letting two of those bills, one with respect to vegetables and the other with respect to hay, die on the order paper, I began to wonder whether I was going too rapidly, but I was told by a prominent premier, no other than the premier of this province that Canada was not doing enough in that direction. That is what he informed me at the last provincial conference. When I was told on the one hand I was not going fast enough, and on the other that I was going too fast, I thought it would be a good policy to go to the World Dairy Congress ,to which I was appointed with some fifteen other delegates, and see how the matter was worked


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: All right. Mention a more efficient and cheaper way of getting the information which I got in the United Kingdom and Europe than by motor car. I challenge the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) to mention a better way.


An hon. MEMBER:: Walk.


William Richard Motherwell: My secretary sat down and estimated the cost and found that it was $500 or $600 cheaper to go by the method I took than by any other method available. Yes, you can laugh, but mention a cheaper and more efficient way.


Hugh Guthrie: It sounds like joy riding.


William Richard Motherwell: Would it have been any less joy riding for me to have flown? It was not a joy ride. It was a necessary trip I took to the World's Dairy Congress, supplemented by a trip all over the United Kingdom to gather information at first hand, information which my hon. friend opposite does not possess even to-day, or he would not have mentioned the grain trade. I challenge anyone to mention any cheaper or more efficient way of getting information than going by motor car. I may be taking more trips in the future, and if my hon. friends have a cheaper and more efficient way, I am prepared to adopt it. But they cannot mention one. They laugh and they jeer, and that is all they do. They tell me that I exercise too much levity. There is levity now among them, with nothing at all behind it. My offer stands good, and I challenge them to mention a better way. When the accounts come down, I am sure they will challenge favourable comparison with some of the expenses of members of the opposition when they were in power, and I got very much greater results.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, rising to speak in this
budget debate, I should like first to compliment the Minister of Finance on the dignified and lucid manner in which he presented his budget. It was in marked contrast to the burlesque with which the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has just favoured the house. The Minister of Agriculture reminds me of the jester that we read about in Scott's novels, who was engaged to amuse the people at different functions. To me. sir, it does appear that when a man reaches the dignified position of a minister of the crown, and discusses any subject on the floor of this house, he should at least bring a little knowledge and ordinary intelligence into the debate and not make it a burlesque. The Minister of Agriculture has criticized the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie). I may tell him, sir, that if he wishes his name to shine in Canadian history as brightly as will the record of the acting leader of the opposition, he will have to do a lot of work in a constructive way between now and his dissolution.

The Budget

Mr. McGibbon
In association with others, Mr. Speaker, I wish again to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his lucidity and the dignified manner in which he presented his budget. Also in association with other members of the house I rejoice at what may be called the spotted prosperity of Canada. I describe it as spotted, sir, because before I sit down I intend to demonstrate that a large portion of the country to-day is not enjoying the prosperity pictured by the Minister of Finance. I recognize that not even the incompetence of the Minister of Agriculture can wholly depress a country that grows five hundred million bushels of wheat a year, that has an agricultural production of about one billion dollars, that digs up something like $275,000,000 worth of minerals and has a total trade of over two billion dollars. I repeat, not even the incompetence of the Minister of Agriculture combined with the destructive policies which he and his government have put around the necks of our farmers can keep this country back.


William Richard Motherwell: Mention them.


Peter McGibbon: I will as I go along.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member
cannot.


Peter McGibbon: I hope the minister will profit by it too. Only a few places are benefited by this spotted prosperity. It ia true we find prosperity in cities like Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Vancouver, and so on. That prosperity is also to be found in the stock markets of this country. I assert, sir, that the policy of 'this government has driven capital out of industry and into the stock exchange to such an extent that to-day we are a nation of gamblers; nothing more nor less. Our stenographers, cooks and kitchen maids are better acquainted with the stock lists of the standard exchange than they are with the Bible. This condition of affairs has been brought about by the policy of the government, and I shall refer to it further in the course of my remarks.
At this point I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, why the budget was brought down four days before President Hoover delivered his inaugural address at Washington. The government benches had been strangely silent. I venture to suggest that the purpose of the Minister of Finance was to head off the announcement that President Hoover was going to make to the farmers of the United States, and this government wanted to have the budget down and their proposals made known so there would not be a demand from this

country for the protection of our farmers. But why this haste, Mr. Speaker? For some years past the United States have put their tariff almost sky high against the farm products of Canada, yet this government, led in this particular by the Minister of Agriculture, has done absolutely nothing to protect our farmers. More than that, sir, they had good reason to know what the new administration in the United States proposed to do in regard to tariff policy. Last fall while addressing a meeting down in Tennessee Mr. Hoover made these remarks:
The great expansion of agricultural production in Canada and the southern hemisphere combined with the increasing efficiency and increased production by our own farmers have rendered unstable those branches of our agriculture which are dependent on foreign markets.
The despatch continues:
His solution of the marketing problem would be the appointment of a farm board clothed with powers and resources to assist the farmer in solving his own problems through co-operatives controlled by the farmer himself "to protect the farmer from depressions and demoralization and periodic surpluses."
That announcement was made six months ago. In his inaugural speech this week President Hoover announced1 that he intended to implement those promises. He said:
Action upon some of the proposals upon which the Republican party Was returned to power, particularly further agricultural relief and limited changes in the tariff, cannot in justice to our farmers, our labour and our manufacturers be postponed. I shall therefore request a special session of congress for the consideration of these two questions. I shall deal with each of them upon the assembly of the congress.
That promise also has been implemented; a special session of congress has been called for April 15 to formulate measures for protecting the farmers of the American republic. What has the government of Canada done? They have made this country a dumping ground for the world, with the result that to-day we have depression both in the ranks of labour and of agriculture. In spite of what the Minister of Agriculture says, we know that this depression is weighing very heavily upon the people of this country.
But. Mr. Speaker, I want to direct the attention of the house for a moment to one or two passages in the budget speech. First, the Minister of Finance emphasized the fact that this was a low-tariff government. Why, Sir, he could not do anything else, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) being the main factors in the cabinet. Almost in the same

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
paragraph the Minister of Finance threw out a threat that if certain countries-meaning no doubt the United States-adjusted their tariffs in a manner unfavourable to Canada he would raise our tariff against them. Those are not his exact words, but they are a fair deduction from what he said. I ask the Minister of Agriculture which of those statements appeal to him. Does he think the government intend to scrap the first, so that they will be no longer a free-trade government; or does he think they intend to carry out the threat and protect the people of this country in a manner that is worthy of any government?
I wonder how President Hoover felt when he heard this terrible threat from the Minister of Finance of this Dominion-the man who had fed starving millions in Europe during the war, the man who had advocated raising the United States tariff almost to the skies, the man who had seen this government deliberately bring down their budget four days before he made his inaugural speech- I wonder what he thought of such an idle threat, a threat which he knew could not be made good this year. Do you suppose, sir, he trembled like Macbeth did before the ghost of Banquo, in dread lest this government might raise the Canadian tariff against the United States? That sort of thing is ridiculous. Had it been written by the Minister of Agriculture it would have been perfectly in keeping with his whole conduct. But coming from the Minister of Finance, a man whom we all respect and who carries the greatest weight of any man on that side of the house with the people of Canada, it is something a little bit difficult to understand.
Now where are we going? I say, Mr. Speaker, that this government has never done anything to protect the farmers of Canada. I am quite willing to concede that the farmers have never received from any government the protection they should fee given. But the little they did have has been wiped away since the present government came into power. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture would like me to read something from the proceedings of the Canadian Council of Dairymen assembled in the King Edward Hotel, Toronto, on November 26, 1928. I wonder if he or the house recalls the fact that a large deputation came here a year ago, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, demanding greater protection for the fruit and vegetable growers, poultry men and the dairymen of Canada. I wonder if he remembers the two occasions on which, according to Mr. Calder in his address, they waited upon the Minister of Agriculture and asked for protection for dairy products and 78594-51
were refused. I wonder if he still thinks there is any doubt as to where the Canadian farmers stand in their attitude to protection. I shall refer to that question a little later, but I want here to discuss for a moment the great prosperity which is spoken of in the budget, but which in the main does not exist in this country. It never has existed since this government came into power and it does not exist to-day. Just the day before yesterday I sat in the committee on industrial relations and we had before us a man from Montreal representing the boot and shoe industry, and in reply to a question from myself he stated that the average wage in that industry was $20 a week. Now I would ask the Minister of Agriculture where the prosperity exists in this country-he at least says that there is prosperity-when men have to work long hours and support a family on $20 a week, while he sports in England with a ten-thousand-dollar automobile^-ten thousand dollars of the people's money-having a good time. Where is the prosperity? Does the prosperity exist in the office of the Minister of Agriculture or is it with the working people of the Dominion? I have also in my hand-


William Richard Motherwell: May I ask my hon. friend where he got the price of the car- $10,000?


John Arthur Clark: How much was it?


Peter McGibbon: Knowing the minister's expensive tastes I thought that nothing less than a ten-thousand-dollar car would do him. However, if I have over-stated it I shall be glad to be corrected.


William Richard Motherwell: I may say that the first four years I rode in a second-hand Tory unfumigated car.


Peter McGibbon: Let me tell the minister that nothing that the Tories ride in ever needs fumigation. It is only Liberal vehicles that need it. I wonder, when the Minister of Agriculture goes back to his riding, what they will say when he tells the poor farmer, who probably has not over two or three hundred dollars left at the end of his year, or tells the workingman, who has to raise a family on $20 a week, about his glorious trip through Great Britain, with his chauffeur and government car, all charged up to the public expense. I wonder what the people will say then as regards prosperity in Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: It depends on what I brought back, what information I got.

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon


Peter McGibbon: The minister says it
depends on what he brought back. Knowing the minister, I do not think he would bring back anything that was good for the country.


William Richard Motherwell: I have tried to
recite a few things.


Peter McGibbon: The minister says he has tried; I will go thus far with him-he has tried.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not my fault
if my hon. friend does not understand.


Peter McGibbon: I recall a little story
told by Sir Henry Wilson over in France, criticizing the government of Great Britain for criticizing him. He said, "Of course, there is no time in a man's career when he can speak with such positiveness as when speaking of something he doesn't know anything about".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr, McGIBBON: I thought you had more respect for your minister. Now, as regards the question of prosperity, I have in my hand a table showing the average earnings of bakers, bricklayers, carpenters, electricians, painters, plumbers, salesmen, street railway men, and other workers, for the cities of Halifax, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, St. John, Toronto, Windsor, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Vancouver, Victoria and Winnipeg. And in all that list there is not [DOT]a salary of over $1,600 a year. I would direct the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) to the fact. When the government speaks of the great prosperity in Canada I would point to the unemployment that exists throughout the country, and impress upon hon. gentlemen opposite that the allegation is not in accordance with the facts. There is unemployment in nearly every part of the country except a few cities. Yet this government has the temerity to come to the house, in the face of such unemployment, and speak of great prosperity. I should like them to visit my riding where factory doors are closed. The other day I was speaking with a gentleman who hires labourers and he told me that he did not know where he could get a man a job.
Now to pay some further attention to the Minister of Agriculture. The government is anxious to avoid the subject of the dairy industry, and wishes to disown the treaty in this regard. This has proved an offspring which has been quite detrimental to the country. I would call the attention of the house to the Prime Minister's statement the other

night that there was less butter made in Canada because people were using cream for ice cream. I want to tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture as well that, according to the statistics of their own government, less butter fat was produced last year than the year before, and that is the basis of the whole thing. When the Minister of Agriculture tries to ridicule the remarks of the acting leader of the opposition in regard to butter, and the quotations respecting oleomargarine for 1920, 1919 and 1918, he forgets that a war was on during part of that time which materially altered conditions. He also forgets-at any rate, if he has not forgotten it, he did not mention the fact-that prior to 1912 the people of this country had been building up a dairy industry. When that production reached its peak and we were exporting about 25,000,000 pounds a year, this government stepped in and killed that industry and to-day we are not producing enough butter for our own consumption.
I do not like to weary the house with figures, but I feel that it would be of interest to place some figures on Hansard with regard to the effects of this treaty. In 1927 we produced about 12,000,000 pounds less butter fat than we produced in 1926, and our production of milk decreased by 3,428,571,428 pounds, yet the Minister of Agriculture says the dairy industry never was more prosperous! Does he know that the herds of this country have been diminishing year by year? Does he know that to-day our importations of butter from New Zealand are equivalent to what could be produced by 100,000 cows which should be reared in this country? Still the minister says we are prosperous. But that is not all:	I would like to give a few figures
about our herds for the years 1927 and 1928, showing the reduction in each province:
	1927	1928
Prince Edward Island..	58,000	56,000Ontario	1,299.840	1.261,384Manitoba	255,874	248,630Saskatchewan	462,270	418,506Alberta	379,992	344.495Nova Scotia	142.000	137,000New Brunswick	111,000	109,000
In only two provinces have the herds not been reduced in the last three years-Quebec and British Columbia. I do not know the reason in British Columbia, but I presume that in Quebec they have been able to keep up their herds because of the great market to the south, especially in the city of New York. In every other province, however, through the action of this government in connection with the Australian treaty, the dairy industry has received the worst blow it has suffered in years.



S03 MARCH S, 1929

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
But that is not all; associated with the dairying industry is the pork industry. In Denmark, which is practically the standard of the world in these things, they raise six pigs to every cow, but in this country I think we raise only five. Perhaps it may be of interest to place on record the production of swine, brood sows and other live pigs in Canada :
1927	1928
Prince Edward Island..	53,665	62,653Quebec	
833,529	813,509Ontario	
1.883,177	1,833,576Alberta	
742,671	680,000Manitoba	
387,269	330,803Saskatchewan	
616,603	602,156
Then, going a little further, we find a corresponding diminution of production in the slaughtering and pork-packing industry. That reduction is as follows:
.	1925	1927Salted pork	
71,000,000	lbs	47,000,000	lbsHams	
45,000,000	"	22,000,000	"Shoulders	
19,000,000	"	8,000,000	"Bacon and sides. 87.000,000	"	69,000,000	"Lard	
54,000,000	"	51,000,000	"
Then, sir, coincident with that and accompanying it we have a further diminution in exports of the same products and an increase in the imports. I hope the Minister of Agriculture sees what is happening under his policy. A few figures will illustrate how our exports have decreased:
1925	1927
Mutton and lamb. ..	26,000 lbs 18,000 lbs
Bacon, hams,
shoulders and sides 1,325,000 "	580,000 "
Canned meats	 466,000 "	324,000 "
I recognize the difficulty of the Minister of Finance; this treaty is his own child and naturally he does not want to abandon it, but I think in the interests of the farmers of this country the time has come for this parliament to make its voice heard. Here we have one of the great industries of Canada struggling along under adverse conditions. I wonder if the house would be interested in the figures showing the increased importation of butter since this treaty came into effect. The figures are as follows:
Exports	Imports I
1925	
24.500,000	lbs	193,341	lbs1926	
23,300,000	"	7,029,084 "1927	
9,878,000	"	7,190,000 "
I am told that last year no less than 16,000,000 or 18,000,000 pounds of New Zealand butter came to Canada, and the dairy commissioner of New Zealand is authority for the statement that next year they intend to send 30,000,000 pounds of butter to this country. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is 78594-511
fair to the people of this country, who have invested about $153,000,000 in the factory end of this industry, to be treated in this manner. I hope the minister will take this into his serious consideration and do something for the farmers of Canada.
I have only forty minutes, so I cannot devote too much of my time to this subject. The other day I was reading again the speech of the Prime Minister at Newmarket in 1925, and. as I read that famous sentence "no monopoly on land or sea is the policy of this government," I began to think of the monopolies created by this government or continued under it. My mind went back to the famous Petersen contract, an attempt by this government to break the ocean freight rates which they claimed constituted a monopoly injurious to the trade of this country. I compared the rates of that day with those prevailing to-day and found that they are higher now than they were at that time. Then I thought of the attempt to break the combine which was supposed to exist on the great lakes. I remember that legislation of a drastic character was passed here, and then the government had to send emissaries to the American ship owners and offer them protection against the law in order to get our goods carried from the head of the lakes, which was something they had not the legal right to do. I find also that the lake freight rates on wheat are higher to-day than they were then.
Then consider the matter of the banks. There is no institution in this country that can take the people by the throats, so to speak, can so cripple business, as can the banks. I recognize what the Minister of Finance has said, and what the leader of the opposition has said with regard to amalgamations, but my criticism is this: the procedure should be to bolster up the weaker banks and not let two or three of the stronger banks obtain a strangle-hold on the country. The Minister of Finance said in effect that the minute a bank's deposits were not equal to its loans then it was on the road to bankruptcy. He also said that the people of this country were taking their deposits out of the weaker banks and putting them in the stronger. I submit that the Minister of Finance having directed attention to that, there will be a tendency to make the weaker banks still weaker and we will have further amalgamations.
Speaking of monopolies, my mind travels back to the struggle we had in this house two years ago to preserve for the people of this country the great water-powers on the Ottawa river. An attempt was made to hand
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. McGibbon
over to private interests one hundred million dollars' worth of power belonging to the people of Ontario and Quebec, without one voice being raised by a supporter of the government. Then we had an exhibition in this house last week which is not seen very often in a free parliament. We were discussing the fact that this government, together with the government of Manitoba, had given to a private corporation in Winnipeg one of the greatest monopolies ever created in the western provinces. After this parliament had been prorogued, and after the legislature of Manitoba had been prorogued, they handed over this great power site, although promises had been made in both houses that it would not be done. Then what do we see to-day? As the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has very forcibly pointed out, we are witnessing the creation of one of the greatest monopolies this country has ever seen-the Beauharnois company. Parliament was not even consulted in this matter, it had no voice at all, and this government has gone ahead and created one of the greatest combines and monopolies that has ever existed. I looked up the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, and I find that this act gives the government power to rid the country of all these monopolies. I went to the Department of Labour, over which our good friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) presides, and I asked them what had been done under the provisions of this act since it came into force in 1923, when the government claimed the country was being grappled by the throat by these monopolies and obtained the powers contained in this act. I received a letter nearly two pages long, but boiled down it simply conveyed the information that this government, so enthusiastic for the rights of the poor downtrodden people had taken only one case to the courts and secured a conviction under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. This is pretty much on a par with the actions of every other department of the government.
In conclusion I should like to direct my remarks to the national status which the Prime Minister claimed he obtained for the people of this country. I should like the Prime Minister to tell the people, on the first occasion that presents itself, what he or his government ever did to increase the national status of Canada. I asked him that last year and he made a speech in Toronto this fall which covered two pages of the Globe, and he never once-I am sorry to say this, even though he is a political opponent- gave credit where credit was due. The 60,000

men lying over in France and the 50,000 cripples in this country and other countries drawing pensions, won that status for the people of Canada and not the King government. If any proof of this statement be required, I will read an extract from a speech delivered by Mr. Lloyd George at the imperial conference of 1921, as follows:
The British dominions have now been accepted fully into the comity of nations by the whole world. They are signatories to the treaty of Versailles and of all the other treaties of peace; they are members of the assembly of the League of Nations, and their representatives have already attended meetings of the league; in other words, they have achieved full national status, and they now stand beside the United Kingdom as equal partners in the dignities and the responsibilities of the British commonwealth.
That was the pronouncement of Mr. Lloyd George in 1921. That status was won by the armies in France, followed up by the action of Sir Robert Borden and his ministers. I hope that the next time the Prime Minister takes credit to himself or his government for the position we hold, he will at least give some measure of credit to the people who won that position for the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: because of mixing the farmer gets more for his total crop, particularly on the lower grades. Take the case of feed wheat; you will find that the farmer, during the last shipping season, has been selling his feed wheat for about $18 a ton at his initial shipping point. If the same grower goes to the Western Canada Flour Mills Company or any other concern that sells bran, he will pay $30 or $32 a ton for bran. This is feed wheat that sometimes makes fairly good bread-not the bread that we would like to eat, but bread that will do for the orient and some other markets where they are willing to accept a poor quality of flour. He sells this feed wheat at $18 a ton and he pays $32 a ton for bran. Is that a fancy price that should tempt the farmer to support the practice of mixing?
This question of the grading of grain is one of very great importance. When we consider that just a little over one-sixth of the area of Canada is under crop, and that we have jumped in ten years from a production of a little less than 200,000,000 bushels of wheat to 533,000,000 bushels, the question arises in one's mind, what is the peak to which Canada may attain? How much wheat may we ultimately grow? I remember years ago, when we were producing very much less than we are now, making the prophecy that Canada would produce half a billion bushels of wheat within twenty-five years. We are producing more than that now, and I believe that with a proper fostering of the grain growing industry on the part o'f the different departments of agriculture, with a much needed solution of the rust problem, with the production of earlier varieties of wheat which will more readily escape frost and rust, with a vigorous campaign against weed pests and against growing so many poor milling varieties of wheat, it is well within the bounds of possibility that Canada in the next twenty-years will be producing one billion bushels of wheat. Surely that is an industry that is well worth paying attention to. I heard the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), I think it was, suggesting the other night that bringing people to Canada to take up more land and produce more wheat was simply increasing the number of those who would come into competition with our Canadian farmer. I do not fear that competition very much, for the reason that new markets are opening up before us all the time. Just think of these figures: Norway consumes only 1-5 bushels of wheat per head; India, -9 bushels; Canada, 9-9 bushels; France. 8 bushels; Great Britain, 6 bushels. The markets in China and Japan are opening up in a very satisfactory way.

Again, if Canada were to retrench in her operations in growing wheat, what would take place? It would simply mean that other countries, the Argentine, India, Australia, and the United States would increase their production and supply the wheat that we could grow. I do not think that the remedy lies in that direction at all. I believe that the best thing for Canadians to do is to produce all the wheat they possibly can, and with the least possible overhead, under the fostering care of the Department of Agriculture. I should like to see the government spend twice the money it is now spending in research to overcome the rust problem. I am not overlooking the fact that a great deal has already been done. The progress made in recent years has been highly satisfactory, but still more money could be spent with great benefit.
Not only is this an important industry in itself, but agriculture is the key to the solving of the great problem which is causing a great deal of worry in Canada just now, namely, immigration. One of the difficulties is that the farmer, in addition to having to fight against frost, dry weather, too much moisture, and weeds, which have become a great problem, has also to carry the burden of evils which this parliament can overcome. If I am anywhere near correct in my estimate that the farmer by these practices which shoulfi not be permitted, is losing $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 a year, he is losing that which would fortify him and put him in a better financial position to face years like the present, when frost sweeps away the net profits on his crop. If that amount could be saved to our farmers, in the course of a few years the farmers of western Canada would be well fortified and immigrants settling on farms in western Canada would at least have a fair chance to succeed.
Now I come to the remedy. Many remedies have been suggested. It has been thought that we might control the practice of mixing, and that has been tried many times. The remedy which was proposed in 1925, to which the Minister of Agriculture referred, was to require the mixing elevators to ship grain from their elevators equal to the average quality, passing Winnipeg. That means nothing more than this, that they shall send to the old country markets grain equal in quality to what the farmer is delivering to the elevators. Is there anything unreasonable in that? Where else in Canada could you find a people who would submit to anything else? Why does the Canadian farmer submit to it? Lord only knows; it is a wonder that he submits to it. He has been subject to it for so long that perhaps he has become accustomed to it, but

Private Bills
the time has come when he is not going to stand for it any longer. The practice has been carried to such an extreme and the rake-off has become so enormous that the farmers have awakened to what they are really losing, and they are uniting to put down this evil.
What is the remedy? I suggested one to the grain inquiry commission, a remedy which I now submit to the minister and the house. We are selling grain on the old country markets on what is termed certificate final. There is no redress, regardless of the condition in which the grain reaches that market. I suggested to the commission that they recommend that an international appeal board be set up in Great Britain, say at Liverpool, or London, or other market centres. To provide for those markets standard samples by the chief inspector, equal to the average quality passing Winnipeg. Supply the same standard sample at Fort William, Montreal, and at transfer elevators. In other words, right from Winnipeg to the ultimate market provide the same standard sample, equal to the average passing Winnipeg. There is no reason why that should not be done. Then we would have an appeal board, say at Liverpool, at Montreal, at Vancouver and at other inspection and transfer points, and the carriers across the ocean would be made responsible for delivering grain up to that standard. Give the carriers on the Atlantic protection from the elevators from which they receive the grain-say the Montreal elevator-make the Montreal elevator responsible for delivering the proper quality of grain, and give that elevator protection from the lake carriers that deliver the grain to the Montreal elevator. Work that system right back to Fort William, and then I think you will have found a remedy for the evil of mixing.
But how about the mills of western Canada? Let the miller buy direct from the farmer, and pay what he wants. Once a cargo of grain is billed to the terminal elevator, it should go to the terminal elevator; there is no reason why it should go anywhere else. You will find that there is no difficulty in working that out. I do not mean to say that it can be done without expense. Up to the present we have been operating on a broken down system, a system that perhaps was sufficient twenty-five years ago but is very, very inadequate to-day. We require an entirely new or a bigger system. The grain trade has expanded in the last fifteen or twenty years, but our system has stood still. We had three grain commissioners then; we have only three
now, and they are not able to administer the Grain Act with proper attention to details. We have a very, very loose system of handling grain. The farmer will never get the full benefit of his grain until there is a more careful, and it will be a more expensive, method of handling the grain.
When you contrast our system with the American you find they are seven years ahead of us. They are puzzling over little points that we will not reach for some years yet. For instance, they pay for protein a different price for every quarter of one per cent, and they find that two chemists testing grain cannot come nearer to uniformity than twelve or fifteen points. Their contracts call for redress if the tests vary more than ten points. A trade journal has pointed out that what is necessary is a little more tolerance-that is the word they use-that no redress should be allowed unless there is a variation of more than twenty points. So you see what pains they have gone to, and how much more careful they are in the handling of their grain than we are. As a result the farmers of the United States are receiving many millions of dollars that in Canada would go into the pockets of the middlemen. A few months ago I noticed in the press a statement ftiat Manitoba has twenty-one millionaires, Saskatchewan none, Alberta one. Well, I think there is a direct relation between the number of millionaires in Manitoba-they nearly all reside in Winnipeg-and the fact that there is a grain exchange in Winnipeg. There is no grain exchange in Saskatchewan.
It is now nearly six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and as I have ahnost concluded what I purposed saying I will not detain the house any longer.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 40, to incorporate the Montreal Underground Terminal	Company.-Mr. Rheaume.
Bill No. 61, respecting the Lacombe and North Western Railway Company.-Mr. Blatohford.
Bill No. 63, respecting The Toronto Terminals Railway Company.-Mr. Hocken.
The Budget-Mr. Dickie

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) moved the second reading of Bill No. 73, respecting The Canadian Dexter P. Cooper Company.
Mr. CAHILL:: Explain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The object of the bill is merely to extend the time in which this company may begin operations. I understand that there is no opposition to allowing the bill to go to committee, although opposition may develop there.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Mr- C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo): I wish, in common with those on this side of the house who have already spoken, to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the clarity, lucidity and quality of his budget speech, and also to congratulate that hon. gentleman and his colleagues on the assistance that a kind Providence has given him in furnishing material for a speech as good as was the one delivered a few days ago. As the favourable figures tripped from his tongue, and before he had finished his speech, I thought that had some unsophisticated friends of the Conservative party been sitting in the gallery they would sympathize with the Conservative opposition, and wonder what ammunition there was to be used after the minister had concluded. I thought they would feel sorry for us. Two men, Casey and Riley, had a little argument as a result of which Riley went to the hospital. A spiritual friend called the next day day to see him, remarking, "Riley, Casey feels badly over what he has done to" you, and I will pray that you forgive him." Riley, said, "Father, you will save time if you wait until I get out and then pray for Casey."
During the magnificent and masterly criticism of the budget by our house leader (Mr. Guthrie), I thought I could detect in the countenances of ministers opposite perhaps a little need for spiritual consolation. I wish

to congratulate our leader on the wonderful criticism he made of that budget speech. The budget undertook to show this country was fairly prosperous. There is no doubt that we have a certain degree of prosperity, due largely to the fact that, with our agricultural resources, our people who live on the soil have been fairly successful. We have had also wonderful prosperity in our mines, while our forests have contributed materially to the success of the institutions of Canada. The forests have now reached the zenith of their production, and now is the harvest time for Canada. The same may be said of our fisheries. So that we may call this the harvest, and I do not think that the government have made a proper use of harvest time. There is an old proverb which says, "he that sleeps in harvest is a son that causeth shame". These are days of harvest for Canada. We have a great country, and all we require is a proper fiscal policy to make Canada renowned throughout the world. True, we are enjoying a small degree of prosperity; nevertheless there are people unemployed throughout Canada, and these unemployed claim our attention. We have them throughout the year in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, and I do not know what they would do in Ottawa to-day but for the fact that there has been a great deal of snow and they have managed to get a little work clearing the sidewalks and streets. We wish to make this a country where the ordinary man can succeed. I hold' no brief for the manufacturers; I only want them to succeed so that the labouring people, those who work with their hands and their brains, may succeed as well. I think I can indicate how we might accomplish this result; we can do it if we will adopt a satisfactory financial policy for Canada.
During his budget speech the Minister of Finance touched very lightly in the question of immigration, because our immigration history is not at all creditable. From 1922 to 1926 inclusive we brought 518,000 people to Canada from Europe, at a cost of about $11,000,000; during that same period 556,000 people wenit from Canada to the United States. Surely no person can say that is a satisfactory state of affairs for any country. We must remedy that condition, and we can do it by keeping in Canada some of the money we send to the United States for manufactured and partly manufactured goods. Last year we bought from the United States goods to the value of over $800,000,000, of which 67 per cent were manufactured and partly manufactured goods, for which we paid

The liad-iei-Mr. Dirkie
$536,000,000. If we could keep $400,000,000 of that money in Canada we would attract 500.00 people to this country and we would bring back our own people who have gone to the United States to look for work. We must furnish opportunities for those people or we cannot expect to keep them in Canada. During my life-time I want to see Canada become a country which pays its working men, both manual and mental, wages equal to or better than those paid in any other country of the world; I want to see all our expectations and hopes realized, and that can be done if we have a proper fiscal policy. I would protect our manufacturers; I would keep in Canada the greater part of the money we send to the United States, and if that were done I think we would have very little difficulty in getting people to come to this country. We argue from an entirely wrong basis in speaking of the tariff; if we keep the money in this country we will keep our people.
We have a tariff board touring the country, and travelling with that board is a gentleman who argues for free trade at every meeting. If the United States were permitted to appoint an advocate to appear before that board they could find no one more adapted to their purposes than Mr. Deachman, that gentleman who is always arguing for free trade and who loses sight of the fact that if we do not keep our money in this country we cannot keep our people. In the United States they have a tariff board also, but that tariff board is not a laughing stock as is the case in Canada; over night that board can increase the duty if they find goods coming into the country in such a way as to interfere with the labouring men of the United States. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) cited one glaring case this afternoon, and I can give you another one now: Two years ago a textile factory in Ontario was manufacturing a very fancy grade of woollen sweater coats; some of these coats were worn in Windsor and were noticed by residents of Detroit, many of whom began to come to Windsor to buy them. The company sent representatives to Detroit and Chicago and put on a full staff of men, thinking that by working full time they could perhaps overcome the thirty per cent duty in force against that class of goods. They received orders for shipments of these sweater coats from Chicago and Detroit; the shipments got as far as the boundary line at Windsor, where they were stopped. A day or two later the factory wired to find out why the shipment had not gone forward, and the answer was that they were being held
for an appraiser who was coming from Washington, which was an absurd answer. Then, before the coats could be sent forward, a duty of approximately ninety per cent was applied against them and of course they had to be returned to the factory. That is the way the government of the United States protects their factory employees, and this is the reason our young men go to the United States and remain there. We send our money there; we send our raw forest products there; we send our virile young people there, and apparently that is all they want. We buy our finished products from them, but you travel through the United States and see what manufactured goods from Canada you can buy there.
I can quite understand the viewpoint of hon. members to my left; they are men engaged in agriculture, which is an industry upon which national prosperity is based, an industry which has its roots in the soil, the surest foundation. I can quite understand these hon. members holding some modified ideas with regard to free trade; if we were to put into force a policy which would result in our buying goods manufactured in Canada we would find that for the present these manufactured goods would come largely from. Ontario and Quebec. Rut, sir, with cheap power in Winnipeg and Calgary and with power available through the development of the coal regions near Regina there is no reason why the three western provinces should not become great manufacturing provinces as well. Let us try that policy; let us do what the Americans are doing. They have succeeded by it and France is making rapid progress under a similar policy.
During the budget speech we had some indication that some action might be taken as the result of a pronouncement which might be made by Mr. Hoover. Why consider Mr. Hoover? We are not children; let us show a little initiative. If we are to be a nation let us be one. Mr. Hoover and his congress have a right to do as they see fit and we have no right to criticize them. So far we have simply been hewers of wood and drawers of water for the United States, and they consider us weird, credulous people, narrow in the forehead and broad in the back. That is how the Canadian is regarded by American business man at present. What do we care what Mr. Hoover does? Let the United States pursue their own course, but let us do the same thing. I do not know of any reason why we should not go right ahead at present; we have been hampered and our farmers have been handicapped by the Fordney-McCumber tariff.
The Hudget-Mr. Dickie
[Stage Direction]
One would think from the announcements m the press that Mr. Hoover is going to protect the farmers of the United States and that in the past these farmers have not been protected; but as the hon. member for Fort William pointed out this afternoon, the farmers of the United States have been receiving protection equal to that afforded by any country in the world. They are protected by a duty of twelve cents a pound on butter, eight cents a dozen on eggs, five cents a pound on cheese and twenty cents a gallon on cream. I could go on for half an hour reciting the duties imposed against agricultural products entering the United States; even our wheat enters that country under a duty of forty-two cents per bushel, and what becomes of it then? It is made into flour and sold in competition with our flour in Cuba and other places which at present will not buy flour made from the soft wheat of the United States, and if that wheat is ground into flour and shipped back into Canada they receive a rebate of 99 per cent of the duty. They say to their people in plain language, "You shall not eat bread and cake made from Canadian flour, but if the Canadians are simple enough to let their wheat come here in order to enable us to improve the quality of our flour, then we will gladly let it come." I do not know what we should do about it; if it were up to me, I might be rash, but I would put an export duty on wheat going into the United States equal to the import duty of that country. I would say to them, "If you will not use the flour made from our wheat, you can not have it to defeat us in the markets of the world."
Mr. EVANS:: Would you put an export
duty on British Columbia lumber?


Mr. DICKIE:: I do not think I would do that.


John Evans: Why not?


Charles Herbert Dickie: Because there is no fifty
per cent duty on lumber going into United States. We hear the fear expressed that Mr. Hoover is going to do something. Why wait to see what he will do? To do that would be right in line with what this government has been doing during the long years I have been coming to Ottawa. It reminds me of that old quotation: "I am of all sects, but blindly sworn to none; for where the tempest drives I shape my way." This government has been shaping its way and trimming its sails for passing breezes instead of coming out with a strong, courageous policy and doing something which Canada wants it to do. The govern-

ment has men of great ability, and if it would take a strong stand for a protective tariff which would keep the money in this country and make it prosperous, the name of that government would go down into history. As it
is,	it will not endure with the policy it has to-day. Supposing the special session which has been called by Mr. Hoover places a higher duty on our products going into the United States, as will probably be the case, there would be strong opposition in this country and the government would be forced to take some action. What will be said of a government that is forced into any action? Why not get out now and get some credit? France is doing
it,	Belgium is doing it and the United States is doing it, and a million of our people have crossed the line. We are right at the apex of our prosperity at the present .time and we should take advantage of it. Why not make this country what it was designed to be by a munificient Providence? It can be done with very little trouble.
While you are protecting the farmers you are also protecting the manufacturers and others. I see no reason why a manufacturer who is protected by a high tariff should take advantage of that fact and charge too much for his goods. He should be allowed to make a good profit, sufficient to pay his employees as good or better wages than are paid any place else on the American continent. The manufacturers should not be allowed to profiteer and the books of any company should be subject to examination in order that we could extract from them, through an excise tax or in some other way, any money they had received through profiteering. We could go even further than the Americans have gone. They never consider whether a manufacturer is going to profiteer or not when they put a duty on articles coming in from Canada or the rest of the world. The greatest profiteer in the world to-day is Henry Ford, but have you ever heard one word against that gentleman on the American side? Certainly not. He gives employment to an army of people who are able to pay good prices for what they require, and that means good business all along the line. I would stop what they call cutting of melons. Let them make a liberal profit on the money invested and beyond that I would say:	Thou shalt not go. By doing
that we could build up mass production in Canada and have our factories running full time. We could sell in Canada just as cheaply as they sell in the United States. That great country to the south of us has 120,000,000 people as a market for the products of their manufactures and industries. We in Canada

The Budget-Mr. Dickie
are struggling along with about 9,000,000 and we divide our market with the United States. What chance is there for mass production in Canada? Absolutely none. The Americans have got the right angle on this question, and they have pursued that course for years. They have made that country a wealthy nation. They may have carried it a little to extremes, and I do not deny that protection carried to its ultimate conclusion perhaps is not for the best. I know of no reason why such a country as Canada is to-day would not succeed if we had a tariff similar to the one across the line. We have a wonderful agricultural country and it would be a foolhardy man who would even hazard a guess as to the mineral possibilites of that great pre-cambrian shield which runs through northern Ontario, Saskatchewan and up to the Bering sea.
We are exhausting our great forests all too rapidly. We are doing that too recklessly in British Columbia by not making the lumbermen clear up the floor of the forest after they log it off. This would prevent the terrible holocausts which sweep through the country when everything becomes as dry as tinder in the summer time. I understand they have the same difficulty in northern Ontario. We should make the lumbermen clean up and thus eliminate that danger. Reports have been sent out that there is no danger of using up the pulpwood in Canada for all time to come. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has expressed himself as being against that belief, and I thoroughly agree with him. If you want to find the real forests of today, where do you have to go? Right back to the headwaters of the rivers. If you would go up the Gatineau river among the Gatineau lakes, as I did last year, and climb a high hill, what would you see? You would see light green trees, poplar and birch, and perhaps once in a while a sombre pine rearing its head above the broad-leaved trees. There is no sign at all of a new forest growing. That is the trouble with this country; we have allowed the broad-leaved trees to spring up in the place of those wonderful fir trees which we had. Last year we exported 1,500,000 cords of pulpwood, or about one-quarter of the puplwood manufactured in Canada. I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to the exportation of poplar pulpwood, as that tree is one that grows very quickly. Many farmers are able to go out' and cut these trees and ship the wood at some small profit. But the poplar tree is not to be compared with the black spruce so far as pulpwood purposes are concerned. If you went over to Hull I think you would find that the average age of the black spruce trees which had been cut for pulpwood would
run from sixty to seventy-five years. For the sake of argument let us assume that the 1,500,000 cords of pulpwood exported last year was all black spruce. I know it was not, but I want to use that as an argument. The black spruce areas of northern Ontario and Quebec average about six and one-half cords of pulpwood per acre. One million five hundred thousand cords would mean 360 square miles. Is that lumber going to be reproduced fast enough to keep up the supply of pulpwood? Not a chance in the world. People will say: the farmers will suffer. How many farmers will suffer? Take every bona fide farmer who is cutting spruce pulpwood to hew himself a home out of the forest; you can keep him in the Chateau Laurier and make millions and millions of dollars for Canada. The people who are crying out for the exportation of pulpwood are companies that are making a great deal of money by exporting it. I have heard more than one American say that if that pulpwood did not go across the line, they would manufacture it into paper in Canada. Our pulp and paper people have been too ambitious. They have reached out a little too far, and just at present the industry is running to perhaps only seventy per cent of its capacity. If you kept that million or million and a half cords of pulpwood in Canada, those mills would run full time and pay better wages than, I am sorry to say, they are paying to-day. They could pay better values for the pulpwood they buy from the farmer, and we could keep $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 in Canada instead of sending our people across the line to participate in the prosperity that results there because we are sending our raw material to that country to be manufactured.
I do not know that I have any more to say in this debate. After such brilliant speakers as our house leader (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) got through, they have pretty well picked all the meat from the bones; the bones are thrown back to us and the best we can do is to look them over for the little meat that may be left on them and growl. I have endeavoured in a few words to show the house how I think we can do something for this Canada of ours, a country of which I am sure we are all proud.


Mr. H. E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec-Mont-morency):: My first words in the debate will be to congratulate the Hon. Mr. Lemieux, Speaker of the house, upon the great success he achieved in Europe again this year, especially at La Sorbonne -Where he delivered a series of lectures. He did honour to this house, to Canada and principally to his race. We are proud of his achievements.
The Budget-Mr. Lavigueur

This year we have in the house four new members, two on each side, who have replaced four very prominent former members. There is the hon. member for West Lam'bton (Mr. Gray) who has replaced the late Mr. Goodison; also the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland) who has replaced Mr. Denis who has accepted a judgeship. The hon. member for Joliette is a bright young man who, I am sure, will be a great success in parliament. I take much pleasure in tendering my congratulations to the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Plunkett) who has replaced the distinguished ex-Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Tolmie; also to the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) who has replaced Sir Henry Drayton.
I wish to express my deep regret for the incident that occurred in the provincial legislature in the city of Quebec when an attempt was made upon the life of the Hon. Mr. Taschereau.


Mr. POULIOT:: No one takes it seriously.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: We do.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is the only one who does.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Probably my hon. friend is the only one who does not take it seriously.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a great joke in Quebec.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The people of Quebec are entirely sympathetic and regret the incident. We are proud and happy that Mr. Taschereau's life was saved for the good of the province. The Hon. Mr. Taschereau is the best premier that Quebec has ever had and he is so recognized, not only in Quebec but throughout the Dominion generally. We all hope that the Hon. Mr. Taschereau will be able to retain the premiership for many years to come for the good of the province.
I take much pleasure in again congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) upon the splendid budget he has brought down. I wish also to congratulate the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), the hon. member for Fort. William (Mr. Manion) and others upon the brilliant speeches they have delivered upon the budget. Of course they have a very hard case to deal with, and I do not believe their arguments will convince the people of Canada that the present budget is not a good one.
Since 192:1 the situation in Canada has improved greatly, principally since 1923, the public debt having decreased to the extent of $226,000,000. The net debt of Canada to-

day is $2,227,068,000. That is admitted by both sides of the house. The Minister of Finance, to the great joy of our people, has announced a surplus of $69,782,000, with a reduction in taxation of $26,000,000. I heard the hon. member for Fort William say to the house to-day that the reduction in the sales tax would not help very much; that it would mean only one dollar on a purchase of $100. That is so, but if you take the case of a farmer who buys $700 or $800 worth of agricultural implements and who spends for the upkeep of his family a like amount, or, say, $1,500 altogether, this reduction in the sales tax means a saving to him annually of $15. The reduction in the sales tax which the Finance minister has proposed in this budget will mean a great deal to every labourer, every farmer, and every citizen in this country. There has also been a substantial decrease in general taxation, by which all of our citizens will benefit. It has been stated that this has been, made possible by the increased trade and the greater prosperity of the country. We all rejoice at this prosperity, but if we have prosperity in our country it is due to, the good administration of this government. There is more confidence to-day in the public mind and in our commercial and industrial life. The people know that this government is giving them honest administration, and that the enormous debt of the country is being diminished year by year. As long as we have this government, and a man at the head of our finances like the Hon. Mr. Robb, the people of this country may rest assured that their affairs are in good hands. Another important fact which the minister mentioned was that we had a favourable balance of trade amounting to $154,000,000.
A great deal has been said about immigration. My hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) who has just taken his seat, had something to say on this question. I cannot endorse absolutely all that he said, but undoubtedly there is a good deal in what he said about immigration. We must bring people to Canada who will help us to build up this country and pay off our enormous burden of debt. On the other hand, we should do everything possible to keep our own young people in this country. With that end in view, this government last year provided for grants to the provinces for repatriating our Canadians who are now resident in the United States, the grant being $50,000 to every province that would contribute a like amount. The government started with that amount as an experiment, and I am glad to say that in the province of Quebec, which contributed $50,000

The Budget-Mr. Lavigueur
for this purpose, this movement has proved a success, like everything else which is done by the government of the province of Quebec.
I saw by the reports of the Minister of Colonization of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Perrault, .that 651 Canadian families had been brought back to the province of Quebec on the sum of $100,000 jointly contributed by the federal government and the province. If 651 families oan be brought back with an expenditure of $100,000, if the federal government would vote $100,000 instead of $50,000, and the other provinces would follow the example of Quebec, I think we would succeed in bringing back to this country from the United States many, many more of our citizens, and it would be a splendid achievement. I hope that the government and the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), who is,
I believe, doing his utmost for the benefit of this country, will take my suggestion into consideration and that a larger grant will be made for this purpose this year.
I notice that according to the estimates a large amount of money is to be expended this year on public works which are urgently required in the different provinces, yet in spite of that we shall have a large surplus. The acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) took exception to the large amount of money that was to be expended in the county of North Bruce, represented in this house by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), so it is obvious that if we have a large surplus it is not due to the fact that the government is not spending money on works that are urgently required. All necessary works are going forward; we have a large surplus, the debt of this country is being dim-inshed year by year, and the Finance minister has announced that he will have enough money on hand to pay off the $60,000,000 loan coming due in August next, as well as other liabilities. So I think every citizen in Canada can have confidence and rejoice in the splendid showing which the Finance minister has made.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I purpose to deal with the subject of old age pensions. Some of the provinces, including Quebec, did not take advantage of the old age pension legislation passed last session. In my province we have several institutions that look after the aged poor, and under the laws of the province the provincial government contributes to the upkeep of these institutions. Moreover, the people of the province are accustomed to taking care of their old folks. This probably prompted Premier Taschereau, who is a statesman of large vision, not to take advantage of
the federal statute. I am in favour of old age pensions, and I would suggest that where a province does not pass the necessary legislation to implement the federal statute a special grant should be made to such province to assist it in looking after its aged poor, such grant to be distributed by the province in whatever manner they may see fit. I trust this suggestion will also be taken into consideration by the government.
In view of the prosperous condition of Canada as set forth by the Minister of Finance in his budget statement, I think it may be well for hon. members to bring to the attention of the government the urgent needs of their constituencies. On previous occasions I have called the attention of the government to the very unsatisfactory railway situation in the city of Quebec. Over thirty million dollars is being expended in the city of Toronto to provide terminal facilities, and I understand that if the report of Mr. Palmer dealing with the terminal situation in the city of Montreal is adopted it will involve an expenditure of a hundred million dollars. In the city of Quebec we are urgently in need of terminal facilities. The Canadian National Railways is forced to use the Canadian Pacific Railway station, with the result that passengers brought to the city by the Canadian National system go to the Chateau Frontenac and the Canadian Pacific get the advantage of the outgoing traffic. We have made sacrifices to secure a railway station, and I believe ours is the only city that has contributed an enormous sum of money in the hope of securing terminal facilities. But notwithstanding this heavy expenditure we are still without those long-promised facilities. Once more I appeal to the government to come to our assistance, I appeal also to the railway commission, and I invite Sir Henry Thornton to come to Quebec and investigate the situation. He has made such a notable success by his capable administration of the Canadian National Railway system that I am sure a personal investigation of the situation would convince him of the necessity of providing these long-promised terminal facilities.
On several occasions, Mr. Speaker, I have brought to the notice of this house the question of the minority stockholders of the Quebec and Lake St. John railway. Some years ago a group of business men in the city of Quebec with the help of some friends in London, England, built this railway. It now forms part of the Canadian National Railway system. The railway is seven hundred miles long and runs through the lake St. John, Chi-
The Budget-Mr. Lnvigueur


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Then my time having expired, sir, I will take up the subject again on another occasion.


Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) I find myself in complete accord. In his thrilling speech yesterday afternoon he referred to industry after industry in ihis country which is suffering from the lack of that interest and care which it is within the power of the Dominion government to grant the industries of Canada.
My hon. friend referred to one industry in particular in which I take a deep interest; I refer to the fruit and vegetable growing industry which one finds scattered all over Canada and than which there is no finer section than the constituency of Yale, which I have the honour to represent. We are able to come to parliament this year with the experience of another shipping season and to lay before the government the difficulties as we see them, and which we consider have grown worse during the past season. I speak particularly of that part of British Columbia which lies between the Alberta boundary on the east and the line of the Fraser where it inns south to the town of Yale. Much the greater part of the products of that area come from the constituency of Yale, and last year there was an abundant crop. In order to give some idea of that crop, with the permission of the house I propose to place a few figures on Hansard. For instance, the total number of carloads of apples shipped during the last shipping season was 5,803, as compared with a total based on the average for the last four years of 4.956. The total carloads of all fruits for 1928 was 6,947, as compared with an average for four
years of 5,955; the total carloads of vegetables for 1928 was 2,248, as compared with an average total for the last four years of 2,670. It will be seen from these figures that there was a very considerable increase in the fruit shipped from that area, almost the entire increase being in apples, while there was a comparatively small falling off in vegetables.
In examining the problems with which we are faced-because in common with all industries in this country we have problems peculiar to our industry-we may look upon them as being divided into three main classes, as follows: the problems the solution of which is in the hands of the producers alone; the problems which the producers must take to their provincial governments for assistance, and those problems which the producers would wish to discuss with the Dominion government. By itself the solution of any one of these problems will not put the industry on its feet. I do not maintain, for instance, and the prdoucers in my constituency do not maintain, that if the government should suddenly change its views and correct the de-ficiences which we consider exist in connection with our tariff, all would be well, but we do maintain that it would be a step in that direction and that our other problems might be made easier of solution. The problems which are peculiarly in the hands of the growers are the producing, harvesting and packing of the fruit or vegetables and the removal of dissension within the ranks of the producers themselves, because it is only by maintaining perfect cooperation among the producers that we can hope for success. The problems for which we turn to the provincial government for assistance include irrigation, and it must not be forgotten that throughout that great area practically all the fruits and vegetables are produced under irrigation with its attendant cost; in addition to that there are the marketing difficulties which are affected in one way or another by provincial legislation. In the third category come those problems connected with the Dominion government such as the fruit act, the assistance which we do obtain and may still obtain from the Dominion experimental farm, and last of all the Canadian tariff. It would not be proper in this place to discuss the problems coming within the first two classes, but it is proper to discuss those matters for which we turn to the Dominion government for assistance.
So, Mr. Speaker, with regard to tne fruit act let me point out that it is entirely desirable that the production and marketing of fruit should be governed in all the provinces by a Dominion fruit act; it is entirely desirable that the fruit should be graded and that there
The Budget-Mr. Stirling

should be clauses within that act for the purpose of safeguarding the consumer. But there is one change for which the producers in Canada are looking in the fruit act. They believe that the grades of apples should be removed from the act itself and taken care of in the regulations under the act. For instance, why should apples be singled out from all the other fruits and have their grades almost unalterably fixed in the act? This is not the case with regard to other fruits, nor is it the case with regard to vegetables, eggs, seeds, butter or cheese; in all these cases the grades are fixed by means of regulations put into effect by the minister, which grades may be changed after due consultation with the industry. The reason why I want a change in that respect is this: In my short experience in parliament occasions have arisen when the government has not seen fit to introduce legislation affecting the fruit act for the purposes of amendment; the exigencies of the political situation have been such as to make it inadvisable to bring up a certain act for amendment. At the same time, however, there being fashions in marketing as in other things, it has become desirable that a change should take place. The minister has the opportunity of consulting the industry; he has the opportunity of taking it up with that parliament of horticulturists which he brought into existence in Ottawa, the Canadian Horticultural Council, on which all branches of the industry are represented. It does not seem to me that the industry suffers any danger through leaving the regulating of grades in the hands of the minister.
Another matter which should be considered in this house is the question of the tariff. A great deal was said last year about the tariff on fruits and vegetables, and I desire to report what has happened in my own particular part of the country in that regard. We had a bountiful crop and we ascertained quite early that there was also a bountiful crop on the other side of the line. We also discovered that it was the full intention of the Washington growers to dispose of their lower grade fruit in our market. With the unwillingness of the government to give us any assistance under what has been nicknamed the dump clause, it looked as though we were in a powerless position. It was not possible to take the matter up any further with the Dominion government, and we therefore consulted among ourselves. An important meeting was held in the city of Vernon, which was attended by the representatives of the fruit and vegetable growers from this great area. It was decided at that meeting that a delegation should be sent to the prairie provinces

to consult with those in those provinces who had been opposed to our ideas on the subject of a tariff on fruits and vegetables, and see whether it would be possible to iron out our differences. Before going into the doings of that delegation, I might refer for a moment to the report of the markets commissioner in the city of Calgary, who acts as a lookout for the fruit markets in the three prairie provinces. The following are one or two extracts from his report:
It was early seen that United States importers had set their minds determinedly upon exploiting Canadian markets as the most profitable field to dump their glut surpluses in. Strawberries from Missouri in car lots were sent as far west as Calgary and Edmonton. Saskatchewan and Manitoba were canvassed and supplied with the cheapest berries of the year from Missouri and for the first time much of the preserving done by prairie housewives was done from fruit imported from the United States two weeks before British Columbia produce was ready to roll.
In_ all, ninety-seven cars of American strawberries were consumed on the prairie markets and only about eighty cars of British Columbia berries were consumed there. Most of these berries arrived at prairie points within two weeks of the advent of British Columbia stuff. This same condition was found in cherries, plums, prunes, peaches, apricots, pears and even apples.
And then again:
Prunes, peaches, grapes and potatoes have been quoted at prices far below the home cost of production and supplied to Canadian markets. The dump duty could not be invoked because glut conditions in the United States compelled the shippers to quote ruinously low prices on their home market and it could not be proved that prices quoted in Canada were less than the glut price on their home markets.
From that report it will be seen that we were at a decided disadvantage in marketing within Canada the fruits grown in Canada. We consider we should have ample facilities for selling to Canadian consumers. The situation in Washington is that they desire to sell their high grade products in their own city markets, but they want to save those city markets from the competition of their own lower grade stuff, and so they search for another outlet. They discover that Canada is improperly and imperfectly protected by a tariff fence, and they say: Into Canada let the surplus go. It is against that practice that we complain, and we suggest that it is only a reasonable request to make that the Dominion authorities grant us some form of protection against glut surpluses. We suggest that it might be a good thing to try to forget that word " dump." Many battles have been fought to decide whether or not we hold to that clause, but we suggest that it is not

The Budget-Mr. Stirling
beyond the wit of the advisers of the government to devise some clause which, if put into operation, would protect us from that surplus of glut fruit. Those in the United States who have considerable quantities of such fruit at their disposal are naturally desirous of interesting Canadian brokers in its sale, and they use many methods to advertise their goods. I have before me a bulletin which was sent out by a certain firm of brokers in the state of Washington, in which they describe the goods at their disposal. I will read an extract or two from this bulletin:
The apples which we shall describe hereunder are now packed and in the warehouse. The management did not realize that it would probably be impossible to sell these apples but in the meantime they have their packing costs invested and would like to sell all of the descriptions shown hereunder at the best obtainable prices.
But they did not want to sell them on their own American markets. Those three states produce about- seven- times as much as we do under irrigated conditions in British Columbia. They market that seven-fold crop to a population twelve times as large as that of Canada, and we say that if they cannot dispose of their surpluses without hurting their own markets then they should not be permitted to send them into Canada to hurt ours. Another extract from this circular reads as follows:
You will note that I have placed no prices on these descriptions and bearing in mind that every penny over and above packing costs means help to these growers, I therefore want you to tackle this proposition and help us sell these few cars.
The bulletin continues with a description of the fruit:
The indentations are not severe; most of the apples carry a beautiful blush; here and there will be found an apple or two that is badly hail-marked, but taking them as a whole, these cookers or hail-marked Bananas are not bad.
And then again:
This personal letter to you is to find that market. It is up to each one of you receiving this bulletin.	*
The bulletin concludes with the following:
Please don't read this bulletin and say to yourself "It can't be done." If you have the will to do and the sympathy in your heart to help someone wrho is rather in a bad situation it can be done. Now it is up to you. Let me hear from you by wire.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: If I may interrupt, would my hon. friend give the name of the writer of that letter?


Grote Stirling: In reply to the Minister of National Health, I would be entirely pleased to show him the letter, but as it was given 78594-52
to me as a letter which had been received in the trade and it was considered inadvisable to publish the name, I would prefer not to do
so.


John Warwick King: I must take exception to that. This is the second time I have heard that letter read.


Hugh Guthrie: I rise to a point of order.


John Warwick King: The name of the writer should be given.


Hugh Guthrie: Order.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is entitled to give the name of the writer.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Do I understand that the bon. gentleman is rising to a point of order?


Hugh Guthrie: My point of order is
that the minister must not interrupt. It is a very simple one.


John Warwick King: I will rise to a
point of order. Documents cannot be read in the house promiscuously. The name of the writer of a document should be given and the document produced.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not a rule of
the house.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: It is a
new rule.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
should at least table the document.


Mr. STEVENS:: That is childish.


Mr. GEARY:: Why is the minister so much afraid of it?


John Warwick King: I am not afraid of it at, all. This thing has been bandied about the country too much and nobody will come out and tell the name of the writer.


Grote Stirling: I am sorry I have inadvertently hurt the feelings of the Minister of National Health-


John Warwick King: Not at all.


Grote Stirling: -because almost my next remark was going to be an expression of some gratitude to the Minister of National Health for having oome into the fruit growing area last year and consulted with the industry, holding conferences at Penticton, Kelowna and Vernon for the purpose, as he said, of informing himself on the subject and being

The Budget-Mr. Stirling

helpful. His visit there was entirely appreciated by the industry, and it was earnestly hoped that a further discussion of these difficulties by him with his colleagues might produce some results.
I referred just now to the visit of the delegation to the prairies. They also received the blessing of the Minister of National Health. He thought it was an excellent thing that we should endeavour to get away from the word "dumping". He thought it was a most satisfactory suggestion that our own growers and producers should go into the prairies and discuss with the farmers' organizations there the difficulties which existed. That delegation went to Winnipeg and the first farmers' organization that they met was the United Farmers of Manitoba-the diminishing remnant of undiluted free trade in the prairies. The delegation listened with considerable interest to speeches on the subject of undiluted free trade, and the United Farmers of Manitoba went so far as to endeavour to convert our producers to a campaign in favour of free trade in this country. Therefore we made little progress, for our representatives were not converted.
They received happier treatment at the hands of the Manitoba Cooperative Poultry Market Association and the Winnipeg District Vegetable Growers' Association. That is not to be wondered at, because both of those associations are suffering to some extent from the same trouble which afflicts us. They also met representatives of the Manitoba wheat pool and were received most courteously. I think it might almost be said that those gentlemen were prepared to adopt a position of friendly neutrality. Before leaving Winnipeg they had an opportunity of meeting men in the board of trade, the United Grain Growers, the Grain Growers Grain Company and the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, with all of whom they discussed the situation. With all of them they were able to an extent to explain differences of opinion and to meet criticism and what were supposed to be helpful suggestions for ameliorating the situation by exposing the difficulties that those suggestions, if carried out, might create.
From there they went on to Saskatchewan, and in Regina they met the representatives of the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the cooperative creameries. They met also the leading men in that province. Coming nearer home, at Calgary they had a most gratifying reception from the board of trade and there again they met men of prominence among the Alberta farmers. The interviews with individuals were of course not public, and it

would not be proper for me to disclose what took place. But I may say that the delegation came back from that visit to the prairies thoroughly pleased with their reception and also surprised that in the three prairie provinces, where free trade is supposed to reign, the proposition which the producers put forward was received with favour in certain places, and at least with interest in others, making them think that possibly the time has come in Canada when there may be a coming together of interests on this matter, when it will no more be necessary for the government of the day to rely too strenuously on utter, out-and-out free trade if they desire to retain power.
It is noticeable in that regard that about the time of the meeting in Vernon, the Winnipeg Free Press published an editorial which contained these two passages. It started by referring to the vigorous demands that are being made by the fruit growers of British Columbia and Ontario for protection against dumping, and ft continues:
The dumping provision is regarded by public opinion as proper; and its enforcement during the summer season against consignments of the United States surplus entered for consumption at less than cost price, would meet with no opposition from the fruit-consuming Canadian public.
Later on:
It is claimed that the dumping machinery in the Customs Act cannot be made to work in the case of so perishable a commodity as fruit.
It surely ought not, however, to be beyond the capacity of our lawmakers to make provision by which the full advantage of the statutory enactment against dumping should accrue to our fruit growers. Inquiry and experiment along these lines might bring results advantageous to the fruit growers.
Of course the editorial goes on to condemn utterly any widening of protection or misuse of protection, but the very fact that these two sentences appear in an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press was taken by us to mean that there was a little more kindliness of heart being shown in the prairies to our point of view.
Let me attempt in a very few words to put forward w-hat it is the producer of fruit and vegetables is actually asking for. To begin with, he suggests that we forget the word "dumping." In the second place, he suggests that we shall be protected against the importation of the surplus products of another country. He is ready to admit that the machinery which has been made use of in the past has not always been wisely made use of, but he suggests that it is reasonable for the producer to bring this difficulty before the Dominion government and ask for a

Beauharnois Power Project
solution. In the words of one who years ago was an occupant of the House of Commons press gallery, writing in the Manitoba Free Press:
What the growers and allied interests requested at the recent tariff conference at Vernon was for some fair price-fixing regulation for purposes of importation in glut periods that would prevent glut conditions on Canadian markets, and prevent prices dropping to the point where the producer cannot get his cost of production and a reasonable margin of profit on his operations.
The one and only reason why the Canadian markets were not flooded in this last season by "C" grade apples from the Pacific states was just this: When our peak of production was approaching, we became aware of the fact that it was the intention of the United States to ship in this glut surplus, and it was therefore necessary for our shippers to make up their minds whether they would allow that stuff to come in, or whether they would shave the price, and keep on cutting, until it was inadvisable for the foreign shipper to come in. They decided to shave the price, with the obvious result that on the average, I think I am correct in saying, the apple producer at least in the interior of British Columbia will finish his operations with a debit balance on his books. That, Mr. Speaker, cannot go on indefinitely.
This is the fifth time that I have had the privilege in this house of endeavouring to lay the fruit growers' burdens before the government, and in each one of those years I have pointed out that this industry is sick. It is little better to-day than it was five years ago, and if this condition is allowed to continue much longer, we shall find that whole areas in Canada will go out of the production of fruit. And if that happens, when there is no Canadian fruit to give competition to the fruit of another country, the consumer in Canada will receive fruit from that other country just as it suits those shippers to send them in and at the price that the shippers choose to charge. The consumer in this country will be at their mercy. It is not only the fruit grower himself who will suffer. There is probably some $40,000,000 invested in the fruit and vegetable industry in the valleys surrounding the Okanagan, and besides that, there are all the other walks of life connected with the industry in that neighbourhood. The storekeeper will suffer, and so will the professional man, and if the fruit industry goes down, we shall have that sorry spectacle of another little piece of Canada neglected. It surely does not pass the wit of this government, if they have the will to take up this 78594-521
matter, to solve the problem once for all, for I would once more emphasize that the present condition cannot continue much longer. If we can have the Canadian market, we can satisfy the Canadian consumer, but if in the selling of our produce in the Canadian market we are to be met by the produce of another country, there can be only one result.
On motion of Mr. Fansher (Last Mountain) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Robb the house adjourned at 9.45 p.m.
Monday, March 11, 1929