1929-04-08

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PASSES

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How many annual or trip passes were issued by the Canadian National Railways and the Department of Rail-ways and Canals to other than employees of the Canadian National Railways, other railways' employees, senators, members of the House of Commons and their families, excluding all passes legally issued to government employees, during the year 1928?
2.	To whom were passes issued?
3.	What was the occupation of those to whom passes were issued?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	No annual or trip passes are issued by the Canadian National Railways, or the Department of Railways and Canals, other than those permitted by section 345 of the Railway Act; section 31, subsection 4, of the Immigration Act and section 70, subsection 3, of the Customs Act.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
Note.-The law in respect to passes applies equally to all Canadian railways and any discretion in the application of the general statute rests with the Board of Railway Commissioners under the Railway Act, and not with any railway, or department of the government.
The Act provides that records be kept of all free or reduced rate transportation and quarterly returns of all passes issued are made to the Board of Railway Commissioners, whose duty it is to examine such returns with a view to seeing that the law is observed. In addition, representatives of the board visit regional and district headquarters of all railways and make an annual audit of the stubs of all passes issued.


Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Is there a reduced rate of railway fares on the Canadian National Railways for civil servants or is such reduced rate or pass confined only to deputy ministers?
2.	What are the names and present salaries of officials enjoying rank of deputy minister who have benefited by such reduced fare or pass, and what is the amount in money of such special benefit in each case?
Questions

3.	How many heads of families in the department of the deputy ministers referred to in question 2, receive a salary of less than $100 per month?


Mr. DUNNING:: With reference to this
question, there appears to be an impression in the mind of the hon. member that with regard to railway transportation there is some difference as between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific and other railways in Canada. I should like to make it quite clear that there is no such difference; all railways in Canada coming under the jurisdiction of the Railway Act are responsible to the railway commission with respect to transportation. In this respect the Canadian National Railways do not differ in the slightest degree from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I submit that it is rather objectionable to ask for information with respect to one of the railway companies under the jurisdiction of a common tribunal. It would appear to convey the idea that something is being done by one of these companies which is not according to the law.
With respect to the question generally, it will involve a very great deal of work; it might be required to stand as an order for return, but perhaps the hon. member would desire to give consideration to what I have said and let the question stand in the meantime.


Mr. SPENCER:: In view of the explanation given by the minister I will be very glad to drop this question for the time being.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Dropped.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES

Mr. PRICE:: 1.	What amount has been paid for injury received in the service by the compensation board of New Brunswick to Canadian National Railways' employees during the past fiscal year ending March 31, 1928?
2.	Under what conditions are claims awarded by the compensation board withheld from Canadian National Railways' employees?
3.	Are skilled mechanics required to accept unskilled employment when the award of the compensation board is above a certain amount? If so, what is the amount?
^ 4. Did the management of the Canadian National Railways mechanical department at Moncton instruct certain mechanics that their acceptance of awards allowed by the compensation board for injury would require them to revert to labourers' employment and pay?
5. Is the department aware that Fidele LeBlanc and Philbert Girouard, machinists in 
the employ of the Canadian National Railways at Moncton, who were awarded $1,245 and $1,250 respectively, have been informed that compensation in accordance with the findings of the board will be allowed them, only upon their agreement to accept unskilled labourers' employment with reduced pay during their future years of service?
6. What action, if any, will the department
take about,this matter?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.
Fatal cases, awards	S 21,122 04
Permanent partial	disability..	7,049	27Temporary total	disability..	33,433	83Hospital surgical and medical fees	
3,141	55Total	$ 64,746 692.	None are withheld.3.	No. A man's employment after injury depends entirely upon his capacity to perform.4.	No.5.	With reference to LeBlanc, this man was injured on June 16, 1921, .through having his left hand caught between two driving wheels, resulting in the loss of his thumb and first finger and permanent injury to his second finger. In October, 1921, the compensation board awarded him $1,237.50, payable in monthly instalments of $20 each. Upon his return to work his immediate foreman was of the opinion that by reason of the injury received his ability and efficiency had been reduced 20 per cent and instructions were issued to demote him from the position of stripper to a machinist's helper. LeBlanc made a strong plea that he. be permitted to retain his old position, stating that if this were done he would waive the award. This was agreed to and he was retained at his original work.
No award was made in the case of Philbert Girouard.
6.	All such matters are dealt with by the management and the -men, either personally, or through their organizations. Action by the department is, therefore, not necessary.



HOUSE OF COMMONS-OFFICE CLEANERS

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How many women who are office cleaners at the House of Commons are widows?
2.	What are the working hours of these women?
3.	Are they allowed any wages in time of sickness? If so, bow much?
4.	What is the monthly wage?

Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	46.
2.	6.30 a.m. to 8.45 a.m.
3.	Yes, if doctor's certificate is supplied. Up to 4 days.
4.	SI.25 per diem.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

Mr. LUCHKO VICH:: 1.	How many members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who belong to the mounted service proper, apart from the nonmounted service, formerly known as the Dominion Police, are stationed east of Port Arthur, Ontario?
2.	How many horses for this service are maintained east of Port Arthur?
3.	What was the total cost for the year
1927-28:	(a) for mounted men, as to salary,
allowances or other charges; (b) for horses; (1) as to the total cost of horses; (2) as to the cost of equipment; (3) as to the cost of fodder; and (4) as to the cost of stabling?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The following are answers to the above questions, as far as I understand it:-
1.	There is no specially mounted service proper, but there are 173 members of the R.C.M. police stationed east of Port Arthur, exclusive of "A" division, Ottawa, formerly known as the Dominion Police.
2.	31.
3.	"a". As stated in No. 1, there is no specially mounted service east of Port Arthur. All are taught to ride, and do so when required on duty in the public interest.
"b". $5,478.07.
1.	Answered by "b" above.
2.	$844.57.
3.	$3,571.
4.	Nil.



BEAUHARNOIS LIGHT HEAT AND POWER COMPANY

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who are the directors of the Beauharnois Light. Heat & Power Company?
2.	What security has the government secured as to the performance of their contract in permit issued under the Navigable Waters Act or as to bona tides of this company?
3.	What consideration has been given the government for permit issued?
4.	Who is to indemnify any navigation interests for any damage sustained as a result of said works sanctioned of this company?
5.	Who is to settle for any damages accruing to the Cedar Rapids Company, the Soulanges Power Company, Canadian Light, Heat & Power Company, or others with vested rights infringed on by this permit?
6.	Have any protests as yet been received by the government from either the United States government or the government of the state of New York, as to claiming damages for breaches of the Washington treaty or Boundary Waterways treaty by the granting of this permit?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	No information.
2,	3, 4 and 5. The usual statutory requirements have been observed and the site and plans have been approved subject to conditions set out in the order in council tabled. Agreement covering conditions contained in order-in council has not yet been executed.
6.	No.
l'archeveque HARBOUR, NOVA SCOTIA


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to remove the over-casting left in the middle of L'Archeveque harbour, Nova Scotia, two or three years ago while dredging at that point?
2.	What was the total amount of money expended on dredging at this point in the years 1925, 1926 and 1927?
3.	Will the government bring down an itemized account showing the various individuals or firms to whom the above-mentioned money was paid ?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	No dredging 'has been done at L'Arche-veque on departmental account since 1924. No representations have been made concerning removal of material overcast in basin.
2.	Nil.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



CONFEDERATION BUILDING, OTTAWA

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	What department of the government undertakes the supervision of the construction of Confederation building, Wellington street, Ottawa, for which Lyall Company are the
contractors?
2.	What are the names of officials who have charge of this work for the department?
3.	If not supervised by any department, what are the names and addresses of supervisors, and what remuneration do they receive for this work?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Department of Public Works.
2.	This work is under the direction of the chief architect, T. W. Fuller.
3.	Messrs. Campbell & Shepherd, Northern Ontario Building, Toronto, are supervising and providing inspection services for this work as agents for the Department of Public Works at a commission of 2-} per cent.

Unopposed. Motions for Papers



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. LAPIERRE:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, requests and other documents received or sent by the government, relating to the construction of dams and other improvements on the French river in the province of Ontario.



ONTARIO MAIL SERVICES

Mr. ROSS (Kingston, for Mr. McGibbon):: For a copy of all correspondence between the Post Office Department and all other persons in connection with the following mail services:	Gravenhurst and Walkers' Point,
Hillside and Millar Hill, Huntsville and Seely, Huntsville and Hewholm, Kilworthy and Morrison Lake, Lancelot and Utterson, Bala and Sahanatien, Bear Cave and Rosseau, Brace-bridge and Fraserburg, Bracebridge and Ziska, Craigie Lee and Minett, Cragie Lee and Wharf.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. SIMPSON (For Mr. McGibbon):: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works in connection with all public works in Gravenhurst, Bracebridge, Huntsville, Sparrow Lake, Honey Harbour, during the past four years.



MUSKOKA-ONTARIO POSTMASTERSHIPS

Thomas Edward Simpson: For a copy of all correspondence between the Post Office Department, the Civil Service Commission, and any other person or persons, in connection with the dismissal of the postmasters it Rathburn, Uffiington, and Torrance. Also a copy of all similar correspondence and documents in connection with the filling of positions of postmasters at Utterson and Rosselair.



OLIVER, B.C., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. STIRLING:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams a'nd other documents in connection with the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Mr. D. P. Simpson, the postmaster at Oliver, British Columbia, and the subsequent examination held by the Civil Service Commission as a result of which J. K. Anderson was informed that he was the successful contestant, including all recommendations, reports, memoranda and communications passing between the Civil Service Commission and the Postmaster General and any of his staff.



CHAS. A. PINCOMBE

Mr. JONES:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, documents and other papers with regard to the dismissal 0f Charles A. Pincombe, of Connors, New Brunswick, from his position in the National Revenue department of the public service.



MOTOR AND PLEASURE BOATS

Thomas Edward Simpson: For a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Muskoka Lakes Association, or any other body in connection with taxing motorboats, canoes, etc., in the Muskoka lakes.



SIMCOE, ONT., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. GEARY (For Mr. Stewart, Leeds):: For a copy of all recommendations, memoranda, reports, or communications of the Civil Service Commission, in any way relating to the appointment of either George E. Whitaker or Charles R. Bowyer to the office of postmaster at Siineoe, Ontario.



REJECTIONS UNDER CIVIL SERVICE ACT

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a return showing the names of persons appointed by the Civil Service Commission who have been rejected under section 24 of the Civil Service Act, in each department, for the last three years, with reason for the rejection in each case.



ST. JOHN-QUEBEC RAILWAY

Mr. MacLAREN:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents whatsoever during the last twelve months between the government of the province of New Brunswick or any minister or official thereof, and the government of the Dominion of Canada or any minister or official thereof respecting the sale of the Saint Jolin-Quebec railway. (Valley railroad.)



PORT ARTHUR AND FORT WILLIAM PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. COWAN:: For a copy of all tenders, correspondence, and contracts, entered into by the government or any department thereof, in connection with the last contract for breakwater construction in the harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William.


Donald James Cowan: For a copy of all advertisements, tenders, correspondence, and contracts, entered into by the government or any department thereof, in connection with the dredging contracts in the harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William, during the year 1928.


Donald James Cowan: For a copy of all advertisements, tenders, correspondence, orders and contracts, in connection with the supply of coal for public buildings operated by the Dominion government in Port Arthur, during the year 1928.


Donald James Cowan: For a copy of all tenders, correspondence, and contracts entered into between the government and any person, firm, or corporation, in connection with the ice breaking contract in the public "harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William, during the year 1928.

Motions jor Papers



FRUIT AND VEGETABLE COMBINE

Mr. MANION (For Mr. Stevens):: For a return of all correspondence passing between F. A. McGregor, Registrar Combines Investigation Act, or any officer connected with the administering of the said act or any officer of the Labour department and Mr. Hugh Bell, secretary of the British Columbia Hothouse Products Co-operative Association, or any other firm or persons in British Columbia connected with an application for an investigation into an alleged combine among the fruit jobbing houses in the city of Vancouver, as set in the affidavit dated the 1st September, 1927, and signed by Wilfred Lawrence Dence, Frank Davies, A. C. Brown, James Gray Speller, Edward Brown and Hugh Bell, and an affidavit made by Hugh Bell dated the 1st day of September, 1927; and also a copy of the said affidavits together with a copy of the interim report of the said registrar, F. A. McGregor, or any officer attached to the Department of Labour, and all other documents concerning the above-mentioned matter furnished to the said registrar.


Hon. PETER IIEENAN (Minister of Labour):: Unless my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has some word from the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) to the contrary, I believe there was some understanding between the hon. member and some of my officers that this notice would be allowed to stand for some time.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I am not familiar with the
matter, but if that is so it might stand.


Peter Heenan: That is my information.
It might stand for the present.
Motion stands.



SUBSIDY TO NOVA SCOTIA

Edmond Antoine Lapierre: For a copy of all correspondence between the Honourable E. N. Rhodes, Premier of Nova" Scotia, or any other minister of the said province, and the Honourable J. A. Robb, Minister of Finance, from July 1, 1926, to September 30, 1928, relating to the payment of the annual federal subsidj; to the province of Nova Scotia; and the special grant, recommended by _ the Duncan commission to be paid to said province.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: The hon. gentleman in whose name this resolution stands is not now in his seat, but I might direct his attention and the attention of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to the fact that, unfortunately for the country, I was out of office from June 28, 1926, to September 25 of that year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The year mentioned is 1928.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, but I was out of office
during that period, and perhaps in fairness to my hon. friend the mover would like to amend the resolution in order to include us both.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The resolution refers to
the period from July 1, 1926, to September 30, 1928.


James Alexander Robb: But my hon. friend was the
Minister of Finance from about June 28 to September 25, 192G.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that the motion refers to whoever was Minister of Finance. That is too small an observation for the Minister of Finance of this country to make; it is entirely out of keeping with the dignity of the office, but it is quite what we might expect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Edward Joseph Garland: For a return showing the names, positions occupied and salaries received of all persons employed in the several departments of the public service without certificates from the Civil Service Commission during each of the past five years.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: There are many positions which are exempted from the Civil Service Act. Does the hon. member ask for a list of all persons who do not come under the act?


Edward Joseph Garland: I did not
have reference to such positions as labourers, charwomen, or anything of that kind, but rather to those positions which may have been filled outside of the service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are men employed at the Hudson bay as day labourers and who do not come under the Civil Service Commission; would the hon. member include those?


Edward Joseph Garland: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just what
would the hon. member include?


Edward Joseph Garland: Positions in the diplomatic service, secretarial work, and positions in the income tax department and Department of National Defence.

The I'm Alone Incident


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the
hon. member would amend this resolution, or leave it to the discretion of the government.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
ask that the motion stand for the time being.
Motion stands.



INCOME TAX ACT-REFUNDS

Edward Joseph Garland: moved:
For a return showing:
1.	The names of persons to whom refunds of not less than $500, under the Income Tax Act, have been made in the past five years, and the amount of such refund in each case.
2.	The names of all persons or corporations in arrears or default of income tax, during each of the past five years, and the amount involved in each case.


James Alexander Robb: The Income Tax Act contains certain provisions with regard to secrecy, and I am not sure whether this resolution would come under those clauses. In the absence of the minister, would the hon. member permit this motion to stand so that it may be looked into?
Motion stands.



THE I'M ALONE INCIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether or not a despatch has been forwarded to the Secretary of State, of the United States with regard to the I'm Alone incident, and if so, if a reply has been received. I ask that question because of the uncertainty which appears to exist in the newspapers. One press despatch says that a note has been forwarded, while another despatch from Washington contradicts that report. I think it is in the public interest that this situation be clarified by the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I mentioned to the
hon. leader of the opposition on Thursday last, the I'm Alone incident has been the subject of communications between the governments of the United States and Canada, through our minister at Washington. A number of communications have passed between our government and the minister with a view to having formal representations made to the United States government. The last of these communications was sent forward to-day and I expect that formal representations will be made by the minister at Washington either to-day or possibly to-morrow at the latest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have not yet been made?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The formal
representations have not been made as yet.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 5, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Rdb'b (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Hugh Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I shall occupy but a few moments of the time of the house, and I do so from a sense of duty which I believe I cannot evade. I desire to refer to certain important questions which have been raised in the course of this debate. While I have been unable to attend the opening sessions of the house, I have followed with the deepest interest the proceedings and the various discussions which have taken place. Never was I so proud of my membership in this house as when I read the speeches which were made in this chamber in approval of the resolution presented on the treaty to outlaw war. The debate was on a high plane throughout and would have done credit to any legislative body in the world. The true international spirit was apparent and manifested itself in all the views which were then expressed, and from all sides came the unqualified offer of the most intense cooperation for the furtherance of all moves which might lead to the establishment of permanent peace.
The world has moved forward; a new psychology of peace is gradually replacing the war psychology of the past, and it is no longer a sign of inferiority, a sort of inglorious stigma, to preach and advocate peace. Indeed, of all the beneficent effects of the League of Nations none is perhaps more commendable than the creation of a new international conscience whose feelings, whether or not they are officially expressed, are recognized and respected everywhere even by material strength and military power. This is the new international conscience which has given birth to the Kellogg pact and which has induced so many nations to accept compulsory arbitration of conflicts between states in order to replace violence and force by the rules of law and international justice. Nobody can fail to realize the supreme importance of a public act by which all the nations joined

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe
together to declare that peace is the only goal to be reached and that war should be outlawed and denounced.
But the value of this agreement will depend largely upon the subsequent measures, upon the steps which will be taken everywhere by all nations for the purpose of reaching what they all declare to be their goal. Peace will be secured if nations can eliminate as far as possible the usual causes of conflicts, the ordinary sources of difficulties. The League of Nations has been during the last few years and is now investigating what those sources of difficulties and causes of conflict are.
I am going to refer now to what has been declared to be the main source of difficulties between nations and this brings me directly to the subject under debate. On the 26th September, 1925, the assembly of the League of Nations adopted this resolution:
The assembly, firmly resolved to seek all possible means of establishing peace throughout the world; convinced that economic peace will largely contribute to security among the nations; persuaded of the necessity of investigating the economic difficulties which stand in the way of the revival of general prosperity, and of ascertaining the best means of overcoming these difficulties and of preventing disputes; invites the council to consider at the earliest possible moment the expediency of constituting on a wide basis a preparatory committee which, with the assistance of technical organizations of the league and the International Labour Office, will prepare the work of an international economic conference.
The convening of this conference under the auspices of the League of Nations shall be a matter for subsequent decision by the council.
The council took action on that recommendation and organized the preparatory committee composed of leading men of many nations. This preparatory committee started to work and organized an economic conference which sat in Geneva on the 4th May, 1927, and whose session extended until the 23rd May, 1927. The members of this conference were appointed by the various governments. Other members were nominated by the council or by certain international organizations invited by the council and experts accompanied members or were invited by the president of the conference. It consisted of 194 delegates and 226 experts representing 50 states, some of which were not and are not now members of the league. The president of the conference was M. Theunis, a former premier of Belgium. One of the vice-presidents was Mr. Henry M. Robinson, an American representative. Oanada was represented at that conference by the following;
Mr. Albert Matthews, investment banker, director, Toronto General Trusts Corporation.
Mr. Joseph Daoust. LL.D. J.P., president, Daoust, Lalonde and Company, Ltd., Montreal,
former president of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, former president of the Boot and Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada.
Mr. W. A. Riddell, M. A., Ph. D., Dominion of Canada advisory officer accredited to the League of Nations.
Mr. Adam Shortt, C.M.G., LL.D. chairman of the Board of Historical Documents, (economic and political), Board of Historical Publications, Ottawa, formerly commissioner of the Civil Service of Canada, and Professor of Economics, Queen's University.
Mr. W. A. Wilson, Canadian agricultural products representative in Great Britain.
I said that the United States of America were represented there and indeed they had a very strong representation. I will take the liberty of giving the names:
Mr. Henry M. Robinson, president of the First National Bank, Los Angeles, and member of the Dawes commission.
Mr. Norman H. Davis, formerly Assistant Secretary of Treasury and Under-Secretary of State.
Mr. John W- O'Leary, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Alonso E. Taylor, director of Food Research Institute, Stanford University. _
Mr. Julius Klein, director. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce.
They were accompanied by the following experts;
Dr. Arthur N. Young, economic adviser to the Department of State.
Dr. E. Dana Durand, chief of the Research Division. Department of Commerce.
Mr. Grosvenor Jones, chief of the Finance and Investment Division, Department of Com-meree.	.
Dr. Louis Domeratzky, chief of the Regional Division. Department of Commerce.
Mr. E. W. Camp. Acting Commissioner of Customs, Treasury Department.
Mr. Asher Hobson, permanent American delegate to the International Institute of Agriculture at Rome.
Dr. Percy W. Bidwell, an economist of the United States Tariff Commission.	_
Mr. Henry Chalmers, chief of the Division of Foreign Tariffs, Department of Commerce. Mr. John P. Frey.
Secretary:	Mr. Somerville Pinkney Tuck,
Consul of the United States of America at Geneva.	.
The conference divided itself into committees, the three main committees being one on agriculture, one on commerce, and one on industry. I have the official report of the conference here which, after discussion, was presented and adopted by the conference. I am sorry that time will not permit me to read some of the very important considerations in that report as to commercial policies. I shall confine myself to reading the conclusion :
In view of the fact that harmful effects upon production and trade result from the high and constantly changing tariffs which are applied in many countries;
The Budget-Mr. Lapointe

And since substantial improvement in the economic conditions can be obtained by increased facilities for international trade and commerce;
And in view of the fact that tariffs, though within the sovereign jurisdiction of the separate states, are not a matter of purely domestic interest but greatly influence the trade of the world;
And in view of the fact that some of the causes which have resulted in the increase of tariffs and in other trade barriers since the war have largely disappeared and others are diminishing;
The conference declares that the time has come to put an end to the increase in tariffs and to move in the opposite direction.
The conference recommends:
(1)	That nations should take steps forthwith to remove or diminish those tariff barriers that gravely hamper trade, starting with those which have been imposed to counteract the effects of disturbances arising out of the war.
_ Moreover, in order to ensure that this action is continuously pursued, the conference recommends:
(2)	That states should proceed to the conclusion of commercial treaties on lines and under conditions calculated to ensure the attainment of the aims mentioned herein;
(3)	That, in future, the practice of putting into force, in advance of negotiations, excessive duties established for the purpose of bargaining, whether by means of tarifs de combat or by means of general tariffs, should be abandoned;
(4)	That the Council of the League of Nations should be requested to instruct its economic organization to examine on the basis of the principles enunciated by the present conference, the possibility of further action by the respective states with a view to promoting the equitable treatment of commerce by eliminating or reducing the obstructions which excessive Customs tariffs offer to international trade.
In this enquiry, the economic organization should consult with representatives of the various governments, including non-members of the league, and also so far as necessary with the competent bodies representing commerce, industry, agriculture and labour.
The object of the enquiry should be to encourage the extension of international trade on an equitable basis, while at the same time paying due regard to the just interests of producers and workers in obtaining a fair remuneration and of consumers in increasing their purchasing power.	.
I will quote one sentence from the general resolutions in the final report with respect to agriculture:
It is desirable that all hindrances to the free circulation of and trade in agricultural products should be removed, in so far as their removal does not endanger the vital interests of rne different countries and their workers.
In those states in which customs protection is maintained, it should be reduced, both for industry^ and agriculture, to the lowest possible point indispensable to production; care should be taken to assist in the maintenance .of an equitable balance between industry and agriculture and not to stifle one to the advantage of the other.

The final resolution concerning economic tendencies affecting the peace of the world reads:
The conference:
Recognizing that the maintenance of world peace depends largely upon the principles on which the economic policies of nations are framed and executed:
Recommends that the governments and peoples of the countries here represented should together give continuous attention to this aspect of the economic problem, and looks forward to the establishment of recognized principles designed to eliminate those economic difficulties which cause friction and misunsder-standing in a w-orld which has everything to gain from peaceful and harmonious progress.
The conference recognizes that the reception and successful application of the principles stated in the resolutions of the conference depend, not only upon the good-will of governments and administrations, but upon an informed and supporting public opinion throughout the world, and for this purpose would welcome, in the economic as in other fields, the development of closer international cooperation by scientific and educational institutions, as well as the help of the press and other agencies of importance for the information and enlightenment of the public.
These recommendations were unanimously adopted by the conference except for the union of Soviet republics of Russia and Turkey. These recommendations were afterwards approved by the council of the league, which recommended that as far as possible they should be carried out by the various nations Which had taken part in the conference.


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. At the last session of parliament, certain of these resolutions were laid upon the table of the house and the Prime Minister was aiSked whether it was the intention of the government to submit them to parliament for approval or disapproval or discussion, and the Prime Minister declared that that was not the intention of the government. I submit, therefore, that it is not in order by this indirect method .to bring about a discussion of these resolutions at this late stage of tihe budget debate.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a public document from which I am reading. Surely my hon. friend is not serious when he suggests that I am out of order in reading the recommendations of the League of Nations or of the economic conference. These are public documents.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest that when the government has positively declined to allow a discussion by this house of certain public documents-

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is at liberty to discuss this at any time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not at any time.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend opposes it, he will align himself with Russia and Turkey.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am perfectly prepared to align myself with Russia because Russia was one of the countries that so distinctly disapproved of it.


Ernest Lapointe: I am very sorry that I do not please my hon. friend foy reading these recommendations of the economic conference of the League of Nations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is an indirect approach that is not becoming.


Ernest Lapointe: I am always anxious to please my friend, but surely I am not committing a criminal offence by reading these resolutions which have been adopted by the goodwill of all the nations of the world.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You should have the courage to submit to this house the resolutions of the League of Nations of which you approve.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope, Mr. Speaker,
that this time will not be taken out of my forty minutes.
I say that the council of the league recommended to the nations concerned that they should conform their policies to tlhe wishes thus expressed, and the assembly, which sat in September, 1927, following the conference, adopted unanimously a resolution in approval of tlhe work of the conference and its recommendations. These are the conclusions, Mr. Speaker, which have been reached by the representatives of most of the nations of the world, acting with the cooperation and upon the advice of experts representing almost all the nations of the world, experts who have no political interest to serve and no financial axe to grind.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I ask a question? Have they since been approved by any legislative or parliamentary body in the civilized world, excepting the Soviet of Russia?


Ernest Lapointe: I know they have. I
will take the trouble to give the names of certain nations which have approved of them. I have seen that stated somewhere in the documents.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not been able to find any.


Robert James Manion: Were they put in force?


Ernest Lapointe: They have been put in force in Canada, and that is what I am coming to.


Mr. HANSON:: What about the United
States?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: Those recommendations were in line with the principles formulated by that international conference which I have mentioned. They are also, I submit with due respect, in accordance with the policies which have been followed by the government of Canada since ,1921. Indeed, our representatives at that conference, and later the Canadian delegate at the assembly of the League of Nations, Senator Dandurand, could state with legitimate pride that Canada had already acted in accordance with the views of the conference, and had not followed the policy which was then unanimously denounced as an obstacle to the peace of the world and ta economic inter-relations between states.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he added that it was the only country in the world that had done so.


Ernest Lapointe: We are proud of that
if it is so, which I do not admit; but we have the endorsation of the representatives of the nations of the world in the persons of their leading economists and outstanding experts. Surely we are in good company in putting those principles into practice.


Mr. CLARK:: Where is the company?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend has
not listened to me I am sorry. I thought I had made it clear that those principles had been accepted by all the representatives at the conference.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: By the representatives of the United States as well.


Ernest Lapointe: I am coming to that:
by the representatives of the United States as well.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And repudiated by the
United States congress.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: That is for my hon.
friend to say. I am sorry, I do not think I am very aggressive when I address the house, but it seems to be the practice on the part of my good friend to interrupt me very frequently.
The Budget-Mr. Lapointe


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then bring before the house the report of the economic conference for full discussion.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: It is one of the regrets
of my life that what I say is always unpleasant to my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Air. Cahan), although it is so far from my wish and my purpose. We have put those principles into practice in spite of the protests and notwithstanding the objections of many who preach in this country the very doctrine which they denounce as selfish hostility when it is practised by other countries. Rut. sir, the conditions in Canada to-day show that the economic conference was right when it formulated those principles as being sound economically for the progress of the various nations of the world. I do not think we have increased any item of our tariff since 1921, and we have reduced many. We may say, with a certain amount of pride too, that those who year in and year out were predicting blue ruin and bankruptcy and disaster, are compelled to-day to thank or to blame Providence for the prosperity now en-jojmd by Canada, for the buoyant conditions in transportation, in banking, in industry, for the large and expanding trade of this country -all figures speak with such a loud voice that the whispers of death have been silenced, I hope forever.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are other statements in the report I have read which to-day are also proved to be true in the clearest possible manner. What better evidence could we have of the danger of high protective tariffs, of their inherent menace to the peace of the world and to good international relations, than the words which have been uttered in this house at the mere suggestion of a possible increase of customs duties by the country to the south of us? Appeals have even been made to " red-blooded Canadians " for retaliatory action, suggestions have been made that parliament ought to adjourn or to prolong its sittings to take counteraction. It has even been suggested that the governor in council should be empowered to increase our tariff schedules should the necessity arise. Sir, the tariff policies of other countries are their own business-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: -and certainly I will not venture to express any opinion thereon, except the hope that the apostles of high and higher tariff duties will not be more successful in other countries than they have been in this in carrying out a policy which

was denounced so energetically and so unanimously by the representatives of all the countries sitting in conference in 1927.
But what if they succeed? Well, I believe that the Canadian people will not lose their heads. I am confident they will continue to trust the safe and sound judgment and the good, logical common-sense mind of my Scotch friend, the Minister of Finance, to deal with the situation. Those issues cannot be fought with heat and prejudice. If one market is closed to us, it is evident that we will have to find other markets; and if one market is made more difficult for our goods to enter, we will have to find other markets which are accessible. If it is necessary to modify certain tariff schedules for the purpose of developing a larger trade with nations which are desirous of trading with us, this may be done, but only in the Canadian interest and not at all as a result of a policy of retaliation or tariff war. In doing this, I repeat, Canadian interests, and Canadian interest alone, must be considered. Talk of red blood! Is it a manifestation of red blood to shape our tariff policies on the policies of foreign countries by imitation or in any other manner? Did it show a lack of dignity, was it a shameless action on the part of Britain to maintain her policies though her neighbours in the adjoining countries had protectionist tariffs, such as France, Germany and other nations? I know of no prouder words than those uttered by Sir Robert Peel in 1846 when, speaking to a world encircled by protectionist tariffs, he said:	No matter what foreign countries do
in the matter of removing their tariffs or not, Britain will act in her own way and in her own interests. And that Sir Robert Peel and other Britons were men of red blood no one could ever deny. The same words, or practically the same words were uttered by Mr. Asquith in 1903 when he replied to the argument for retaliation as set forth by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. .
Our neighbours will shape their policies in Washington and we will shape our policies in Ottawa in the interests of the Canadian people and in accordance with their views. Whatever may be my admiration for other countries, it does not go ito the point of necessarily copying their methods and their policies and of looking at some social and political problems in the same way as they look at them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not even if expressed by an economic conference?

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe


Ernest Lapointe: Will my ihon. friend allow me to proceed?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: Though I do not resent anything coming from him, my time is limited. As I was saying, whatever may be my admiration for other countries I still prefer the Canadian vision, the Canadian mentality, the Canadian outlook, and I deem it very important to preserve our own national characteristics and maintain our own way of dealing with public questions. May I remark furthermore that I have never noticed a keen desire on the part of my protectionist friends to imitate even the United States when that country happened to lean towards freer trade.
I know of some items which are being admitted free into that country and which are paying a duty in Canada; and they are of some importance. But, as I say, I have never yet witnessed any demand on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite for reciprocity so far as these items are concerned. I will not refer either to the reciprocity agreement of 1911 except perhaps to observe that only the other-day I was reading a book of Mr. Underwood, The Drifted Sands of Party Politics, in which he says that the friends of low tariff in the United States deplored the defeat in Canada of reciprocity in 1911. He himself was leader of tih-e Democratic party in congress at the time and had supported President Taft in that policy. Indeed, the policy of no truck or Irade when things are going one way, and of retaliation when they are going the otherway does not seem to me quite fair. After all, what we shall have to consider is whether a further raising of the artificial barrier at the border line of our country would be in the interests of our people en masse,'whether it would make for greater prosperity, for greater harmony, for larger progress in our own country, whatever may be the effect on other countries. There lies the whole principle, and any other argument seems rather to be camouflaged rhetoric.
I should like to refer to one or two other matters but I am afraid my time is going. However, there is another question which I desire particularly to discuss, and I will come to it immediately. Canada can compete with the world, and is competing with the world, not with the weapons of retaliation, of distrust, of fear, of -economic or other warfare, but with the weapons of sound organization, the energy of our people, easier transportation, better marketing, and credit being given to our citizens. This is done by leadership, by such -leadership as has given to this country the policy of British preference, which I desire
to discuss for a minute or two in connection with the su-bame-ndment which has been moved.
The subamen-dment, I am free to confess, is rather a shrewd motion,. My hon. friends directly opposite have declared themselves to be afraid of the closing of the market which is nearer to us; my hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer) indicates to them other markets-he does so in this sub-amendment. Hon. gentlemen directly opposite have tried indeed to lead the hon. gentleman in the far corner to a stand against the government; but my hon. friend from Battle River is trying to align them behind himself in his own stand against us. Of course, this subamendment cannot be accepted by the government, and no one knows that better than the mover of the subamen-dment. It is a motion of want of confidence. The Minister of Finance has moved that the house resolve itself inito committee of ways and means; my hon. friend from Battle River says: No; the house will n-ot resolve itself into committee of ways and means but- instead we will have a declaration for British preference. This of course would mean the defeat of the government, and those of us who have confidence in the government cannot vote for that motion. Even those who may not be in sympathy with all the policies of the government, but who prefer t-he government to any alternative or substitute which might offer itself-and that substitute can be offered only by my hon. friends directly opposite-are also unable to vote for such a motion.. But I go further. What is the necessity for attacking this government on the question of the British preference? Is it fair to attack us on that question? Who were the originators of the British preference policy in Canada? They were the great Liberal leaders, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and W. S. Fielding.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Who borrowed the idea from Sir Charles Tupper- absolutely. I can quote you Sir Wilfrid Laurier to that effect.


Ernest Lapointe: I will not discuss that
question with my hon. friend; he is entitled to whatever comfort he can derive from it. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and W. S. Fielding initiated that policy. They made it the basis of the fiscal policy of Canada. We who are their political successors are also preserving that policy with loyalty and with care, and we are proud of the fact. I have always defended the policy of British preference; other markets were almost closed to us and it was necessary that we should find outlets for our Canadian goods. These were admitted into England free of duty, and it was only in the
The Budget-Mr. Lapointe

interests of Canada that we should take advantage of this situation, because I repeat that this was not a sentimental device; this action was taken and has been maintained in the interests of this country.
Was it not a good policy? The very first year after it was adopted, in 1898, our exports to Great Britain mounted from $75,000,000 to $100,000,000. That progression has continued; our exports to Great Britain for the twelve months ending January, 1929, amounted to $446,000,000 in round figures, while our imports amounted to only about $193,000,000. In addition, the goods we imported from Great Britain paid a duty of over $35,000,000, while our own exports entered England free.


John Frederick Johnston: Order; the
hon. gentleman's time has elapsed.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, in common with every member on this side of the house, I am very glad indeed to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) back in his place, apparently fully restored to health. He has spoken to us this afternoon very charmingly, as perhaps he can better than many others, but like other charmers his speech is full of sweet nothings. It is hardly a year since we heard the whole story which was given us again to-day by the Minister of Justice, and I have yet to hear of any formal action on the part of this government indicating that it meant to change its tariff policy in any degree by reason of certain resolutions which were repeated by the minister this aftertioon.
The Minister of Justice takes some credit for reductions in the tariff schedule; he says that Canada has led the way in this respect as he claims that Canada has so often led the way and intends to continue to lead the way in international relations. But my hon. friends to my left, who perhaps are as keen as any to observe changes in the tariff, stated last year, the year before and again this year that the changes in the tariff amounted to nothing at all as far as their interests are concerned. Indeed one hon. member declared, after a computation, that the changes made by way of reductions by the Liberal government over a period of six years amounted in all to something less than one per cent.
The Minister of Justice made rather a protectionist speech; he rather subscribed to the policy supported by the party on this side of the house, to which we have adhered for years, that we shall so draw our tariff schedules that they will take care of our own country and protect, so far as they can be fairly protected, those industries both agri-

cultural and mechanical which have a right to exist in this country. However, the minister went one step further and spoiled that protectionist idea; he inferred, although he was careful not to put it in words, that he is disposed to let some economic conference meeting in Geneva settle the tariff question for Canada. First and foremost in that conference, according to the minister, were representatives from the United States. That country now proposes to put up its tariff once more, and if I take any meaning at all from the remarks of the Minister of Justice they were designed perhaps to say nice things, to vaunt his patriotism, but perhaps more than that to make some sort of gesture to the United States.
In 1923 Right Hon. W. S. Fielding, in presenting his budget speech, put on record the determination of the Liberal government to make overtures to the United States looking to reciprocity, and in fact he did communicate to the United States that his government were open to a discussion with regard to a reciprocity treaty. This was after 1911, and if the Democratic party, which unfortunately for itself never has been in power since, could not carry its views throughout the whole country, according to this Liberal government, the Republican government, if it regretted the defeat of the treaty of 1911, has had the opportunity since 1923 of concluding a treaty with this country having the same effect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why stir up the dead?


George Reginald Geary: I am not stirring up the
dead; I am just laying it away. The minister works himself up almost into a passion over the idea that this party has in mind an economic war against the United States. If that is so I have not heard of it. I fully subscribe to everything the minister has said as to the right of this country to look after its own affairs and the right of the citizens of the United States to elect representatives who will legislate for the benefit of the citizens of that country. That is their business and not ours. But, Mr. Speaker, the remedy suggested by my hon. friend is that we seek new markets; if we cannot find a market in the United States we should go abroad for new markets. Let me say to the minister that he does not need to go out of this country for markets. Let him and his government take such steps as will conserve the industries of Canada and make them prosperous, self-supporting and beneficial to all the people of this country. Let him and his government take even one step towards helping these industries in such a way that the home market in Canada will be maintained for alt

The Budget-Mr. Geary
their products; let us look to the home market instead of looking far across the seas. That will be much simpler and much better for us and, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) said on Friday, that is what the government has signally failed to do.


Mr. MILLAR:: Might I ask my hon.
friend just how large a population it will take to consume our 500,000,000 bushels of wheat?


George Reginald Geary: I am not too good at arithmetic, so I will let my hon. friend work that out himself. If it were at all relevant I would have pleasure in discussing the question with him.
Now I wish to say a few words with regard to the budget, Mr. Speaker, although there is very little to be said as to the financial proposals contained therein. The budget has been called innocuous, but I would hardly agree with that description. To me the financial proposals are not innocuous; they are harmful in that they do not lay down or propose any constructive action on behalf of the people of this country. To that degree they are not innocuous but positively harmful. Hon. gentlemen opposite have said the same; perhaps they are not cold in their reception of the budget but at least they are lukewarm. My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) says the budget is a parcel of bare bones, but the government need not worry; he will swallow it. To my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Glen) the budget is a negative budget but he will vote in the affirmative for its adoption. He vociferously regrets that the budget contains no measure of relief to the farmers, but he will vote against the amendment expressing in terms that regret. However, the hon. member has one reason for congratulating the government; there is an omission which pleases him very much: The income tax has not been cut this year. How touching it is, Mr. Speaker, to recall the loyalty and devotion to the government of the hon. gentleman who, just one short year ago, joined with the government in voting for a 10 per cent reduction in the income tax.
Finding no particular gratification in the financial proposals, my hon. friends opposite turn to the surplus and the consequent reduction in the debt. I agree that is a matter for congratulation; it might well give them some feeling of pride, but under the conditions which exist to-day there is no difficulty whatever for any government prepared to maintain a certain level of taxation to produce within reasonable limits almost any surplus required. The only financial calls upon the government to-day are the ordinary expenditures of the country and the usual, stereotyped capital expenditure. The time has passed when war expenditures, railway advances and demobilization costs must be met from the funds of Canada, and no one knows that better than the minister. If I were to make any objection to or any criticism of the surplus I would say it was too large. I am given to understand that that amount is not required to amortize and pay off the national debt of this country. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is apportioning some 860,000,000 towards the reduction of the national debt, but the hon. members for South Wellington (Mit Guthrie) and Toronto East Centre (Mr. Matthews) developed a plan for the consideration of the minister whereby the sum of nineteen or twenty million dollars would be set aside each year for a certain number of years and thus in time dissipate the whole national debt. If that scheme be sound, to my mind the Minister of Finance has no right to proceed on the present unscientific basis, and take some $60,000,000 out of the people of Canada when, by a more scientific method, $20,000,000 would answer the same purpose.
The public accounts for 1928, the last year for which they are (complete-every figure I use will be taken from that volume-show that the annual average surplus of the Conservative government for the six years 1917 to 1922 amounted to
S66,000,000, while the annual average surplus of this government in the succeeding six years, from 1923 to 1928, was only $64,000,000. In spite of the difficulties under which they had to work, and in spite of the strain to which they were subject at that time, the Conservative government had an annual surplus which amounted to $2,000,000 more than the annual surplus of the present government since 1923. There is not much comfort in that for the hon. gentlemen opposite, especially when they consider that during the last six years the government has been in office the full man power of the country has been engaged in the industries of field, forest and mine. They were years of bountiful crops, but the six years which preceded them were, first, years during which the business of this country was carried on under a very heavy strain; years when business and production were at a low ebb, and, second, the equally depressing post-war period, during which the country was using every effort to recover from the effects of the Great war. No comparison is fair which compares the last six years with the six years immediately preceding.
The Budget-Mr. Geary

My hon. friends take much comfort in saying that in the last five years there has been a reduction in the national debt, and that the Conservative party were not able to reduce it but were forced to increase it during the preceding six years. How do reductions or additions in the national debt come about? Leaving borrowings to one side the money to be used by the government comes from, first, the consolidated fund into which go all the ordinary receipts from taxation, and, second, a small account which is called special receipts. Normally this latter account does not amount to much but it has been a very advantageous account for the present government, because they have been able to take
835,000,000 from that account during the last six years, as against 83,000,000 during the preceding six years.
The consolidated fund has to take care of the ordinary expenditures of the country, and it normally can take care also of the ordinary stereotyped capital expenditures of the country exclusive of the special expenditures for railway advances and subsidies, and war and demobilization costs. If there is a surplus in the consolidated fund and it has to be used to pay capital or special expenditures, then there is nothing left to apply on the reduction of the debt. To the extent to which money has to be paid on those accounts in excess of the balance in the consolidated fund there is an increase in the public debt. On the other hand, if there is nothing to be paid out of that balance, then there is correspondingly a decrease in the public debt. Keeping in mind then the fact that the preceding government had a surplus each year which amounted to $2,000,000 more than the present government, why is it the national debt was increased during the Conservative regime and has been decreased during the regime of the present government? We will have to turn to the capital account and special expenditure accounts to find the answer. First, let us take, the capital expenditure account; this is the capital account which covers the ordinary stereotyped capital expenditures of the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Welland canal is an instance.


George Reginald Geary: As the hon. leader of the
opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said, there are canals like the Welland and Trent, and there are also government railways which come under this heading. The only item at the present time under the heading "railways" is the Hudson Bay railway. Only two or three million dollars per year has been expended during the last few years, but in former years

there were items of $25,000,000 and $30,000,000 and so on, deficits on operation of the Intercolonial railway. During those years we had the Intercolonial under our control, but that deficit has disappeared because of the action of the Conservative government in amalgamating that railway with the National railway system.
Another division of the capital occount covers public works, government buildings in Ottawa, the shipbuilding program of the government in power, and certain things like the St. Lawrence ship canal. Those accounts do not vary to any degree from year to year, except by reason of some abnormal condition. As a rule, they can be paid out of the surplus in consolidated fund without any trouble. During the six years when the Conservative government was in power the expenditures on capital account including government railways and the shipbuilding program amounted to $221,000,000; during the last six years, through no change of policy, nor effort of good management, but only by reason of the necessity for the expenditure having disappeared, the Liberal government has been called upon to pay only $94,000,000.
But there are other special expenditures which have to be considered when we compare the two six-year periods; one expenditure is that of war demobilization, and the other is railway advances and subsidies.
It is not necessary to give any detail regarding the railway advances and subsidies. Everyone knows that these were necessary in the process of taking over the decrepit railways of the country and amalgamating them into one'great system. That was an enterprise which was carried out by the Conservative party, and it has since been amply justified in every particular. Under the six years of Conservative rule the government was called upon to advance some $210,000,000, in subsidies and allowances to railways while the present government has had to pay only $131,000,000 during the last six years. In addition the Conservative government assumed the burden of $284,000,000 nonactive assets representing previous advances to the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern Railways.
The third special expenditure account is that of war and demobilization. During the six years of the Conservative regime the government had to expend $1,462,000,000, on this account while the Liberal government during its term of office has had to expend only $8,000,000.
The addition of these capital and special expenditures Shows that the Conservative gov-

The Budget-Mr. Geary
eminent were called upon, to expend $2,177,000,000, whereas the present government has been saddled with only $233,000,000. Is it any wonder that the public debt of the country was of necessity increased during that period? The people were taxed to the limit and no one can say that the Conservative party could have taken any more out of the people during those years. The Conservative party increased the debt by $1,807,000,000 or $370,000,000 less than the amount they were obliged to assume or pay out for abnormal capital expenditure for war expenditures and for subsidies and advances to railways. They were able to do that by good financing; not by taking too much money from the people but iby conserving expenditures and showing a balance in consolidated fund which was more than the balance shown under the present government. Through proper management they were able to make a very much better showing with regard to the national debt than that made by the Liberal government which during the past six years has shown a reduction in the national debt of $125,000,000. One would not object very strenuously to all the glory taken, the boasting, if you like to call it so, of hon. members opposite in regard to this showing; but here is the unfair part of it, and it is to this I wish to direct most of my attention. In order to discredit the preceding government or to reflect credit upon themselves, this government and its members persist in comparing, as though they were on a comparable basis, the six years just ending of government by the Liberals with the six years immediately preceding of government by the Conservatives. Of course anyone in his senses knows that as between these two periods there is no proper basis for comparison. One would have thought hon. gentlemen opposite, realizing this, would at least be fair about the matter, but they have been unfair and they have made misstatements which amount to deception. I do not like to think hon. members would make such statements deliberately, and I can only ascribe their doing so to lack of knowledge of the true state of affairs and lack of attention to the public accounts. More flagrant than anyone else on the opposite side in this unfair comparison have been the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself and one of the members of his government. The Prime Minister has been time and again called to account for it but he still persists in making the same representations in regard to which he was corrected and which he must honestly know are at least that sort of deception that is more dangerous than
the truth-a half truth. It is not long since the Prime Minister had occasion to speak about this same matter and he said that the public debt in 1919 had been increased by hon. gentlemen opposite-that is by this party-to the tune of $382,000,000. That is perfectly true. The impression to be left, apparently willingly by him, was that in the normal course of affairs the debt had been increased by that vast amount by a Conservative government. My leader (Mr. Bennett) corrected him saying:
That was direct payment for railways.
As a matter of fact during that year it was more for demobilization, but my right hon. friend did not know that, because he replied:
Mr. Mackenzie King:	Not at all. It was
made up of the general expenditures of hon. gentlemen opposite including these grants.
That is railway grants. Could anything be more unfair than that? It is as though he ignored a tremendous, special expenditure of millions upon millions of dollars and emphasized a small expenditure made in the ordinary routine out of the consolidated fund and out of the revenues of the country. It is just as though the right hon. gentleman had likened a mouse to an elephant because they were of the same colour; there is no more logic than that in making such a comparison. He went on to say:
In the next year

That is 1920.
-there was not a direct payment for railways and yet in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920, the public debt of Canada was further increased by over $674,000,000.
And here I object.
That is the way in which the country was being governed while hon. gentlemen opposite were in office in 1919 and 1920.
The implication is that the money was wasted. The. truth is that the money was spent on the most righteous of purposes, largely in carrying on the war in which this country was engaged at the moment, and in amalgamating and giving to the people under public ownership a great national system of railways. That" is the -way the country was being governed, and we are proud of .the fact that it was being governed in that way during those years. Canada will never cease to bless the Conservative government of those years for the fact that they brought into being under public ownership the Canadian National Railways and that they so prosecuted their efforts in regard to the conduct of .the war that with the troops supporting them, they
The Budget-Mr. Geary

brought great glory to Canada. That is the way the country was 'being governed, and we take great pride in the fact.
My right, hon. friend was again interrupted by my leader when he made a statement of the same sort. My leader said:
Due to the war.
My right hon. friend replied:
Due to their methods of financing. . . . We reduced expenditures and imposed some increased taxation for the purpose, mark you, to meet obligations which were left to us by the previous administration. At first about all that we were able to do was to hold the deficit at the point at which it had been the year before. The deficit instead of being $92,000,000 was brought down to $81,000,000 in 1922.
The right hon. gentleman and his cabinet had nothing whatever to do with bringing that down from 192,000,000 to $81,000,000. Mr. Fielding said that it was no part of the present government's work to deal with the spending of money in the fiscal year thpre referred to. The deficit was reduced by only $11,000,000, it is true, but it was reduced because conditions were improved. The present government had no hand in decreasing the deficit; it was none of their business at all. In spite, however, of the corrections of the right hon. gentleman's statement, he persists and his colleagues persist in that unfair and misleading comparison of those years of Liberal rule with the preceding years of Conservative rule.
The right hon. gentleman then went on to say that in 1923 his government began to function by way of imposing more taxation and reducing expenditures. An examination of the books will show that they did nothing in regard to reducing expenditures. There was a falling off of some $13,000,000 or $14,000,000 in expenditures, but this was not due to any change, because the expenditures of the departments, taking them by and large, about balanced with those of the preceding years. There were some millions of dollars less for elections and for pensions and other items which account for the decrease, but none of this was due to any change in policy on the part of the government. They said that the revenue was increased. The revenue was increased to the extent of $4,000,000 by taxes that bore so hardly upon the people that they had to take them off the next year.
They had to retrace their steps and take off many of those nuisance taxes which were not meeting with the approval of the people. The smaller increase in this debt that year was due to the fact that a great deal more money came through customs; some $10,000,000 came 
in from war refunds and there was a much smaller payment necessary for railway advances.
There is only one other speaker to whom I wish to refer and that is the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). He is not in his seat, but I shall not refrain on that account from saying what I desire to say. As reported on page 1029 of Hansard, after making the same invidious comparison, unfair and misleading as he should have known it to be, he made the following statement:
When my hon. friend compared the period of 1918 to 1922 with the period of 1925 to 1929, he made a comparison concerning a different Canada altogether.
With that I quite agree. That has been the burden of my remarks. Why was it a different 'Canada? He goes on to say:
A Canada which had emerged from the gloom which existed during the last five years of Conservative rule and had entered into the sunlight of prosperity under Liberal rule.
Probably that statement is put more unfairly than any of the other statements that have been made. The hon. gentleman was taking part in the war; he was doing his gallant best; he believed he was right; he surely believed the government was right, why at this stage should he take sides against the government which was endeavouring so to hold up our hands over there in France that success would ultimately attend the efforts of the forces. I do not think two years ago he would have said any such thing, but he says he is prepared to subscribe to that, to say the least, disingenuous statement of his leader and for that he must accept full responsibility himself. He is making a statement and a comparison, ignoring the heroic efforts of the people at home to maintain the forces in the field. That is exactly what he is doing.


Mr. RALSTON:: Would my hon. friend permit me? I expressly deducted every dollar that could possibly by any stretch of the imagination be deducted or appropriated to the war and demobilization expenses.


George Reginald Geary: My hon. friend did that. He made a calculation, but it is not that to which I am referring. I am saying .that my hon. friend compared the six years of Liberal rule with the six years preceding of Conservative rule, and my hon. friend did not ascribe the heavier expenses under Conservative rule to the war. His inference was that the money was misspent by the Conservatives, and that there was a surplus under Liberal rule because they no longer misspent the money as the Conservatives did, not because they were

The Budget-Mr. Geary
relieved from the necessity of raising money for the war. His inference was that the Liberals had governed better and that the Conservatives had spent an undue amount in the preceding six years. My horn, friend says yes, we spent an undue amount. If my bon. friend can show one dollar misspent by the Conservative government I should be obliged for the information for the involved statement in his speech does not show it. If he takes those six years of Liberal rule and the six years of Conservative rule preceding, he will find that the Conservatives made a better showing on capital expenditures during those six years than did the Liberal party in the six years following.


James Layton Ralston: My faon. friend will have to show that.


George Reginald Geary: I do not think that my bon. friend claims that there was any money misspent by the Conservatives.


James Layton Ralston: I was talking about good and proper administration, and was dealing with the argument of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that the administration in the last five years of Liberal rule had not been as effective and efficient, as the administration of the Conservative rule because of the fact that more money had been spent and I showed where the money went.


George Reginald Geary: I am not going over these figures again. It is not at all the point to which I am taking exception. I am taking exception to the fact that the Minister of National Defence, ignoring the difficulties with which the Conservative government were faced and which they had to struggle against during the preceding six years, made a comparison in dollars and cents with the expenditures under this government and the expenditures under the Conservative government preceding.


James Layton Ralston: I gave them credit.


George Reginald Geary: If my hon. friend thinks that it is fair to do as his leader and so many members opposite have done, to compare the two periods as though the war expenditures did not exist under the preceding Conservative government, well, I must allow my hon. friend to do it.


James Layton Ralston: I was using the same five years that my hon. friend from South Wellington took.


George Reginald Geary: The principle of the thing
is the same, and I am trying to show-it is not being done well, and it is perhaps nothing
at all new-the true facts of the case. It is obvious that there is nothing to be gained by comparing the surpluses under the present government with the surpluses under the government which preceded it. That cannot be to the advantage of the party opposite, because their surpluses were not due in any particular to a change of policy or to betterment in management. They were due simply to one fact, that this government had been relieved of the impelling necessity of raising money, by borrowing, in order to carry on the war, and to pay the expense of getting the railways welded into the national system. With that in mind, and not to put too many figures on Hansard, I am going to leave the point. I am willing to discuss surpluses in any year with my hon. friend, how they were obtained, and whether they were justifiably obtained, and whether the government, in a proper maimer, are reducing the national debt. These are matters of fair and open discussion. But when my hon. friend tries to compare the six years of Liberal rule with the six years of Conservative rule, with those war years and railway financing years, I say that he does not stand on solid ground, and my hon. friend and his party should rather take the patriotic view and admit that the capable sons and daughters of Canada, with her untold riches and natural resources, once the war was over, rose to their opportunities and gladly embraced the chance to restore themselves, and it is they who have induced the prosperity of this country, not the government opposite. They it is who have enabled this government, no longer faced with the necessities I have indicated, to show the debt reduction I have shown.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my
hon. friend leaves that point, may I ask him, is it not true that after deducting every dollar spent on the war and demobilization during the six years to which he has referred, there was still a deficit in the public accounts for those years?


George Reginald Geary: No, that is not true.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You had the railway.


John Arthur Clark: Did my right hon. friend
deliberately omit the railways when he asked his question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard
to the railways, I will deal with that question if my hon. friend wishes; I was going to do that to-morrow.


George Reginald Geary: The railways and the war.
The Budget-Mr. Geary


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said war and demobilization.


George Reginald Geary: Not the railways?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say railways, but with regard to the railways I will refer to that now if hon. gentlemen wish. My hon. friend said that it was not true that after allowing for the war and demobilization expenditure, there was still a deficit in the public accounts under Conservative administration, and that is why I asked the question.
May I say, with respect to the period to which my hon. friend refers, moneys were paid out to meet deficits incurred by railways that were not meeting operating expenses or fixed changes. The moneys that were advanced in the other period were advanced to a railway that was meeting operating expenses and could meet, fixed charges, and went to the development of a railway system. That is an entirely different thing.


George Reginald Geary: When my right hon. friend
says "other" he means the present government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: Is that quite true?-no, I
do not think my right hon. friend has taken my answer properly. I think I have these figures under rr^ hand, and I am very glad of the opportunity to give them to him.
In the preceding six years, railway subsidies were advanced by the Conservative government to the amount of $210,000,000; I take those figures from the blue book. In addition there was $284,000,000, representing advances to the Grand Trunk Pacific and Canadian Northern railways which had been carried for a time as a non-active asset, but which was wiped out, quite properly, by the Conservative government of the day and added to the national debt. So the total expenses for railways was $494,000,000, whereas in the last six years there was paid $131,000,000, $77,000,000 of which to begin with was for expenses incurred in exactly the same way as those in the preceding six years. The balance was extended to the amount of $10,000,000 in one year, and $10,000,0001 in another year, in advances to the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian National Railways were beginning to prosper, but they could not prosper at the beginning. They are prospering now only because the Conservative government in those six years preceding welded the scattered units into one great system and started the national system on its way. That is the only reason in the world. You would not

have the National railways to-day if the Conservative government had not been in power. Nobody can dispute that because the records of this house show it. My hon. friend will have to admit that he himself opposed it in the session of 1919, and the battle was fought oveT their protesting and beaten bodies, and it was over their bodies that the Conservative party passed to the making of this great national railway. It is now beginning to pay. That is because it was a well-considered and well-advised scheme. It looked to the true interests of the country. The Conservative party looked forward with that same foresight which has always characterized the Conservative party right down from confederation. My right hon. friend would be taking what I think would be a most unfair position if he were to say that it was anything to the credit of his government that no moneys have been spent during the last six years on a going concern, and attempted to reflect any discredit on the railway expenditures which were made in the preceding six years, because the Conservative government were obliged to rescue bankrupt units from their bankruptcy and put them in a position where they could become a going concern. My hon. friends opposite are deriving great comfort from basking in the sunlight of the prosperous Canadian National Railway system. But this is due to no efforts of their own. It is due to the far-seeing policy of the Conservative party that to-day they find themselves in the happy position of having no railway deficits to make good and no subsidies to provide for our national railways. I have not the remotest idea, Mr. Speaker, how much more time is left to me.


An hon. MEMBER:: Only a few minutes more.


George Reginald Geary: That being the case I must confine myself to the matter of the Canadian National Railways introduced by my hon. friend. He claims credit for its reorganization. All the facts should be brought out in a debate, and I know what the result will be; so does my right hon. friend. It will show that to the Conservative party and to the Conservative party only will belong the credit for this great enterprise. Another matter of transportation depended entirely-as did the Canadian National Railways-upon the capacity of the Conservative party to initiate and put into execution large schemes for the good of Canada. The Canadian Pacific railway was carried through to successful completion by the Conservative party in spite of the most bitter opposition on the part of the Liberal party of that day. The latter were men of



S, 1929

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
no faith, men fearful of results, men without vision. This great national undertaking had to be planned and completed by the clearsighted men of the Conservative party, who foresaw the advantages of a transcontinental railway in uniting the scattered provinces into one great country. And it was the Conservative party that undertook the deepening and widening of the Welland canal. The Hon. Frank Cochrane, at that time Minister of Railways, and his colleagues in the government, declared that in undertaking this work they were looking to the day when there would be a great waterway from the head of the lakes to tidewater. Like their predecessors who sponsored the building of the Canadian Pacific railway, they were farsighted men, they too had vision. There is no doubt that some day this great St. Lawrence waterway will be an accomplished fact, but not until the Conservative party is once more in a position to render that service to the country which it alone has shown itself able to render in regard to great national undertakings. The Liberal party has not shown itself big enough to grasp matters of such magnitude. All the great national policies concerning the welfare of this country have been instituted by the Conservative party, and all the great national undertakings initiated by the party have been carried through to a successful conclusion. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice referred to the British preference. Let him take what comfort he can for his party from that policy; I do not think he can point to one major development of this country that in any manner, shape or form can be ascribed to the Liberal party. The Conservative party, and the Conservative party alone, can be credited as far as government is to be credited with all the major developments that have made Canada what she is to-day.
I had intended to touch again on the speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, but time does not permit.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend who is claiming credit for the Conservative party in connection with all the great undertakings he has mentioned, what has happened to the Unionist party?


George Reginald Geary: I do not think my right hon. friend is quite fair. I called it the Conservative party, but I will call it the Unionist party, or, if he prefers, I will call it X. The point I am making is the unfairness of the comparison of,the six years of this government with the six years of the preceding government. It was my hon. friend the Minister of Justice who called it the Conservative
regime, he it was who made the comparison between the two parties, the one Liberal and the other Conservative. My hon. friend shakes his head.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think I referred to that at all.


George Reginald Geary: I am sorry if I referred to my hon. friend, it was the Minister of National Defence I had in mind.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part briefly in this debate, may I as a member from western Canada congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) upon the splendid financial statement which he has brought down for the approval of the house. It has been said that the popularity of budgets is something like the greatness of great men- some men are bom great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them. The budgets brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance for the last few years have become popular from three points of view. First, they are connected with a party that believes in retrenchment and in financial reform, a party with a financial history of which any Canadian ought to be proud. So this budget grows out of the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance, the viewpoint of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the viewpoint of the Liberal party in a financial sense; consequently it has grown in popularity since its introduction. And secondly, Mr. Speaker, it has become more popular because of the fact that it contains within itself the inherent qualities of popularity and stability. So notwithstanding the speeches we have had, some for and some against the budget, the opinion developed in this house is helping wonderfully in the formation of public opinion in its behalf throughout the Dominion and bringing about a condition of affairs that tends to make the budget appeal more and more to the people of Canada as the days go by. A further and a third reason for the popularity of the budget is that it is framed by the Finance minister with reference to the international situation. No budget not recognizing present-day international developments could really be a strong budget. Therefore this is a budget upon which Canada can courageously stand so far as its relationship is concerned not only with its neighbour across the International boundary but with the other nations of the world.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), speaking of the prosperity of Canada, admitted that Providence had showered all sorts of prosperity on this nation [DOT]

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
but he qualified his statement by saying that the inclination of himself and of his party both in the house and in the country was that Providence and the people of Canada were to a major extent responsible for the prosperity announced in the budget. The hon. gentleman's theology and philosophy do not seem to be very sound. Providence does not cooperate by direct action; Providence cooperates through individuals and through governments to bring about national progress, national development and national prosperity. Providence inspires men to take action to organize a system of government that legislation may be passed for the welfare of the people generally. In other words, governments are the media through which national progress takes place. So Providence in cooperating with the people of Canada to bring about the splendid state of affairs which now obtains goes one better than did the good Tories of Toronto every time the late Sir Wilfnd Laurier visited that great city. They would turn out to hear him, they would listen to him, they would applaud him, but on election day-they would vote against him. Providence with Liberalism in the saddle goes beyond that kind of cooperation. He not only makes it possible for the Liberal part}' to come into power in Canada but when they are in power he cooperates with them in such a way that Canada's financial record is something of which we should all be proud.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in discussing the budget, made reference to the fact that Canada was geographically a very difficult country to govern. We all admit that Canada embraces a large area and is a large country to govern wisely. But we have no colour problem in Canada; we have no major racial problem here. Consequently when we hear hon. gentlemen talking about the difficulty of governing Canada, because of its being a large geographical unit extending from one sea to another, we are inclined to ask whether these hon. gentlemen know Canada from sea to sea, whether they know Canada province by province, whether they know Canada east by west and north by south and whether, knowing it, they understand the sentiments and objectives of the Canadian people. We have a large country to govern, but I believe that if we know our country as we ought and understand our problems as we should we can go forward and make history.
The hon. gentleman also referred to the national policy; he spoke of the notable things it had done for Canada. It was, according to him, a wonderful fiscal policy. But he

did not tell us why in 1896 Canada was stagnant commercially, why Canada was at a standstill industrially, why Canada's imperial and world trade had become very diminutive in quantity. And the point is just this: that although the Conservatives introduced the national policy it took the Liberal party to understand the machine and to operate it in such a way, by adjustment from year to year and from decade to decade, as to promote the development of Canada and to bring about the prosperity and progress which we have to-day in this Dominion. The hon. member referred further to the many things the Conservative party had done from the standpoint of confederation. One would imagine, to hear him talk, that the Conservative party was really responsible for that great movement in Canada

the confederation or union, of all the British North American provinces on the shoulder of this continent and their consolidation from coast to coast, with the proud history which that union has written from that day to this. What are the facts? If we turn to history we shall find it indicated that the Conservative party was not the cause of that great movement-not at all. We know that one cause was the imperative necessity of wiping out the protective tariffs between the different provinces then existing. The protective tariffs of that day were detrimental to the development of trade and also to interprovincial cohesion; their removal became necessary and that was one of the causes of confederation in 1867. Another was the political deadlock which had come about. And still another was this: The people of the provinces were living in dread of the states to the south and consequently they did not feel themselves strong enough in a military . way to combat the people across the boundary line. There we have the three and only causes of confederation, one political, one fiscal and one military. And when the movement took place Liberals and Conservatives combined, hand in hand, to bring about that great union under which Canada has prospered and which we hope will continue to grow stronger and stronger as the years come and go.
When we touch upon the question of confederation. w'hen hon. gentlemen opposite speak of the extraordinary things done by the Conservative party, we ought to bring into the perspective some of the things which the Conservative party have not done. For instance, they did not stand by the Liberal party in fighting for the right to negotiate our own commercial treaties, which right was granted in the year 1907. They did not stand

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
by the Liberal party in its action for the control of our immigration laws granted us in 1904 and for the bringing into existence of our navigation laws in 1870. They did not stand behind us in 1882 for the veto so far as the nomination of the Governor General is concerned; nor did they support the Liberal party in respect to its policy of securing Canadian representation on the privy council in 1897. And so far as the Ballot Act of 1874 is concerned, a great reform, the Liberal party had to put that act through by itself; and upon the secret ballot, to a large extent, has been built the political liberty and the financial and industrial welfare of this Dominion.
I noticed that the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), in his speech this afternoon used the term protection, and I was glad to hear him use that term; because sometimes when our hon. friends meet in national convention they seem to run away from it. They appear to be afraid of the expression. The last time-as a matter of fact I believe it was the first time in their history-they had a national convention, when they met in Winnipeg, they considered a resolution on the tariff. A copy of that resolution I have in my hand and that term protection does not appear in it. The resolution was moved by Mr. Haggerman, of Unity, Saskatchewan, a few miles south of the riding I have the honour to represent in this house, and it was spoken to by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). The gentleman who moved the resolution came from one of the grain growing areas of western Canada and the idea was to have this resolution drafted in such a way that it would appeal to that section of the country and the rest of western Canada and thus secure the votes of the farmers and others on election day. Consequently the word protection is not used. In the first paragraph we are told about the wonderful growth, progress and prosperity of Canada under the historic fiscal policy, but the descriptive title of that policy is omitted. The reason for this we leave our hon. friends to explain. In the next paragraph we are told how adherence to this policy has brought about a gratifying development in Canada. As usual, our friends take all the credit for the development that has taken place in the Dominion since confederation. In the next paragraph they speak of revising and readjusting the tariff, and in the paragraph following that they submit the idea of a tariff commission, which was first appointed by the Liberal party. And in the last paragraph they deal with the question of preferential tariffs. Here is the statement they make on that question:
And this convention expresses the view that while strong effort should be directed towards the establishment of a system of preferential tariffs-
As if the preferential tariff had not been established back in 1897.
-throughout the empire, no preference should be given at the expense of the Canadian farmer or workman, and all such preference should be conditional upon the use of the Canadian ports.
The last part of that paragraph is of course Liberal policy. The statement is made that preferential tariffs must not bear upon the farmer or the working man. In other words, we have a sectional idea thrown into this explanation of policy, not recognizing the fact that if we are going to have empire preference it must be preference in a national sense. Sometimes one part of the nation will have to give a little, and at other times other sections of Canada will have to do the same; but as a whole a preferential policy is for all the Canadian people, and it is for us to stand by it, to develop it and to make it a greater instrument in tariff reform and in tariff adjustment than it was even when introduced in 1897.
We have heard quite a lot of discussion with regard to our national debt. I desire to touch that question briefly, and the thought comes to me that in discussing the national debt we should compare the records of both great political parties from confederation. This afternoon the hon. member for South Toronto said it was not fair to compare the reductions made in the national debt during the last few years, because the Conservatives were in power during the war and we should be as fair as possible and give them all the credit to which they are entitled. I want to do that, but I think it fair to compare the records of the two great parties on this matter from 1867 to 1929. When parties are in power they must accept responsibility; if a war comes along or upheavals of different kinds take place of course the party in power must accept the responsibility.
On March 31, 1928, our national debt was 12,296,850,232.92, and we are told that the estimated debt as of March 31, 1921, is $2,227,068,000. This year the reduction is approximately $69,000,000, and during the last six years we have paid off $226,708,000, or an average per year of $37,700,000. Previous to that the Liberal government made reductions in the national debt in 1900, 1903, 1904 and 1907; these reductions totalled $14,216,035, and if we add that amount to the reduction of $226,000,000 during the last six years we have a total reduction of $240,924,035. If that sum is divided by the twenty-eight years the Liberals have been in power we get exactly the amount

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh

the Liberals as a .party have reduced our national debt. I think that is an eminently fair way of getting at the question in order to find out just what the Liberals and Conservatives have each done in the way of financially redeeming Canada; that is what each party has done by a policy of financial retrenchment and reform towards the solution of all the financial problems concerning Canada. We find that the Liberals have made an average annual reduction in the national debt of $8,571,428 for every year they have been in office. Now let us consider what the Conservatives have done. They were in power in Canada during thirty-four years; in 1871 they reduced the debt by $503,225; in 1882 by $1,734,129, in 1912 by $122,591 and in 1913 by $25,617,836. In other words, during their thirty-four years in office they reduced the national debt by about $27,000,000, which works out at the rate of about four-fifths of a million per year, or $822,875, to be exact.
There you have the record of the Liberals as compared with that of the Conservatives. The Liberals have faced the question of the national debt as a great responsibility; they have gone to work and reduced it, as any party should. From year to year the record of the Liberal party in connection with reductions in the national debt has been a splendid one, and it appears that year by year that record is getting better, because the cut of .practically $70,000,000 this year is the largest reduction ever made. In thirty-four years the Conservative party made only four attempts to out down the national debt, yet since the budget has been brought down hon. gentlemen opposite have been telling us what we should do to reduce the debt. We have been told that we should abandon the policy that we have followed since 1922 and1 adopt a fixed method of paying off the debt over a term of years, and we have been told many times that the present leadership of the party is not as successful as it should be with regard to this great .problem. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and his cabinet and Liberals generally are very well satisfied with what has been done by the .party as a whole during the last nine years. We are told .that we are not going fast enough and that we should inaugurate a sinking fund scheme in order to pay off the debt in forty or fifty yearn. If we continue the progress we have maintained since 1925 the national debt of Canada will be paid off in twenty-four years. Since 1925 we have reduced the debt by an average of $47,750,000 yearly, and if we continue at that rate for the next twenty-four years we will wipe out our national debt.

It seems to me that this is a splendid record, but I have 'before me an article which appeared in Willison's Monthly, written by a Doctor H. P. Spaulding, in which he takes the opposite stand and says we are paying off our debt too quickly. He states that the Liberal party is using a sort of whirlwind method, that we are paying off sums of money from year to year which are too large, and that we should change our system and for the next five years pay $10,900,000 off the debt yearly. That would give us a reduction of $50,000,000,and we are told that at the end of the five-year period we should add $1,000,000 to that amount for the following thirty-five years, which would result in the national debt being wiped off in twenty-four years. In other words', Doctor Spaulding thinks we are going too fast, but to me that seems a very good proof that our policy with regard to this great question is sound. I believe that in times of peace we should face our national debt and reduce it as much as possible; we are responsible for the creation of that debt, and we Should not lea/ve it to be paid by posterity. When times are good we should reduce the debt as much as possible. It is not like building a hall for which posterity must pay, when they may have the use of rhe hall; this is an obligation which we should take seriously and solve in a way that will be to the greatest benefit to Canada as a nation.
So, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the national debt I would say we are going at it in the right way: I think we should continue just as we a.re doing at present until 1933 and 1934, when practically a billion dolare of our war debt will come due. That amount is all owed in Canada; when that comes due we should face that problem in all its aspects, and if we think we should do something different then let us evolve another policy and follow it through. However, with respect to our present method, I would say it is good, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the government on the wonderful financial record of this party during the last eight or nine years. I believe there is not a citizen of Canada who wants to be fair who would not say that the financial record of this government is bright and splendid and an honour to Canada.
In his address this afternoon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) touched upon the question of imperial preference. Outside of the questions of tariff reform and financial retrenchment, I believe that that is a very important matter for the Liberal party to discuss. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of the greatest statesmen that Canada has ever

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
produced and whose name is honoured throughout Canada to-day, brought down that preferential policy, I believe he meant that to be the policy for Canadians in years to come. He believed that Canadians would accept that policy and would develop it loyally, patriotically and imperially. The Liberal party stands on that foundation today, and I believe we are on solid ground. For many years the Conservative party talked about loyalty and patriotism, talked about the wonderful empire to which we belonged, but it remained for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the leader of our party, to bring down that historic policy which will always be a factor in linking us more closely to Great Britain and the other portions of the empire. HS brought down that policy the maximum development of which will make Liberalism stronger in Canada, and Canada a much stronger portion of the empire.
But what about the attitude of the Conservative party? The member for South Toronto told us this afternoon that we were making fiscal gestures toward the United States. During the course of this debate we have been told more than once that we are prone to barter away our fiscal liberties and have overlooked doing those things for our own country which would unite it more closely to the empire to which we belong. But what has history to say about that? What happened in Canada during the year 1849? We all know of the movement which took place during that year to bring about the annexation of this Dominion to the United States. Who took the lead in that movement ? Was it the Liberals of that day? No. The leaders of that movement were the ancestors, absolutely, of the Conservative party of the present day, and that movement was commenced because they felt that they had not a future in Canada.
We have been told this afternoon of the remarkable things the Tory party has done for the Dominion. We have been told about how they built the Canadian Pacific railway, but we were not informed how they failed to open up western Canada in order to make that great railway profitable. That undertaking could not be a success until the west was opened up. and that was brought about through the efforts of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal party from the year 1896 onward. We have been told that the Conservative party is also responsible for the Canadian National railway system. That system is only another sample of the national policy. They brought the organization together to a certain extent on paper but it remained for the Liberal party to pick a man who knew 78594-86J
how to run the machine and who was able last year to produce a surplus of 858,000,000. They had to pick a man who would make a great contribution in a railway sense to Canada, and Sir Henry Thornton has done that. We have to thank the Liberal party, and not the Conservative party, for selecting the right man to be put at the head of that great railway system. We have to thank the Liberal party for opening up the west in order to make the Canadian Pacific railway successful in a financial way. We have to thank the Liberal party for widening out the Dominion and giving Canada a start in playing a successful part in fhe development of our empire.
We have been told also that we should adopt a policy of retaliation. The principle of retaliation is always a false one. We should stud[y our own fiscal problem; we should have a government which knows more and more about Canada; we should have faith in our Dominion and develop the necessary trade with the countries which will trade fairly with us and thus bring about the greater development of tradte with them and the motherland as well. The import trade with the motherland has grown tremendously since 1868, when confederation took place, as is shown by the following figures:
1868	 $ 37,000,000
1896	 32,000,000
1906	 69,000,000
1911	 110,000,000
1926		 163,000,000
1927		 214,000,000
Here we have an increase of $182,000,000 over the import trade for the year 1896. The drop in trade of $5,000,000 between the years 1868 and 1896 was one reason why Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced the British preference and began to build up empire trade, one of the greatest steps ever taken by any Canadian) to extend the trade of Canada beyond the boundaries of the Dominion. The above figures show what the British preference has done in the development of the import trade between Canada and the motherland. The following figures show the tremendous increase in our export trade with the motherland:
1896	 $ 62,000,000
1897		 77,000,000
1906	 127,000,000
1911	 136,000,000
1926		 512,000,000
1927		 542,000,000
Our total trade with the other portions of the empire was as follows:
1896	 $ 6,000,000
1926		 128,000,000
1927		 144,000,000
The Budget-Mr. McIntosh

Those figures show our record of trade expansion and development with the motherland iand the other portions of the empire. That is a great credit not only to the Liberal party but to Canada as a Dominion. We have also reduced the preferential rate from 21.6 per cent in 1922 to 16.4 per cent, which is the rate prevailing to-day. The preferential' rate is the tariff rate which appeals to Canadians in the way of trade with the motherland, which trade is increasing in a way that is very encouraging.
When we come to solve the question of our fiscal problems with the United States we should not forget that we have a party possessing objectives as high and noble and as patriotic as any party could have. When we face that question I say, we are certainly going to solve it in a way which will be beneficial to our population as a whole.
Some people are wondering whether we shall be able to make the right kind of a bargain fiscally with the United States. Personally, I am not a bit afraid. I will stake a cabinet of Canadians against any cabinet in the world when it comes to bartering or organizing a fiscal policy which will be of lasting benefit to the country. Neither is there any danger of absorption by the United States nor by any other nation through the investments which have been made in this country. This is our present standing. Government securities in Canada total $4,200,000,000 and less than one-third of that total, or $1,300,000,000, is controlled outside of Canada. Surely we do not need to be afraid of economic control in regard to government securities. Railway securities total $3,500,000,000 and of that $1,400,000,000 is controlled outside of Canada. Mining stocks total $650,000,000 and one-half of that is controlled outside of Canada. Industrial securities total $4,050,000,000 and $1,300,000,000 of that is controlled outside of Canada. Trading establishment securities total $2,000,000,000, 90 per cent of which is controlled in Canada. Other public utilities total $3,100,000,000 and only one-third is controlled outside of Canada. In other words, out of a total of $16,000,000,000 of securities, only about $5,500,000,000 or one-third is controlled outside of Canada. So, financially speaking, I would say that we are on solid ground and, fiscally speaking, if our party and our leaders follow the reputation and the history of tbs Liberal party of the past, there will be no doubt about the future of Canada irrespective of what nation says: We will trade with you, or we will not trade with you.
In closing, I believe that while financial retrenchment is one principle of the Liberal

party and fiscal reform another, there is still a further principle of great importance and Canada ought to be admired for adhering to it. That other principle which belongs to historic Liberalism is the principal of peace and the peace treaty that the Prime Minister of Canada signed last year in August in Paris is a proof that Canada is determined to play her part not only nationally but in an imperial and a world way in connection with international affairs,-that in a way I am sure will be gratifying to all Canadians. The Liberal party stands on the foundation principle of peace. It stands for internal peace, peace between one province and another, peace between the east and the west; peace, progress and development between Canada and the rest of the empire and peace with other nations. The idea is simply banishing wiar as an instrument of national policy and putting in its place the principle of peace. The sooner we take the lead in that-and we are doing so- the better for Canada. With regard to the question of peace not only within Canada but with other nations of the world we know that fiscally the Liberal party is doing what it can to work out a policy that will be of benefit to the whole Dominion.
Finally, in regard to Canada's relationship with the motherland, Sir James Owen, after visiting Canada in 1927, had this to say:
The Canadians are developing along their own lines. One hears sometimes that they are being Americanized. There are no obvious signs of that. The Canadian does not speak like an American, nor does he think as an American. His outlook on life is less flamboyant than that of his neighbours across the border. There is in the Canadian a sobriety, a restraint, such as one would expect of a people who derive so largely from Scottish ancestry.
Then again Sir James says:
Whether Canada will indefinitely remain a member of the British Empire is for the Canadians to say.
To that we will answer in the affirmative. He continues:
I think the chances are that, having achieved their independence for all practical purposes, being linked to Great Britain and the empire by bonds intangible and spiritual, rather than material, the connection will persist, and may well become stronger with the passage of time, an,d. the inevitable development of _ a common empire policy. But, whatever the future may have in store for us all, I am persuaded that Canadians will not surrender their independence, their nationhood, to become a mere appendix to the United States.


Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, "some men are bom great, some achieve greatness, while some have greatness thrust upon them". I am in the latter category this afternoon in being fortunately selected to follow

The Budget-Mr. Quinn
such an eloquent member as the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. McIntosh). I cannot agree with much of what he has said. I refer particularly to his statement regarding the reduction of the national debt. I cannot agree that surpluses should be wholly and entirely devoted to the reduction of our national debt while federal aid is refused to such important matters as technical education or the building of highways or provincial roads; and further, while we have upon our statute books legislation providing for the payment of old age pensions only one-half of which is to be borne by the federal government, the provinces which cannot afford to do so being expected to assume the other part of the burden. There are in this Dominion provinces-and I refer particularly to the maritime provinces-which because of their limited sources of revenue find it impossible to provide one-half of the money to pay old age pensions.
I had not intended to take part in this debate. After listening to the able address of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) I felt that the ground had been fully covered. I felt that he dealt with the budget address of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in such a clear, concise and logical manner that there was little left for any other hon. member to dilate upon. I feel, however, that I was challenged by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) when he spoke in this debate and made references to the prosperity of my native province. He said that the prosperity there is remarkable. He referred in his address to the lamentations of hon. gentlemen opposite from Nova Scotia. I could not help pondering the terms that hon. gentlemen on the other side use when referring to hon. members on this side from the maritime provinces. The hon. member for Hants-Kings said "lamentations"; the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said "doleful utterances" and the Minister of Finance said "whinings". Judging by results, I think I am going to continue in my lamentations, doleful utterances and whinings if we can continue to get the definite results in the maritime provinces that we have succeeded in getting during the past three years. I do not think that such terms become hon. gentlemen, and I would ask them respectfully to refrain from using them in respect to hon. members of this house who are simply performing their duty to their constituents. I remember the terms and epithets used by hon. gentlemen opposite during the session of 1926 when hon. members on this side were presenting the grievances and claims of the maritime provinces. The question was asked, "What is meant by maritime rights?" and one hon. gentleman opposite said that it was nothing but Tory propaganda; another said it was a political catch-cry and still another, a slogan used to get into parliament. But that has not been borne out by facts, because the efforts of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house have proved fruitful of results. They were successful in having the Duncan commission appointed, and I would ask where were^ hon. gentlemen opposite when that commission commenced to function? Where were the Liberals of Nova Scotia when that commission took evidence in that province? They were conspicuous by their absence. Not one of them came before that commission to give evidence.


James Layton Ralston: Did my hon. friend?


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, I think my hon. friend did, but I believe he appeared in the interests of somebody.


James Layton Ralston: I asked if my hon. friend appeared before the commission.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes. I am pointing out that hon. gentlemen opposite are now taking credit for the appointment of the Duncan commission and whatever benefits followed from it.


James Layton Ralston: In spite of the protest
of my hon. friend.


Felix Patrick Quinn: There were no protests from me. My only protest was in regard to the method of appointment of the commission. I would point out to my hon. friend that I gave the commission my wholehearted support, as did the whole Conservative party. May I further point out that Sir Andrew Rae Duncan and his commission expressly thanked the Rhodes government of Nova Scotia for the splendid assistance which it gave to the commission in the brief which it presented.
The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ulsley) has spoken of the general prosperity throughout the country, and he referred particularly to the prosperity of Nova Scotia. I dislike very much referring to an hon. gentleman when he is not in his seat, but it is not my fault that he is not here at the moment. I would point out that his views with regard to prosperity in Nova Scotia do not coincide with the views that have been expressed by his Liberal friends in that province. An outstanding Liberal of Nova Scotia, a gentleman at the present time occupying a seat in the Nova Scotia house of assembly, Mr. A. S. MacMillan, in a speech delivered
The Budget-Mr. Quinn

in the local assembly about the same time my hon. friend from Hants-Kings was making his speech in this house, referred particularly to the agricultural industry and the farmers of Nova Scotia. He said:
Fifty per cent of the farms are going behind, twenty-five per cent of them are standing still, and twenty-five per cent of them are making a little progress.
Do these views coincide with the views expressed by my hon. friend from Hants-Kings? But we have other evidence. The junior member for Halifax in the local house of assembly also spoke of conditions in Nova Scotia and said that four members of his own family had had to go to another country in search of employment. The hon. member for Shelburne spoke along similar lines. Only the other day the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) told this house that he had personally visited the Cape Breton centres, and he told of the conditions which he saw among the miners andj steel workers there. May I point out that the conditions among the miners and steel workers of Nova Scotia are in great measure due to the procrastination of this government in the matter of implementing to the full the recommendation of the Duncan commission with regard to assistance to the coal and steel industries. I shall not elaborate on that because it has already been dealt with in a very able manner by my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald).
Another very important industry in Nova-Scotia is the fishing industry. Only a few weeks ago a representative of the fishermen of eastern Nova Scotia came before a committee of this parliament and spoke of the conditions among the fishermen of Nova Scotia. Speaking before the committee on marine and fisheries, of which my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) is chairman, Father Boudreau is reported as follows.
Father Boudreau said he had many times seen the "gruesome picture of distress and poverty, numerous heads of families-fishermen, working hard, facing death itself sometimes in storms, and unfortunately losing their lives too often'-I lost three men in one week in the fall of 1927-unable to get bare necessaries of life."
He declared that everywhere on the eastern coast there were evident signs of distress. There had been tremendous increase in the cost of living and in the cost of equipment.
I would ask the house if the views expressed by that clergyman coincide with the views expressed by the hon. member for Hants-Kings.
My hon. friend also said that prosperity was rampant in the city of Halifax. I would

ask him if he reads his own Liberal newspaper, the official Liberal newspaper of Halifax, the Halifax Chronicle. What will he find there? He could pick up that paper any day during the last twelve months and see a whole page of properties advertised for sale for taxes. When people are unable to pay their taxes, is that an evidence of prosperity? I am afraid my hon. friend has been in bad company, that he has been associating too much with the financial interests which have all been giving us such glowing reports of the prosperity of this county. As I pointed out to the members of this house a year ago, prosperity cannot be measured by the financial reports of the banks and financial institutions of this country. You have to go down among the workmen, the farmers and the fishermen, the mechanics and the labourers, to find out if there is real prosperity in this country, and as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, when they feel the jingle of the money in their pockets, they can tell you whether the country is prosperous or not.
Before I leave the question of the fisheries, may I read to the house a resolution which I have received from the municipality of the county of Halifax:
Whereas it has been reported that the Department of Fisheries is about to abolish the office of inspector of fish curing and packing and have the work thereof done by the fishery overseers;
And whereas the fishing overseers have with their present duties as much work as they can satisfactorily perform;
And whereas the thorough inspection of the quality of fish cured or pickled and of the containers and a general supervision of the same by a competent official is an absolute necessity both to fisherman and the trade;
And whereas the county of Halifax having a large fishing population and trade, is vitally interested in the matter;
Be it therefore resolved that the county council of the municipality of Halifax county, strongly urge upon the Department of Fisheries of Canada, that the office of inspector of fish curing and packing be retained and a competent man he appointed at once to the same.
Having put that resolution before the house, I would ask the responsible members of the government present to take cognizance of it.
The Minister of Finance has told this house that the government has been practising economy. I take issue with him when he states that this is a government of economy. I say that it is a government of extravagance, and that has been demonstrated on many an occasion. Take only one instance, the building of a magazine and arsenal on the shores of Bedford basin at Halifax. A contract was let to the same gentleman I mentioned a little while

The Budget-Mr. Quinn
ago, who seems to be a political favourite of this government, Mr. A. S. MacMillan. The contract was for $57,900. After various delays in commencing work on the contract the government paid him $10,948, which along with other extras brought the contract up to $72,138.30. This is taken from the Auditor General's report of March 31, 1927. I understand a considerable amount has been paid to this gentleman since that time. I have not taken the trouble to look at the total figures in connection with the building of the magazine and arsenal on the shores of Bedford basin.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend know that the delays were caused during the regime of the so-called " shadow government"? .


Felix Patrick Quinn: That may sound clever, Mr. Speaker.


James Layton Ralston: It is .the fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason they cancelled the first tender.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I find another instance of the extravagance of this government. In the last couple of weeks the government have been, advertising for applications for positions in the civil service representing a total annual expenditure in salaries of 170,120. I submit that as our country is not growing in population we should be prepared to get along with the civil servants that we already have.
Now, sir, I intend to refer again to the report of the Duncan commission on maritime claims. Let me quote from that report at page 28:
Very considerable evidence was laid before us on behalf of the maritime provinces, to show that in the public pronouncements of responsible ministers over a long period of time, and indeed in the statutory obligations under which railway companies operate, there is to be found the most explicit pledge that Canadian trade will be developed through Canadian ports, and yet, in spite of that pledge, ports such as Halifax and St. John are, it is stated, not being fully utilized.
That brings me, sir, to something which has happened in the last few days in the city of Montreal. The maritime board of trade and the Halifax harbour commission have asked the Board of Railway Commissioners for a lower export rate on grain. A reduction in the rate to the port of Quebec has already been granted. Halifax and St. John are asking for rates to their ports in proportion to the rate granted to the port of Quebec. On March 13 the council of the Montreal board of trade endorsed a resolution adopted by the Montreal Corn Exchange opposing the application to the Board of Railway Commissioners by the Halifax harbour commission and the Halifax board of trade for a reduction from 35.5 cents to 19.34 cents per hundred pounds on the all-rail rate on grain for export from Fort William, Port Arthur and Armstrong via the National Transcontinental railway to Halifax and St. John. The endor-sation will be forwarded to the Board of Railway Commissioners, the Montreal board of trade believing that it would be ill-advised for any action to be taken which would upset the present rate situation as between the various Atlantic ports in the United States and Canada. They decided to draw the attention of the railway commission to the serious loss in revenue to the Canadian railways and other transportation interests from rate reduction on an isolated commodity or on a movement to a certain port when general rate reductions are in contemplation. The application has been before the Board of Railway Commissioners for several months, but as yet no date for its hearing has been set.

The Royal Grain Inquiry Commission reported in January, 1925. A member of the commission was J. G. Scott, of Quebec, who submitted a supplementary report on "Transportation". In his report Mr. Scott declared that the railway companies:
should make the rates on export wheat and flour from Armstrong or Fort William to Quebec or Montreal 11 cents per bushel, and to Halifax and Saint John 12 cents per bushel, so that they may get the winter traffic, and thus carry out the recommendation of the Quebec Board of Trade, endorsed by the special committee of the senate. Moreover,-
The commissioner added.
-it is the duty of the government to do this, because it was on the distinct promise to parliament in 1904, that the Transcontinental would cheapen the rates of freight upon western grain to Canadian seaports, that the people consented to the building of this railway, which has cost the country $160,000,000. It is a breach of faith with the eastern seaports to keep the rate of freight at such a figure as to prevent this being done, after the railway has proved its ability to do it, and do it profitably.
That is the report of a commissioner appointed by the Dominion government, and reporting in 1925.
Up to August, 1927, the rates on grain from the head of the lakes to Quebec and to maritime ports stood-
To Quebec, 34.5 cents per hundred pounds. To Halifax, 35.5 cents per hundred pounds.
Or 1 cent greater to Halifax.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was drawing to the attention of hon. members of this bouse the discriminatory rate on grain to the maritime ports of St. John and Halifax as compared with the rate to Quebec, and I was dealing with the protest of the Montreal Com Exchange and the Montreal board of trade. This protest declared:
.... the board of trade believing that it would be ill-advised for any action to be taken in the matter of rates which would upset the present rate situation as between the various Atlantic ports in the United States and Canada.
This attitude is very difficult to understand, because the rate situation was very much upset when the new rate of 18.34 cents per hundred pounds was given to St. Lawrence ports, creating a severe discrimination against the maritime ports. We have heard talk of retaliation or reprisals by the United States if Canada tried, through rail rate making, to

The Budget-Mr. Quinn
keep her own traffic for her own ports. Why is it, if this is the case, that retaliation did not follow the announcement of the new St. Lawrence rate? It is useless to pretend that this new rate has not increased grain shipments through St. Lawrence ports very materially. In 1927 the deliveries to Quebec elevators amounted to 9,773,376 bushels while in 1928, after the new rate took effect, they amounted to 12,276,082 bushels, so it will be seen that the increase was very large. Let us remind those who talk of retaliation of what Commissioner Scott said in his report, at page 212:
The fear of retaliation on the part of American railways is not well founded. Is it likely that they would reduce their rates to an unprofitable basis for their own traffic, simply as a retaliation because Canadian railways made rates to bring Canadian traffic to their own seaports? .... there is no sentiment about it. Why should we not carry our own grain, over our own railways, to our own seaports? As the senate committee reported to the government, this cannot be injurious to our railways, because it is an export traffic which practically they are not getting at all. The railroad tariff prevents it.
Let it be remembered that those are not the words of an irresponsible individual; they are the words and the advice of a federal government commissioner.
In their application for a 19.34 cents rate the Halifax Harbour Commissioners declare:
Our board felt that before we could make any serious effort to attract grain to this port, this wide discrepancy had to be adjusted.
The maritime people ask, in all fairness, if such heavy discrimination should be permitted longer to exist. The application of the Maritime board of trade, dated June 29, 1928,
states:
1.	That the National Transcontinental railway was constructed for the purpose of creating a route to Halifax and St. John that would provide for, among other matters, the transporting of Canada's exportable surplus of grain through the ports of Halifax and St. John at rates that would not exceed those to other north Atlantic ports.
2.	That an all-rail rate of 19.34 cents per 100 pounds as requested in this application is necessary in order that the National Transcontinental railway be used for the purpose for which it was constructed.
3.	That the board did, in general order no.
448. dated August 26,	1927, recognize this
matter as one of national importance and directed the Canadian National Railways to publish an export rate, on grain, of 18.34 cents per 100 pounds to Quebec city. This order was complied with by the publication of C.N.R. tariff no. C.G. 93, G.R.C. no. E1268.
4.	That the same conditions and circumstances surround the extension of the export rate on grain to St. John and Halifax as applied in the decision of the board with respect to the rate to Quebec city.
5.	That, in view of the national importance of this matter, we would respectfully urge that it is expedient that this matter be given immediate attention by the board.
The case for the maritime ports is unassailable; this maritime claim is based on the soundest of ground.
I well remember, Mr. Speaker, the year 1904, when representatives of the Liberal government came to the city of Halifax; these included Right Hon. W. S. Fielding and the then Halifax representative, Mr. William Roche, who later was appointed to the Senate.
I attended the meeting, and these two gentlemen asked the people of Halifax and the people of Nova Scotia to give them a mandate to build the Transcontinental railway, promising .that if this mandate were given it would mean a tremendous benefit to the port of Halifax. That mandate was given; the people of Halifax and of Nova Scotia believed in the pledged words of those prominent politicians and sent a solid representation from Nova Scotia, fully believing that if they did so it would mean a tremendous benefit to the port of Halifax and to Nova Scotia generally. To-dlay, sir, I ask that those promises and those pledges be fulfilled, just as I have asked that the promises and pledges made by public, men at the time of confederation should be kept. We are not here from the naaritimes, as has been pointed out before, as supplicants or mendicants; we only ask for these things because we are partners in this great business, this great confederation known as the Dominion of Canada. We came into confederation believing that justice would be done to the maritime provinces, and we are demanding that the pledges and promises which were given be fulfilled. I put this matter up directly to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), and ask that he bend every energy, use every influence at his command and obtain the support of his colleagues on that side of the house toward preventing the carrying out of the requests contained in the resolutions of the Montreal grain exchange and the Montreal board of trade. With his tremendous influence I know he can prevent the granting of these selfish and sectional requests.
I do not wish my remarks to be interpreted as being anti-American. I give credit to the great country to the south of us for the excellent management of their affairs, but I ask the government of this country to exercise the same care in administering |the affaire of Canada. Canada has a great future;*it is a country with wonderful possibilities and splendid 'resources of the farm, forest, sea
The Budget-Mr. Duff

and mines, and with the proper government administration, backed up with virile manhood such as we have in our country, I look forward with every hope and assurance to the day when Canada can maintain, its position as a part of the greatest empire ever known; when it can take its place amongst the greatest nations of the world.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure after you have listened to the different speeches which have been offered during the last three or four weeks on the important matter of the budget, or what is perhaps more properly known as the annual statement of the government for ths year 1928, that you will feel, as I do, that the quicker this debate is brought to a close the better it will be for all concerned. However, I have not raised my voice very often during the last three or four years, and I may be pardoned if I take up a few minutes in discussing certain questions which have been brought to the attention of the house during the past two or three weeks. I have listened with a great deal of interest to most of the speeches, and while I cannot refer to all of them, I would like to discuss some of the remarks which were made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Quinn).
In concluding his remarks the hon. member referred to speeches delivered by Mr. Fielding and the late Hon. Mr. Roche with regard to the Transcontinental railway. Although the hon. member did not intend to do it, he paid a compliment to the Liberal party when he spoke of the building and the completion of that road. If Mr. Fielding's ideas and the ideas of the Liberal party had been carried out, more grain would be flowing over the Transcontinental to the port of Halifax than is the case at the present time. When the Liberal party was defeated in 1911, and when our Conservative friends came into power, instead of trying to build up the port of Halifax through the construction of that road, they started in to cut the grades down and put in wooden bridges instead of the iron bridges which had been contemplated by the Liberal party and the Transcontinental commissioners. Therefore, the Conservative party and not the Liberal party is to blame for the fact that more traffic is not going through the port of Halifax to-day.
Let us compare the record of the Liberal party with regard to the port of Halifax with the record of the Conservative party. We do not hear anything about what was done for the port of Halifax between the years 1911 and 1921, the ten years during which our Con-

servative friends were in power. But what did they really do for that port? Practically nothing. It is only since the Liberal party came into power in 1922 that the port has been developed, and everyone knows that during the last three years the traffic through the port of Halifax has amounted to three times the traffic which went through it during the years of the Conservative regime, with the possible exception of the war period. Who has spent money on the port of Halifax? The hon. member reminds me of some people with whom I have done business; the more you do for them the less they appreciate it. If you do ninety-nine good turns for them and you can not do the hundredth, they will turn on you and rend you. That seems to be the attitude of the hon. junior member for Halifax. Does my hon. friend condemn the Liberal party because we are going to vote five million dollars in a few days for the Halifax harbour commission? Does my hon. friend condemn us because a contract was given the other day to the gentleman he named for $300,000 to cover certain work for the harbour commission? Does he condemn the expenditure of $2,500,000 for cold storage facilities in the port of Halifax, $700,000 of which is being voted this year? The hon. member said that nothing had been done for this country or for the province of Nova Scotia during the time the Liberal party had a solid sixteen here from the province of Nova Scotia. Let me say to him that since I have been in parliament I have done as much as he has, and a great deal more. I have stood up for the port of Halifax and the province of Nova Scotia, while he has voted against the things which this government tried to do for that province and that port.
The hon. member referred to the fact that the hon. member for Hamts-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) had spoken of the lamentations, the whinings and complainings of Jeremiah which came from the Conservative side. I do not think my hon. friend on this side of the house has used the right terms and the hon. junior member for Halifax, being musically inclined, will be able to appreciate what I am going to say. During the last three years, day in and day out, session in and session out, they have talked about the Duncan report and have endeavoured to take the credit for what the Liberal party has done. We have heard complaints made that the Liberal government has not fulfilled 100 per cent the pledges or the promises contained in the Duncan report, and when they keep talking about this matter they remind me of a night I spent last year in one of the theatres in the city of

The Budget-Mr. Duff
Ottawa. One of the vaudeville stunts that evening was a competition among old fiddlers. There were nine or ten of these fiddlers on the platform, some with whiskers down to their knees, and they had fiddles which were about one hundred years old. One of the contestants started and he ran over his fiddle, and there were wailings, gnashings of teeth, and caterwauling-that is the word I wanted to remind the hon. member of-and then the next one played his little piece. They all played just the same as my hon. friends from Nova Scotia, who have been playing, rasping and wailing on their fiddles, sometimes only on one string, and all being led by the leader of the orchestra, the 'hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). They complain that the Duncan report has not been carried out in its entirety, but I am going to show that not only have the Liberal party carried out that Duncan report in its entirety, but they have carried it out in one case to the extent of over 150 per cent; they have gone too far with it.
Before I take up that particular phase of the matter, I would like to refer to one or two things which were mentioned by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) with regard to certain contracts which have been given in the city of Halifax. In order to make his point against one of the Liberal members of the local legislature, he referred to a contract given to that gentleman two or three years ago by the Department of National Defence. It is quite true that Mr. MacMillan was given a contract, I think in June, 1926, by the Department of National Defence. Tenders were called for and when this government went out of power on the 1st of July, 1926, the contract had not been awarded. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) came in as Minister of National Defence and he and my good friend the ex-Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) met in solemn conclave and gave the contract to Mr. A. S. MacMillian. Does the hon. junior member for Halifax disagree with his colleague the senior member who gave Mr. MacMillian that contract at the price of his tender? What happened? Mr. MacMillan, after receiving the contract, assembled his plant, brought horses, teams and men from the county of Antigonish and started work. He did certain work there and then some of our Tory friends in Halifax-no doubt my hon. friend the junior member for that city knows something about this-thought it would never do to see this Grit contractor do the work and so they got after somebody in Ottawa with the result that he had to cease work. He had to send his horses home and he had to disorganize his whole staff, the result being that
afterwards, when he was asked to complete his contract, he put in a bill for $9,000 for extras, and if anybody is to blame for his putting in that bill, the Conservatives at Halifax should assume the blame and not try to load it off on -to this government or the contractor.
The hon. junior member for Halifax referred to Mr. MacMillan's contract at Hudson bay.
I know, Mr. Speaker, you are most generous; sometimes I think you are perhaps a little deaf, because this afternoon the junior member for Halifax was unquestionably entirely out of order in referring to the contract which Mr. MacMillan had to take supplies to Hudson bay, the reason being that papers have been called for and the matter is now before the public accounts committee. But since you allowed the junior member for Halifax to mention the matter, perhaps I may be permitted to reply to him. Mr. MacMillan has nothing to hide in connection with the matter. The Liberals in Nova Scotia are willing to have the public accounts committee meet and Mr. MacMillan will come to Ottawa and give a good account of himself.
But my hon. friend says that another member in the Nova Scotia legislature, Mr. Kin-ley, sold $3,000 worth of drugs to the Hudson's bay expedition. My good friend, with tears in his eyes, complained because Tory druggists in Halifax did not have a chance to put in a price or to get this contract. Why should they? I want to congratulate the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) because he did not ask Tory druggists or Tory contractors to contract for anything with regard to Hudson's bay. Perhaps I might have had something to do with that myself; I might have given him a hint that that was the proper way to do the thing, because this government is entirely too prone to give Tories contracts and positions when the Liberal party is in power. Let me say to the junior member for Halifax: It is true Mr. Kinley got a contract for $3,000 worth of drugs and he made the huge profit of $90 on that $3,000 contract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How does the hon. member know?


William Duff: I happen to know. Perhaps I was the auditor. Mr. Kinley is quite willing to come before the public accounts committee and explain this little transaction of $3,000. He is a man who has given the best years of his life to the public service of the country and one who is now a member of the Nova Scotia legislature.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, while I permitted the hon. member for Halifax to refer to this particu-
The Budget-Mr. Duff

lar matter, it was because at the beginning of the session the whole of the Auditor General's report is referred to the public accounts committee and the Chair cannot know in advance what subject matter will be taken up for investigation. Otherwise, we could not discuss anything in the house, because the Auditor General's report covers so many subjects.


William Duff: Well, Mr. Speaker, you and I need not have any quarrel about the rules of the house because we are both pretty well grounded in them. The junior member for Halifax this afternoon also complained that the government did not continue the aid for technical education and for highways. These are not matters for the federal government at all. If Sir Robert Borden, when he was Prime Minister of Canada, was good enough -or perhaps did not realize exactly what he was doing-to vote federal moneys for these purposes, that is no reason why the present government should do the same. My hon. friend complained that the Conservative government in Halifax, led by a previous Speaker of this house, was not able on account of lack of revenue, to put into effect old age pensions for which this parliament voted 50 per cent. My hon. friend evidently did not read the newspapers lately or the report which was filed in Halifax a few days ago by the provincial treasurer, because that report shows that this year the Tory government in Halifax collected $2,000,000 more than the Liberal party did in 1925. Consequently there is no excuse for not putting into effect the Old Age Pension Act. If the Conservative government do not do it, the Liberal government when they come into power will certainly see that the old people in Nova Scotia are properly cared for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: " A thoroughly vicious principle."


William Duff: It is too bad we have any poor at all, but they will always be with us. The junior member for Halifax referred to conditions in Nova Scotia. The other day the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) spoke about his trip through that province. I never go to Winnipeg or Toronto and come back and wail about conditions in those cities. Why should the hon. member for North Winnipeg, who had a nice trip to Nova Scotia, come back and, because perhaps in the town of Glace Bay the streets were not paved with gold or even with concrete, or there was not proper sewage, or some children perhaps did not have proper clothing, say that Nova Scotia was not in fairly good shape or condition? My hon. friend 
should be very very careful about making any of those remarks because that is either a provincial or a civic matter in Glace Bay. He should not forget that the president of the United Mine Workers for Nova Scotia is mayor of the town of Glace Bay. Perhaps Nova Scotia is not as prosperous as it might be or as we would like to see it, but there is no need for anyone in this parliament or anywhere else to try to make other members from different parts of the country believe that Nova Scotia is not in fairly good condition.


Mr. HEAPS:: Does the hon. member mean to say that conditions in the mining areas of Nova Scotia are satisfactory to him?


William Duff: No, they will never be satisfactory to me. I would like to see every miner get $50 a day if the British Empire Steel Corporation could pay it. Conditions in the mining area, however, were never as good as they are just now since the Liberal government came into power in this country, and I will prove that in just a moment. They are so good in the county of Inverness-I see my hon. friend from Inverness smiles-that this government is appropriating $375,000 to buy out the Inverness railway. My hon. friend said that there was no prosperity in Nova Scotia. He bewailed the fact and he played on his old fiddle with his strings rasping up and down-Duncan report, 100 per cent; Duncan report, not fulfilled. He went on for five or ten minutes and he said that conditions in Nova Scotia were terrible. I do not want the house to take my word for conditions in our province, but the junior member for Halifax-


Felix Patrick Quinn: I rise to a point of order.
I did not say that conditions in Nova Scotia were unsatisfactory. I was quoting from representative Liberals in Nova Scotia in connection with the comments of the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley).


William Duff: Then my hon. friend admits
that conditions in Nova Scotia are good?


Felix Patrick Quinn: You are not going to put
words into my mouth.


William Duff: Of course not; I do not have to. But you put words into my mouth. Certainly the hon. member tried to make the house believe this afternoon that conditions in Nova Scotia were not good.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I did not.


William Duff: I hold in my hand extracts
from a certain newspaper in the province of Nova Scotia, one that is pretty well versed as to conditions in our province, and although it

The Budget-Mr. Duff
sometimes supports the Tory party, yet on the whole it is not a bad newspaper. Here is what it says, under the heading " Facts for Fact-Finders:"
1.	Statistics compiled by Sydney B. Smith, Ottawa, for the Fnancial Post, list gains in business, 1928 over 1927, as follows:
Prairies	
16.2	per centMaritimes	
15.0	"Quebec	
13.5	"British Columbia	
12.0	"Ontario	
10.0	"
The maritimes thus stand first in business gains in all Canada outside the prairies.
That is from the Halifax Herald, the Conservative organ in Nova Scotia. But let us go a little further:
Facts for Fact-Finders
2.	Nova Scotia led all Canada in gain in percentage of construction in 1928, according to MacLeans' figures quoted by Cockfield, Brown and Company. The following is a paragraph from the Canadian Business Preview of that advertising organization:
"With the exception of Manitoba and Ontario, there was a decided increase in building in each province. The largest percentage was in Nova Scotia with a gain of 408.6 per cent over 1927 figures.
Of course, the junior member for Halifax forgets that we are spending $3,000,000 to build a new hotel and railway station at Halifax, and that we are spending millions of dollars for other purposes in that province.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Tell that to MacMillan.


William Duff: Let us look at some other
facts about the province of Nova Scotia, which our friends on the other side try to make out is in such a deplorable condition, and they expect us to whine and caterwaul with them, to bring our fiddles here and all harp on that one string. I continue to quote from the Halifax Herald:
Roger Babson, famous economist and statistician, issues each month a map in colours showing the sales and credit opportunities of the different parts of the country. When a district is printed in gold it means that the sales opportunities in that district are very favourable.	.	,,
For the first time in many years Roger Babson has put the maritime provinces in gold. This is what he says about them:	_
"Both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have shown so sustained an increase in general business conditions that we have entered them as gold areas on the Babson's sales map for the first time in many years. The maritime provinces may be considered an excellent field for sales campaigns."
And yet the junior member for Halifax tried to leave the impression on the house this afternoon that the maritime provinces are not in a fairly good condition.


Felix Patrick Quinn: My hon. friend-


William Duff: I did not interrupt my hon.
friend this afternoon, and I think he might do me the courtesy not to interrupt me. He quoted this afternoon the saying that " some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them." May I paraphrase that by saying " some men are born small, they never develop, but shrivel up and die."
Here is fact No. 4 for fact-finders, taken again from the Halifax Herald:
There is nothing wrong with business conditions in Halifax, Nova Scotia or the maritimes. We show an increase of 31 per cent over last year and our plant is working to capacity twenty-four hours a day.
That is from R. C. Moir, Ben's Limited, Halifax. I have another article here from the same newspaper headed "Optimism Generally Recognized." It says:
Business in the maritime provinces, especially in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, was never as good as it is to-day.
With regard to business conditions in the province of Nova Scotia, may I quote from another gentleman for whom I have the highest respect, a gentleman with great business ability, in the province of Nova Scotia. About a fortnight ago-I do not know whether it was during or before the Easter holidays- he went to Halifax to attend a meeting of a certain company in that province, and as president or chairman of the board of directors he sat at the head of the table and kept order during the proceedings. After the meeting was over he gave a statement to the press. It appears in the Halifax Herald, a Conservative organ. The article is 'headed, " Steel Company Directors Optimistic," and says:
There was a larger tonnage of steel put through the works at Trenton with some additional profit. Joint operation of the ore mines at Wabana has been found to be more economical than separate management.
The report shows the total assets of the company to be $31,544,073.29. Respecting the company's operations, the report says, "The prospects for the coming year are more hopeful-"
Listen to this, which is happening under a Grit government in power at Ottawa:
"The prospects for the coming year are more hopeful, as extensive contracts have been secured for the power shops, which will not only keep them fully occupied for some months, but will improve conditions at company's main works."
I congratulate the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) for having the good sense and the courage to make that report to his fellow-directors. May I add that part of that contract which the Trenton steel works is now getting the benefit of was given to them by
The Budget-Mr. Duj]

the Canadian National railways on account of the increased 'business coming from the West Indies treaty, which some of my hon. friends opposite do not seem to think very much of. An order for 500 refrigerator cars for the transportation of fruit was given to this plant, and when the cars are 'built they will be sent to Halifax and St. John to move fruit which the West Indies steamers will bring from Jamaica and other ports in the West Indies.
With regard to the Duncan report, previous to this commission being appointed we were told that there was a certain corporation in the province of Nova Scotia which wa3 strangling the life of that province. We heard the same old wailings, that the province was being strangled by a great octopus, and if the Conservatives were put into power they would see that this octopus was quickly unscrambled. Well, the Conservative government has been in power in Nova Scotia for three years now, and this octopus still remains as it was before 1925; no attempt has been made by the provincial government to unscramble it.
But there are two Duncan reports. One is known as the federal Duncan report, and the other is known as the provincial Duncan report, and I am going to make a comparison to show how the Conservative government in Nova Scotia carried out the provincial Duncan report, and how the Liberal government at Ottawa carried out the federal Duncan report.
The provincial Duncan commission was appointed before the federal commission, and although the former commission long since reported to the premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Rhodes, not one thing has been done about it. There has been no attempt made by the provincial government to carry out that Duncan report, and let me say in answer to my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) that most of that Duncan report referred to conditions in the mining area in Cape Breton. If any government has the responsibility of looking after the conditions of the workingmen in the province of Nova Scotia, it is the government of that province, and not the federal government.
Now what did the federal government do with regard to the federal Duncan report? We reduced the freight rates in the province of Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces some 20 per cent, giving relief to the people of the maritime provinces to the amount of about $3,000,000 a year. The Canadian National railways gave over a very large amount to the province of Nova Scotia for provincial and municipal taxes, and the Con-

servative government in power at Halifax, instead of passing part of that along to the municipalities, put it all in their own treasury. This parliament also passed legislation with respect to coking plants, to ensure that coal from the mining areas in Cape Breton, and from Stellarton and Springhill, should be used in the manufacture of coke. Then, sir, we gave a special grant of $200,000 to move coal during the winter months from Nova Scotia to Montreal and points further west. We also appointed harbour commissions for the ports of Halifax and St. John; and while I cannot discuss those harbour commissions, there is no doubt that money has been spent freely in the maritime provinces because of those appointments. Then $700,000 was voted for the erection of that great cold storage plant at Halifax.
The Duncan report recommended that certain districts in Nova Scotia should be given railway communication. I want to thank the government and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), the minister from Nova Scotia (Mr. Ralston) and the Canadian National Railways management for arranging that this session the Guysborough railway bill should again come before parliament. I hope and trust in the interests of that part of Nova Scotia that the House of Commons and the Senate will pass the bill so that the railway may be built in the very near future. In addition to providing money for the Guysborough railway this Liberal government- although the riding is represented by a Conservative-is setting aside $375,000 for the Inverness railway.
There is another important matter, and I referred to it at the outset of my speech. Not only has this government tried to carry out the recommendations of the Duncan report 100 per cent, but in one case they have carried them out 150 per cent. I was rather surprised to read in Hansard a few days ago, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), that in the year of Our Lord 1928 this government had paid to the Conservative government in Halifax the huge sum of about $1,300,000. The Duncan report recommended that till such time as a conference had been held and the matter of subsidies investigated, a lump sum payment should be made to each of the three maritime provinces, and in the case of Nova Scotia they named an annual payment of $875,000. We did not object to tifaalt, sir, we on this side of the house voted that this should be done, and in 1927 $875,000 was paid to the provincial government of Nova Scotia. But the following year, for some reason which I cannot

The Budget-Mr. Duff
fathom, this government were so generous that they carried out the Duncan report in this respect 150 per cent and gave the provincial government $875,000, plus $437,500. I do not agree with this.
But my hon. friends opposite do not appreciate this liberality, and in the house and before the country they charge that the government are not doing what they should do in carrying out the recommendations contained in the Duncan report. They say, Oh, you have done nothing for coal and steel. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to show that we did do something for these great industries of the province. We reduced the freight rates 20 per cent, and certainly the steel and coal companies of Nova Scotia benefited by that reduction more than anyone else. We have also, as I have pointed out, given $200,000 to assist the movement of coal to Montreal and points west. As we all know, the application for further tariff protection on steel is before the tariff advisory board. My only regret in regard to that application is that my good friend from Pictou, who is an able business man and who knows the steel and coal industry perhaps better than any other man in Canada, could not convince his own confreres and the steel companies of Ontario to get together and decide what they want in the way of further protection. The trouble is that the steel companies all over the country are divided on this matter, and that is one reason why the tariff commission finds it so difficult to decide what shall be done by way of relief, if any.
Now, let me make a suggestion or two in regard to improving the conditions in the coal and steel industry of Nova Scotia. One hon. gentleman on the other side of the house spoke of the conflicting interests in the various sections of this great country. That, sir, is why in my opinion we cannot raise the duty on coal, and as far as I am concerned my voice will be heard against any such proposal. I believe in lower tariffs. Two years ago I voted with the government to increase the duty on slack coal to 50 cents. This was all right; but certainly as a Liberal and a low-tariff man I would not agree to a further increase in this duty. If it were raised, say, from 50 cents to a dollar a ton, it would only mean that the consumers in this country would have to pay the extra price.
But 'there is a remedy, sir. I said, in answer to my hon. friend, that conditions in the mining area were better this year than they have been for a long time. The men are getting more days' work now than they have been in past years. But certain tilings
might be done to still further improve the conditions. They are trying to take advantage of the movement of coal west on the three-dollar rate which was arranged by this government with the Canadian National Railways. I am told, sir, that the Canadian National can carry coal from Sydney to Montreal and further west for two dollars a ton; I am told that they can carry it even for $1.70. If so, the lower rate should be put into effect. A rate of two dollars a ton would mean a great deal to the coal industry of Nova Scotia, because millions of tons of coal now imported from the United States for use in Quebec and Ontario could be displaced by our own coal.
Then agiain, sir, the movement might be further encouraged in this way. At present it commences in December. My information is that if in the Sydney and Cape Breton areas the movement was started in November it would mean a great deal to the local mines. With regard to Springhill and Stellarto'n, the rate should apply all the year round instead of only during the four or five months in the winter.
Those are ways in which the coal industry can be helped, and I submit this would be a better course to pursue than to raise the duty on coal or to give bonuses to the steel industry. I think it would be better, in the first place, to allow the steel company to operate for a year or two under the new management to see whether or not they can improve the condition of the industry.
There is something else, sir, that can be done for the miners. My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Smith) in discussing the coal question referred to the fact that New Zealand butter was coming into this country and the rest of Nova Scotia to the detriment of the farmers whom he represents. This question, Mr. Speaker, is like a two-edged sword, it cuts both ways. Does my hon. friend believe in increasing the duty on butter so that the miners of Springhill would have to pay more for this commodity? Does he want to go back to the days of Tory rule when they had to eat oleomargarine in place of butter? Another solution so far as the miners of Cape Breton are concerned is for this government to reduce the cost of living. I agree with the junior member for Halifax that the cost of living is too high; but that is due to the fact that about fifty years ago a Tory government put into practice the principle of protection, which enables our manufacturers to charge from 25 to 30 per cent more for their goods than they could get in the open market. Until such time as the duty is reduced, and
The Budget-Mr. Duff

consequently the cost of living also, the people in the maritime provinces, and particularly the miners in Sydney and Springhill, will not benefit.
I notice that my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) also referred to New Zealand butter in the course of his speech in this debate. I rememlber, sir, pefibaps more vividly and distinctly than he does, that seven or eight years ago we had to buy oleomargarine for our fishing fleet. Is my hon. friend in favour of giving our fishermen oleomargarine to spread on their bread?


Mr. ERNST:: No, Lunenburg butter.


William Duff: That, Mr. Speaker, shows how little he knows about fitting out the Lunenburg fishing fleet. Not ten pounds of Lunenburg butter have been used on any Lunenburg fishing schooner in the last ten years. The butter has to be bought all over the country, and sometimes we have to buy New Zealand butter to fit out the Lunenburg fishing fleet. Of course, if my hon. friend wants to give our fishermen oleomargarine, that may be all right so far as he is concerned, but I can assure him that the fishermen of Lunenburg county believe in having good grub. They want good butter for their bread, even if it does come from New Zealand. My hon. friend also played on a fiddle. I do not know whether he had any bow at all; I think he was playing over the bridge all the time. He complained that conditions were terrible among the fishermen of Nova Scotia. Well, of course, conditions are not as satisfactory as we should like to see them. But to bolster up his argument he made the statement that the average amount earned by the fishermen was $300 a year.


William Gordon Ernst: Shore fishermen.


William Duff: 
Mr. H. B. SHORT (Digby-Annapolis):: I
expected that my hon. friend (Mr. Duff) would have something to say with reference to this wonderful Robb budget about which the Liberals have 'talked so much, but he did not mention the budget at all. The hon. gentleman's whole speech was a tirade against the Conservative members of Nova Sootia. Evidently those members who had previously spoken had touched my hon. friend in the wrong spot. The hon. gentleman says that the Liberals have done a great deal for Nova Scotia; they have implemented the Duncan report 100 per cent and in fact 150 per cent I venture to say that my hon. friend would not appear in his own constituency and tell his electors that story; nor would he make the same kind of speech in Nova Scotia as he has made in this house to-night.


William Duff: I am going to send out 10,000 copies to-morrow morning.


Harry Bernard Short: My bon. friend made pretty nearly the same kind of speech in this house rn 1926. I remember his standing over there and speaking about this commission which was going to be appointed to investigate maritime rights which we were presenting on behalf of Nova Scotia. He said dit was nothing but Tory propaganda, because there was

The Budget-Mr. Short
nothing wrong with Nova Scotia; Nova Sootia was prosperous. That was his attitude: all you needed to do was to go to Halifax when a fair was on and see the automobiles driving in and look at the well dressed people who were on the streets. But when it came to his election down in that province it was a far different question. My bon. friend stated on the hustings there that he was in favour of the Duncan report; conditions were not right in Nova Scotia and, if he was elected, he Was going to see that the report was implemented in full. He would see that it was carried out or he would resign his seat if elected. Does the hon. gentleman now stand up in this house and say that the Duncan report has been implemented in full?


William Duff: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: Well, I would point out to
the hon. gentleman that the principal item in the recommendations of that report, referring to coal and steel, has not been touched by the government; so far as this item is concerned they have not turned a hand to give any assistance to the coal and steel industry. Yet the hon. gentleman says that the government have implemented the Duncan report 150 per cent. What has he to ^ay in regard to the subsidy to the province of [DOT] Nova Sootia? Evidently he has never read the report. The report stated that the $875,000 was an amount additional to the subsidy which was already being paid to the province. The government paid what the Duncan report suggested they should pay, and not one dollar more. So much for the hon. member; I will not refer to him again because it is not necessary. I might however observe this before I leave him finally. I was surprised that an hon. gentleman who is so much interested in the fisheries had nothing whatever to say about that great industry. He was so absorbed in his tirade against the Conservative members in Nova Scotia that he forgot all about the fishing industry.


William Duff: I am too modest.


Harry Bernard Short: Now, Mr. Speaker, it was
not my intention to say anything with reference to the budget, for the reason that practically everything which it was necessary for us to say on this side of the house was so admirably put forward by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in his excellent speech some weeks ago. I feel however, as a member from Nova Scotia, that it is incumbent upon me to say something in refutation of what has been represented by some of the Liberal members opposite. Those gentlemen would lead the house to believe 78594-87
that conditions in Nova Scotia are thoroughly prosperous. Now I am not a pessimist by any manner of means; I am an optimist, and I believe that there are some sections of Nova Scotia that are prosperous. But there are other sections that are anything but prosperous. Take the farming industry of Nova Scoria, the dairy industry and the fishing industry: not one of these great industries is prosperous; there is no prosperity about it.
I was surprised at the attitude of my hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) the other day. He suggested that there was wonderful prosperity in our beautiful province. As I say, I am willing and glad to admit that some sections are prosperous, and I hope the time is coming When the whole province will share in that prosperity. But that time will not come under this administration; we shall need to have a change of government before there is general prosperity in the country. The country will never prosper under this government.
My hon. friend from Hants-Kings would lead this house to believe that the Annapolis valley is one of the most prosperous sections of Nova Scotia. My constituency happens to join that of the hon. member and I venture to say that he dare not go down to his constituency and tell the farmers that they are as prosperous as he tried to make this house believe. It is true that they had a fair crop this year, but owing to lack of markets that crop did not pay the cost of production. We in Nova Scoria were not so fortunate in getting special rates on our potatoes as were some sections of Quebec, where the farmers were given special rates in order to permit them to send their potatoes to the markets of Montreal and Ottawa. Then our fruit crop was below the average .this year; in some sections of the Annapolis vallley the apple crop was almost a failure. It is true that the farmers received a good price for their apples but the returns were not anything like average.
The hon. member for Hants-Kings complimented the government on the reduction of one per cent in the sales tax; he said that was a wonderful thing for the people of Nova Scotia as well as for the people of Canada generally, and he thought the government should be commended for not wiping out the tax altogether. For years we on this side of the house have been advocating that the sales tax be completely abolished-not reduced at the rate of one per cent per year but wiped out entirely. The removal of the tax on telegrams and on parlor oar tickets is no good to the labouring man; we on this side advocate those things which will help

The Budget-Mr. Short

the workingman rather than the rich man who travels by ipuMman or the large concerns which send so many telegrams. Those taxes might be continued, but I presume that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rdbb) is waiting until next year, when he will bring down his election budget, before he abolishes the sailes tax. I am going to tel the minister, however, that he will get -no credit for it then, because everyone knows that for years past we have been advocating the removal] of the sales tax in its entirety.
Then let us consider the dairy industry, which has been so greatly affected by New Zealand butter coming into Canada practically free of duty. I am not going to say very much in that connection, but I have been asked by the Nova Scotia Farmers' Association to present a resolution which was passed at their convention in Truro last January. The resolution is as follows:
Whereas, in consequence of the persistent tendency to carry on dairying on too slender a margin of profit, or even at a loss, has resulted in a corresponding failure to cope with the ever growing demand of the home market, not to mention export trade for milk, cream, butter, cheese and ice cream supplied; and
Whereas the consequent shortage of the home made creamery pasteurized butter has resulted in opening the door widely to the importation of this necessary product from, other parts of the empire under treaty privilege, thus enabling New Zealand butter, for instance, to be sold in Canada at prices with which Canadian dairymen cannot compete; and
Whereas the farmer who produces milk for human consumption is also so hemmed in by government regulations of health and standardization that his expenses have increased without any appreciable increase in his income; and
Whereas the dairy industry is now in such a state as to require an effective stimulant and guarantee of stability to bring about the necessary improvements and development to ensure progress and prosperity;
Therefore be it resolved that we members of the Nova Scotia Farmers' Association in annual convention assembled, do ask the federal government at once to increase the tariff on butter from the existing four cents to, say ten cents per pound, or to such a rate that after allowing the preference of three cents per pound, will give the butter industry sufficient protection to enable its paying the producers a rate that will be adequate to yield a reasonable profit on their investment of money and labour.
I am sorry the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) is not in his seat; I intend to bring up a matter now with which he has to do and which is of great importance to the fruit growers of Nova Scotia. They are up against the problem of freight rates to continental Europe; they have been held 
up by the North Atlantic Shipping Federation in this connection, and I think this is a matter which should be looked into by the Department of Trade and Commerce. The federation insist that in order to obtain the SO cent rate to Great Britain the apple shippers must sign a contract guaranteeing that all their shipments will be sent by these steamers; otherwise they are charged $1 per barrel. At the annual convention of the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association, which was held in January of this year, a resolution was passed which I intend to put on Hansard in order to bring the matter before the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The resolution is as follows:
Resolved, that we, the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association in annual meeting assembled. resent the ultimatum of the North Atlantic Freight Conference, whereby, all shippers using their lines to European markets are compelled to sign contracts to use these lines exclusively, or pay a freight on apples at the rate of 20 cents per barrel, in excess of the contract rate.
We can only oonsider such contract, removing as it does the possibility of using any boats outside the conference, as a serious threat against the welfare of our industry, in paving the way toward a general increase in the apple carrying rate.
We commend the action of the Canadian National Steamships in [announcing that they would not be bound by the contract requirements of the North Atlantic Conference, and would^ petition the federal government to use such influence as they may .possess that such contracts be not required in future;
And further resolved, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the federal members for Annapolis and Kings, and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
'I presume that my hon. friend from Hants-Kings received a copy of that resolution, but he did not mention it in his remarks.
Now I wish to pass on for a few moments and discuss our fisheries in Nova Scotia. This is one of our greatest natural resources, and it has been sadly neglected not only by this government but by practically all governments. I am not going to say that this government is the only one that has done nothing; we never have had a department of fisheries which has looked after that industry as it should be looked after in order to obtain from it all the benefits which the country should derive. The other day the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), during his excellent speech, stated that the fishing industry in Nova Scotia was going ahead by leaps and bounds. I think he must have been badly misinformed, because in looking up the statistics having to do with fisheries, I find that we have made practically

The Budget-Mr. Short
no progress in that direction since 1910. The following figures show the value of the fisheries industry of Nova Scotia:
1910	 $10,119,243
1918	 15,143.066
1920		 12,742,659
1921		 9,778,623
1922		 10,209,258
1923		 8,448,385
1924		 8,777,251
1925		 10,213,779
1926		 12,505,922
1927	 10,783,631
The figures given by the Department of Marine and Fisheries show that no (progress whatever has been made, and still the Minister of National Defence tells the house that the fishing industry of Nova Scotia has been going ahead by leaps and bounds. It would go ahead by leaps and bounds if we had a department of fisheries which understood the business. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) is a most estimable man, and I have great regard for him, but he is a lawyer. He is of the same profession as some of the ministers who have held that portfolio in the past, and I am not finding any fault with the government in that regard.
This great natural resource of this country was hardly mentioned in the house until what are known as the maritime righters came here. We have talked about fish, and I venture to say a great many members of this house have eaten more fish during the last three years than ever before. So long as I am here I am going to talk about the fisheries of this country, because I believe we can obtain the best advertising right on the floor of the house.
The Department of Marine and Fisheries has done absolutely nothing to help this industry. They appointed a royal commission to look into the fisheries of the maritime provinces, but what happened? That commission cost this country upwards of $80,000. They presented a report, and while many of the recommendations contained therein would have been of value to the fisheries, some of them would have been detrimental had they been carried out. This report was tabled a year ago but the government has taken no action on it at all. One of the recommendations made was that a minister of fisheries be appointed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was asked during the early days of this session if a minister of fisheries would be appointed, and he replied that the government had the matter under consideration and would appoint one at the opportune time. Of course that opportune time will not come until just before the elections, but it will 78594-871
be too late then. It may be good politics, but no government should play politics with a natural industry like our fisheries. The trouble with the Department of Marine and Fisheries is that they have been playing politics ever since this government came into power. Nothing has been done about appointing a minister of fisheries although they have appointed a deputy minister, or rather changed the title of the director of fisheries to Deputy Minister of Fisheries. That is the only change which has taken place.
The fishing industry will never make any progress until there is a reorganization of the department and an efficient minister appointed. They should appoint someone who knows something about the industry, a man of business training and experience. The Liberal party have such a mam on their side; why do they not appoint him?
The fishing industry of Nova Scotia has asked this government time and time again to try to increase the production of fish and find new markets for those products. I was impressed the other day when the hon. member for St. Lawrenoe-St. George (Mr. Cahan) suggested that the Department of Trade and Commerce might well look after our domestic trade. What has that department done in an endeavour to find markets for our fish or other natural products? Nothing whatever. It has done very little to increase cur trade with foreign countries, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce might well look after our domestic markets in an endeavour to find an outlet for our natural products.
As I said, we have asked the Department of Marine and Fisheries time and time again to do something to increase the production of fish and find new markets for us. What has happened? In 1925 Mr. J. J. Cowie, practically the only expert man they have in the department, was sent over to England to look up markets for Nova Scotia fish. After visiting different places in Great Britain, Mr. Cowie came back and reported that there was an excellent market there for fresh fish, provided that some assistance was given by the government to get the markets started and assist the industry in an educational way as to the preparing of the fish, as to the varieties best suited, and that sort of thing. But nothing was done about that report.
In 1927, Mr. Cowie, accompanied by Mr. G. R. Earl, of Yarmouth, N.S., was sent to Great Britain in connection with the imperial economic committee's inquiry into the marketing of the fish production of the empire. On their return they presented a very elaborate
The Budget-Mr. Short

report. I cannot read the whole report, but I would like to quote a few sections in an endeavour to show the house hew neglectful the Department of Marine and Fisheries has been. One of the sections is as follows:
It was pointed out there are two ways by which the situation in eastern Canada could be improved: One is by the shipment of fresh fish in ice to the British market. The committee was informed that it had been clearly demonstrated that such fish can be landed overseas in excellent condition but that transportation difficulties retard development until the volume of the traffic, by some means, has grown sufficiently to overcome them of itself. The other is by freezing the fish under the quick process known as brine freezing, which leaves the fish when defrosted, with all the original juices it contained when taken from the sea. It was pointed out that the Canadian fishing grounds were so near the shore in many places as to make possible the landing of fish almost alive, and, if frozen, could be placed on the British markets in a much better and fresher state than most of the so-called fresh fish landed there direct from the fishing grounds.
The committee was further informed that the marketing of brine frozen fish would have this great advantage: the fish need not be dumped on an over-supplied market, but could be held in storage until the markets had recovered and prices had risen.
The adoption of this means of marketing by the British trade, as well as the Canadian trade, would stabilize supply, demand and prices and push out the existing antiquated method of hurrying fresh fish to market and selling them immediately, whether the supply is such as to constitute a glut or a scarcity.
The report continues:
The opening up of this market would be of far reaching benefit to our shore fishermen particularly who produce fish of the more desirable quality. But as there are shipping difficulties to be overcome and as risks of loss would have to be undertaken in the beginning we would commend to the consideration of the department, the matter of giving to shippers financial aid of some kind during the few initial months to overcome discouragements that may arise from consignments arriving on unremunerative market days, and to enable them to enable them to hold on and continue until the trade has obtained a sufficient foothold to take care of itself.
The report concludes by stating:
We strongly feel that the establishment of central meal-making plants on the Atlantic coast is of as much importance as the finding of new markets for fish as a means1 of rebuilding our fishing fleets and retaining our fishermen. If. therefore, firms of standing engaged in the fisheries could be induced and encouraged to take hold of this means of development, there would appear to be no room for doubt that a shore fishery greater than has yet been on the Atlantic coast could quickly emerge from its present low unprofitable state.
To summerize, in conclusion, the main features of the foregoing report, which in our opinion would bring immediate beneficial re-

suits to the fishing industry of our maritime provinces, we would note that these are two, namely:

1.	The marketing of fresh fish in ice in Great Britain and
2.	The establishment of meal-making plants to take care of the great amount of material at present being wasted.
That was a report made by Mr. Cowie in 1927 and still no action has been taken on it. They got this report, filed it away in a pigeon hole and nothing is heard of it again until some person like myself brings it up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Until an election.


Harry Bernard Short: That is right. That is when the people are going to have something to say about it. The government are waiting until next year when the budget comes down. No doubt the Minister of Finance thought he was doing something wonderful for the fishermen of Nova Scotia when he put needles for repairing fishermen's nets and brass swivels on the free list. I made inquiry as to what quantities of these two articles were imported and I was told they were so small that they were not enumerated at all. I have been in the fishing business pretty nearly all my life and I have never heard of fishermen in Nova Scotia using brass swivels. I think it must have been as a joke that somebody suggested to the Minister of Finance that he put those on the free list. The minister, not being a practical man, thought there must be something in it, but it is actually nothing but a joke. There is nothing in the budget this year for the fishermen or anybody else in Nova Scotia. I do not suppose there was ever a needle for mending nets imported into that province. I know I never heard of one being imported. Perhaps it was in order to sew buttons on their oil coats.
I trust that the time has arrived when something will be done in connection with this important industry. There are great possibilities in the fishing industry of Nova Scotia. We should be producing there not
810,000,000 but 850,000,000 worth a year, and we could do it. We have off the coast of Nova Scotia the greatest fisheries in the world, but the government do not realize this and do not appreciate their responsibilities. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries does not think he has any responsibility as regards the fisheries. All his attention is devoted to marine matters, but the time has arrived when he must pay some attention to the fishermen of the maritime provinces.
Let me say a word or two to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Eliott) with reference to breakwaters along the coast of Nova Scotia. There are perhaps more 'breakwaters

The Budget-Mr. St. Pere
in my constituency than in any other constituency in that province,, and some of them are in a very 'bad state of repair. Ever since I have been in the house I have brought to his attention the matter of dredging and repairs in connection with many of these breakwaters. It is true he has listened to me in a few cases and some of .those breakwaters have been repaired, but many of them are at present in a dilapidated condition and repairs are urgently needed. My hon. friend would not allow a building in the city of Ottawa to get out of repair or go completely to ruin. Why should he allow breakwaters in which we have invested millions of dollars in Nova Scotia to become so dilapidated that (hey are no protection whatever to the fishing industry? They were constructed for the protection of that industry; indeed we cannot build up a fishing industry in that province without them. The minister is a very good-natured man and I think a great deal of him. I implore him this year particularly, because next year we are going to the country, to do something in this .matter for his own benefit and for the benefit of the fishermen of Nova Scotia. He will get some of the credit, and I will take some of it myself. If the minister will simply take the reports he gets from his engineers in connection with the condition of those breakwaters in Nova Scotia and grant the expenditures they ask for, I shall be .perfectly satisfied. I am serious about this matter and I trust that when the supplementary estimates of the minister come down they will include substantial grants for breakwaters, especially for those of my constituency in Nova Slcotia.
Mr. E. S. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, in the course of the year just ended, the press, banks and all large financial institutions of this country were highly gratified in being able to state that the financial and .trade conditions were satisfactory, and that the future was replete with bright prospects.
The budget brought down a short while ago by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), officially confirmed these previous statements.
In a parliament composed like this one of two great parties and various groups, the budget always gives rise to a debate in which the views of pessimists and realists are reflected. The former's loquacity takes the form of an unrelenting criticism. It is the allurement of power which haunts them. And as they must use all expedients and have recourse to hair-splitting so as to uphold their stand, they always stick to one or two subjects of the budget in their criticisms, embodying
them later in an amendment or subamendment. The subjects under discussion at present refer to agriculture, industry and the working classes to whom the government it seems promises nothing for the future.
We are preoccupied, to-day, with the problem of agriculture. It has brought on a change of government in Rumania, and at the Last presidential elections in the United States, the American farmer has insisted on protection of industries in return for his vote. The campaign which is in full swing in England presents the same problem. The Labour party requires the stabilization of farm product prices. The Tories seek the support of the farmers by offering them as an allurement the policy advocated by Churchill in the shape of the lowest taxation for the basic industries. The Liberals have as .remedial legislation in their program, an increase in exports and decrease in imports. In order to satisfy the farmers Lloyd George has advocated a program of state ownership of lands, which, we must admit, does not guarantee to the English consumer a greater production of farm products nor, for that matter, prices more in keeping with their purse.
As it wias in the United States that the great protectionist movement was started on behalf of the farmers, let us study the .remedies advocated by .the champions of the farmers' cause. Senator Brookhart suggests that the farmer should be assisted by doles and that he should have the right to .raise money to sell his crops. Mr. Chester Davis wants the farmer to regain his status through the disposal of the surplus of his crops and the assistance of a higher tariff. Mr. Davis forgets that the evil lies, not in the surplus produced, .but really in the cost of production, when it is a question of competing with Canada on the markets of the world.
Senator Borah, forgetting for a .moment the great interest he takes in the international relations of the United States, suggests to President Hoover a high tariff wall against all imported products. He fears, it is true, the opposition of certain manufacturers already protected who are more interested in the enforcement of the tariff clauses against foreign products similar to those they manufacture ; and he even ventures so far as to state that certain manufacturers will demand an embargo; however, what does it matter, the American farmer must be protected by a measure which will increase the cost of living for the consumer across the border!
The American farmer is aware that the foreign market is drifting away from him, and that he must prevent, by a higher tariff wall,
The Budget-Mr. St. Pere

two billion dollars of foreign products competing with him on his home market. He was badly prepared for the after war depression; there lies the entire reason for the crisis he is at present experiencing.
The financial critic of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) discovered in this great protectionist movement which is developing in the United States the subject of his amendment to the resolution of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). His colleagues of the opposition found it possible to enlarge on the subject. As usual, it is the high protective policy they seek as a remedy to all the evils which Canada is supposed to suffer from at present. Allusion was made to unemployment, smoking smoke-stacks, well filled dinner pails-old stereotyped phrases which fit in nicely with the spirit of this definition which Disraeli gave of politics, "that it was the art of governing the people by fooling them." Echoes are constantly a threat against the spreading of a good opinion. The very moment that the American press spread throughout tihe world the news that the United States government would surrender to the pressure of the agrarian party in favour of a high tariff, our protectionists advocated a tariff of retaliation against the United States. An appeal to our national pride, using such terms as "red-blooded nation," etc., required us to polish our tariff weapons. Where would this lead us to, sir? To ask tihe question is to answer it; to the first step of oppression against the consumer by certain unscrupulous manufacturers

for let us not forget that the golden rule finds no place in business-who would take advantage of the high tariff to overcharge the consumer. And all this to afford a so-called protection to the Canadian farmer who, whatever may be said to the contrary, is in a much more enviable economic situation than his colleague in the United States, if we are to place any faith in an inquiry recently carried out by an important agricultural association of the province of Quebec. If we are to place any faith in the resolutions and data presented in 1925, at the meeting of the Catholic farmers of the province of Quebec, we find that according to conclusions based on an inquiry, eleven per cent only of the farmers interested contended that their present state, as well as the exodus of our country folk, was due to a rather low tariff. The high tariff, according to our hon. friends opposite, would be the great remedy to the new ills which they are endeavouring to find.
For some time past, it seems to us that the President of the United States, Mr. 
Hoover, has become a bugbear. The systematic Mr. Hoover, like the silent Mr. Cool-idge, will certainly not allow himself to be influenced by outside interests. How could he do otherwise? How could he be so little consequent with himself after the great speech he delivered at Erie, Pennsylvania, in 1925, when he characterized the tariff reforms, monopolies and price control as satan's arguments. Never will the United States have recourse to such means in order to balance their economic situation.
It is always interesting-and this is a balm to me-to recall some historical statements notably the one that the great Gladstone made in 1881 before an English audience, he said:
"Your trade superiority is assured as long as the United States adhere to high protection. Let your sleep not be disturbed by the fear that the United States will dominate England on the free markets, so long as high tariff is their motto."
If we go further back in history, we should not forget that it was freedom of trade which built, up large prosperous Flemish cities like Ghent and Bruges.
Unemployment has been broached in the present debate as an agreement in favour of protection. It is highly proclaimed that protection is synonymous with high wages. Nothing is so erroneous from the economic viewpoint. Duties are not imposed with the idea of equalizing the difference of wages between European and Canadian workers. Our workers are better paid-and I lay stress on this point-because their efforts tend1 more to mass production and they can accomplish in a set time twice as much work as the average European workers.
It is Andrew Carnegie, the great American leader of industry, who stated that the cheapest products are always manufactured by high wage workers, using modern machinery; and we could further quote, in support of this assertion the great economists Maurice Low, Arthur Shadwell, W. M. Evarts and Leroy Beaulieu.
Since the President of the United States is quoted a little everywhere as an authority, I shall give his views on the subject of unemployment and the best means of relieving such a situation.
Nowhere does he allude to tariff as a remedy to unemployment. This is how he expresses himself:
The control of credit by banks during prosperous times, the careful supervision of affairs by business men and the retardation of large municipal, state and federal enterprises, when the business of the country is good.

The Budget-Mr. St. Pere
These, sir, are the means he advocates to guard against unemployment. The high tariff, for certain politicians, has always been a doctrine. It is rather a ritual custom accompanying an old-time performance. Unemployment is less felt in Canada than in the United States. More than 2,000,000 unemployed walk the streets of large cities in the United States. The new American tariff, unless revised with care-and any practical man understands this-will never succeed in equalizing the wages paid in the spinning-mills of New England with those paid in similar establishments of the southern states.
Let us now turn to the realists, and I am one of them. I look upon concentrated optimism as a dangerous thing, however, I willingly surrender to facts. Canada possesses a genuine government looking after the nation's interests as a whole and refusing to allow itself to be controlled by those who would benefit by its being muzzled in order to further their own interests. Our financial situation is more than satisfactory, our trade is expanding, in fact all tends to show that Canada is acquiring a national conscience, a progress which asserts itself through unrelenting work of preparation. We refuse as practical people to believe in the proverbial accident which would lead nations fo success.
In my opinion, the prosperity of this country asserts itself still more through the general satisfaction reigning everywhere, than through the testimony of bare statistics. The people witness our markets expanding, our treaties with other nations increasing our exports. Our ambassadors of trade, trade attaches who devote their time in making Canada known abroad, are properly speaking the authors of this trade expansion of Canada. Mr. Isaac Marcosson, the great journalist and economist of the United States considers that these ambassadors of trade are most precious in helping the economic expansion of nations.
I stated, sir, just now that optimism was sometimes dangerous. Of course, we are living in the twentieth century, and times have changed since biblical days when all could live happy in the shade of their vines and fig trees, but who could deny that the conditions have greatly improved in this country since the Liberal party took over the direction of affairs?
Sir, I should like to have seen a greater
reduction in taxation. There is a tax-the income tiax-which weighs heavily upon the people. I would even state that, in order to avoid paying this tax, many citizens have used their revenues to speculate on the exchange and have lost large sums in the recent
slump in stocks. Unfortunately, it is impossible to suppress entirely this tax under the present circumstances. Our war debt, ithe enormous obligations that Canada must face forces us to maintain it. One word as regards the manner it is being enforced.
I have no hesitation in stating that the rate of interest which those in arrears are forced to pay to the government is an exorbitant one. Ten per cent is an excessive rate, for you are aware as I am, sir, that it is not through evil designs that certain citizens put off paying to the state the income tax.
The government has again reduced the sales tax this year, It is therefore entitled to our congratulations. As we are, unfortunately, too much in the habit, in the House of Commons of adopting certain social legislation without thoroughly studying the situation, without considering as to whether the exchequer of Canada is in a position to meet these obligations, I would suggest that this tax, if it is maintained, be turned over to a special fund which might help in paying family allowances to our large families. It would be the people's tax returning to the people, and I cannot see any more practical means of helping this new social movement which has recently sprung up.
The province of Quebec has never complained. Our claims in this house have been very trifling compared to those presented to us by our hon. friends from the Maritime provinces. The government has been kind enough to remember certain districts of the province of Quebec by purchasing two railways, a purchase which for a number of years past had become necessary. The government is again entitled to our thanks for having given to a group of our compatriots settled in the Canadian west, in the Cold Lake district, the means of transportation which they had requested for a number of yeans past. Our people who settled in that district were, like our missionaries after all, the pioneers of colonization, and since we have thought proper to send them in those parte, since they have been looked upon as the best settlers of the Canadian west, it is but fair that those groups be given by our government all the consideration due to them.
I represent a labour division in Montreal; I was not elected to represent them in the House of Commons because I posed as * demagogue, but I know their needs and have no fear in stating that, as a whole, they are satisfied with present conditions. But there is always a dark side to a picture. I openly state that it is the competition they Lave to meet at present from certain classes of European immigrants. It matters to me little whether they are of British, French or
The Budget-Mr. St. Pere

Flemish origin, etcetera,, I state that Canada should cease inducing those artisans to come and settle among us; and I shall go one step further, I shall state that the moment these immigrants land in Montreal or Quebec, a job seems to await them. No doubt, the government takes no pant with regard to such a situation, however, it seems to me that certain classes have a special preference and that these immigrants, on their landing in Canada, receive special advantages which have the effect of displacing, the native sons from jobs that they have earned by their work and intelligence. The Canadian artisans compare favourably with those in Europe. They hold responsible positions in all our workshops. Let genuine farmers be brought over, group them together in the west; so much the better. Our railways need them; our vast tracts of lands need hands to develop them. But I state that our fellow-citizens both English and French Canadians, bom in Canada, suffice to fill in our large city factories the positions set aside for experts. Our provincial governments especially, and even the Dominion government have subscribed considerable sums for the development of technical education. Where shall we find positions for our graduates? What advantages shall we offer them if foreigners still continue to take the positions which by right belong to the students of our technical schools? Immigration commends itself and must be encouraged, but not to the extent of being detrimental in any way to the right held by our people to fill the first positions in the land.
Economists, sir, have their own way of solving the problem of unemployment. I do not think however that this problem can ever be solved by any government. That is my personal opinion. I state that the all important problem of unemployment must be solved by industry itself, and I cannot side with the views of Julius Bames, the President of the Board of Trade of the United States, who persists in maintaining that artisans displaced because of modern machinery are absorbed by other rising industries.
Mr. Green, president of the American Federation of Labour also states, that industry itself should solve the problem of unemployment. Many means have been suggested. The five-day week, for instance, finds little support, even among labour unions. Industries are at present making enough profits to solve by themselves the problem of unemployment, and I do not think that the solutions to this problem will ever be found in

any political measure, whatever shape or form it may take, be it tariff or otherwise.
The people-and I shall be frank about it -notwithstanding the present situation, felt somewhat uneasy. They note with some apprehension the intermarrying of millions in the shape of mergers and trusts. After all, it would only be right to establish a difference between this merging of industries and the great trusts which are established a little everywhere. It is an unfortunate state of things-and I avail myself of the privilege of being a member to mention the fact to the house, since it interests especially the working classes. I am not adverse to large industries. I shall always decline to take any part in stirring war between capital and labour, but what is to be said of the attitude, for some time past, of certain large manufacturers who, after our province had passed legislation in connection with labour accidents, endeavoured to protect themselves by dismissing from their workshops the fathers of large families? They are the same people who advocate and write articles in the newspapers under their own signatures or support in election times a self-styled policy opposed to the emigration of our people and who, to-day, put these very people whom they have dismissed from their workshops in the way of emigrating.
There is another question: how are we to prevent unemployment? The printing trade- and I have some knowledge of this business, having been a journalist for about twenty years-is, to-day, experiencing quite a serious crisis. Ask the owners of our large workshops, they will explain to you one of the causes of the emigration of our people. It is this: the great patriotic men who advise us to keep our people at home, those large manufacturers who would like to see all our fellow-citizens exiled in the United States return to us within fifteen days, have a very strange way of fostering our national industries by having their printing done abroad.
Our opponents have referred to considerable expenditures. In my opinion, it would be better for them to conform their actions to their principles, since, only a short while ago, they unanimously voted to burden the Dominion government with extraordinary expenditures in order to build up national highways and further subscribe for technical education, matters exclusively pertaining to provincial legislatures.
Mr. Speaker, I will close my remarks by saying that the amendment moved by the financial critic of the opposition rests on no sound argument so far as bringing prosperity to farm-

The Budget-Mr. Tiding
ers, or steady employment to artisans. I am opposed, moreover, to the subamendment because it is contrary to the policy advocated in the past by Sir Wilfrid Laurier; and being aware as a realist-not as an optimist-of conditions, at present, prevailing in our own country, a prosperous state, one that promises much for the future and, as I stated at the outset of my speech, a state which gives general satisfaction to our people, I shall vote in favour of the resolution put forth by the bon. Minister of Finance.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay):: Although many hon. members have spoken on this budget, I feel it incumbent to add a word by way of protest against the utter failure of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to provide in this budget any relief for the farmer, the fruit grower, or the poul-tryman, notwithstanding the fact that the government admits that it has both the power and1 the machinery to restrict at a moment's notice the importation of surplus farm products from the United States at glut prices during a period when the Canadian producer hopes to secure a reasonable and fair return from his labour and expense.
May I also emphasize the protests which have come from various boards of trade, mining companies and individual operators and many others against the new provision in this budget respecting the tax on the transfer of low-priced shares.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, any budget which provides for a reduction of taxation is always greeted with approval and applause, and the one under review is mo exception. The Minister of Finance stated in his budget announcement that it was the policy of the government to do away with the so-called nuisance taxes, but I think it will be generally admitted, after the country has had time to digest the provisions of this budget, that it means practically nothing beyond relieving the big fellow of his taxes and transferring the burden to the shoulders of the little fellow.
Let us take the proposals of the Minister of Finance with regard to the abolition of the nuisance taxes, as they are generally called. First of all, there is the abolition of the tax on insurance premiums. No matter to what city of Canada you may go you will usually find a huge structure in course of erection for one of the large insurance companies. Their profits are so great that they hesitate to distribute them among the shareholders, and they are therefore compelled to put them into buildings. I submit that in abolishing this tax the minister is simply
relieving the large companies, for after all, the tax on insurance premiums is not very much of a nuisance to the man in the street.
Next the minister proposes to abolish the tax on railway tickets costing over one dollar, and on pullman and steamship staterooms, compartments, berths and parlour-car chairs. This is another tax that is not very much of a nuisance to the average wage-earner. These conveniences and comforts are indulged in largely by the representatives of large corporations and commercial concerns, which, of course, are glad enough to get rid of this tax; but let me ask, what particular nuisance .is this tax to the wage earner?
Then there is the removal of the tax on cablegrams and telegrams. This is another of the so-called nuisance taxes. When I read that provision in the budget I thought how these thousands of civil servants earning $50, $60 or $75 a month, and the innumerable wage earners throughout the Dominion getting about the same income, must have thrown up their hats with joy and taken a day off and night out to celebrate their being relieved from this tax.
Now all these so-called nuisance taxes have been abolished. But the sales tax, which is paid by every man, woman and child, has been cut only one cent. That is a tax that the wage earner pays on his clothing, boots and shoes, wearing apparel and every kind of household necessity. If, for instance, he builds a modest home on the outskirts of the city at a cost of $2,500 or $3,000, he pays all the way from $35 to $50 sales tax on the material which enters into its construction; if to get into the city to his work he buys a low-priced automobile, his sales tax is about $30; if he builds a fence or a sidewalk, or buys a little paint or other materials to improve his property, he has to pay this sales tax. For several years the Conservative party has been endeavouring to have the tax abolished, and in 1925 Sir Henry Drayton brought in a resolution for its total abolition, but practically every member among the government's followers voted against it. In 1927 the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said, Well, if we cannot have this tax abolished absolutely, we will see if the government will not be good enough to the man of small income to remove the tax on clothing and boots and shoes. Again every government follower voted against the proposal. It is difficult to understand how some of them can explain their vote to their constituents; but no doubt by the time the next election comes around the sales tax will be abolished entirely.
The Budget-Mr. Esling

In order to find some other way of raising funds in lieu of these so-called nuisan.ee taxes, the government proposes to tax the little fellow by a tax on the transfer of low-priced stocks. On the purchase of a share costing less than $3 there is a tax of one cent; on shares costing from $3 to $20, two cents; on shares costing from $20 to $100, three cents; on shares from $100 up, four cents. Let me illustrate the injustice of this proposed tax. We will say the little fellow has $25 to invest, and he buys 500 shares costing five cents each. Heretofore on such a purchase he paid no tax; under this budget he is called upon to pay a tax of five dollars. By way of contrast we will take an insurance company or a trust company with funds to invest, say $250,000. The company can purchase 500 shares costing $500 each-we have such shares to-day in the case of Smelters-and the total tax is but $20, whereas prior to this budget it was $75. So you see the government is merely putting the burden on the little fellow and relieving the big fellow. Or if you want to take it another way, we will say the little fellow has $1,000 to invest, and buys $1,000 worth of ten cent shares. I cannot believe that the hon. Minister of Finance had figured out this proposed tax, for on such an investment the actual tax is $100. One hundred dollars on an investment of one thousand dollars. But the big fellow with plenty of money says, I will take a chance and put $1,000 into ten shares costing $100 each. His total tax is only 40 cents. There is such a striking disparity in these cases that it is no wonder so many protests have reached the minister.
There is another phase of this matter worth consideration. The money that this little fellow puts into cheap shares goes to work and develops some mining property. The big fellow puts his money in as an investment, for interest only. Experience has Shown, Mr. Speaker, that the most successful and popular way of raising money for mining development is by the sale of these low-priced shares. The fact is that it was the sale of these so-called penny shares that was responsible for the first lode mining in British Columbia; it was that lode mining which was responsible for the construction of the smelter at Trail. To be sure, it was a very small institution in those days, but it was the sale of those low-priced shares which developed more mining properties in the district, and these in turn enabled the smelter to be supplied with custom ore and to carry on until research work has made it to-day the greatest and most important metallurgical 
institution in the British Empire. That of itself, I submit, is an argument in favour of the low-priced Shares.
Take the huge mining developments to-day in Quebec and Ontario, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan; they would not get very far without the initial purchase of those low-priced shares by the little fellow. The business on .the Vancouver stock exchange is just about a million dollars a day. On that exchange during 1928 eighty-seven million shares were traded in at an average price of 42 cents. This year there promises to be from seven to ten times that volume of busines. Similar conditions exist on the Montreal and Toronto exchanges. Prior to this budget the tax on the transfer of these shares was three cents per hundred dollars. This produced a considerable revenue for the government and did no harm to the public. But there is something still more interesting in the figures of the Vancouver stock exchange. Of the huge volume of business to which I have referred only two of the stocks traded in are of a higher par value than one dollar; two are ten cents par; three are twenty cents par; eleven are twenty-five cents par; nine are fifty cents par; twenty-three are one dollar par. On nine of these listed stocks the new tax would amount to between fifteen and twenty-five per cent at present market prices. So that one must almost admit that this is not taxation but in reality confiscation; and if the government insists on this new tax it will really mean that the transactions in these low-priced shares, instead of being carried on in our Canadian exchanges, will be diverted to exchanges across the line. The result will be that there will be bootlegged stocks as well as bootlegged liquor. In view of the numerous protests it is to be hoped that the government will either withdraw or modify this feature of the budget, because there is nothing in Canadian history which has so contributed to mineral development as the sale of these low-priced shares. And in view of this huge development which is now in progress it is difficult to understand how hon. members opposite, following the government, can vote for this taxation and hope to justify their vote when they return to their constituencies.
I am a firm believer in the income tax, on the principle that a man should pay in proportion to his prosperity. But I do think there are some phases of taxation which have been already embarrassing to investors in Canada, and one of these in particular is dual taxation. As the situation now is, a company is taxed 8 per cent on its dividends.

The Budget-Mr. Esling
And it should pay; there is no question about that. But to tax that dividend again after it is distributed to the shareholders is dual taxation and dual taxation cannot be justified as a means of raising revenue.
There is another inequitable feature to which I would ask the minister's attention, and that is the failure to permit, in the preparation of one's income tax return, of deductions for local improvement taxes. In preparing one's return one is permitted to deduct the tax on land and on the buildings from which revenue is derived. But he is not permitted to deduct the special tax for the construction of sidewalk or sewer or street paving in front of his property. That to me is manifestly unfair, for this reason. In municipality A, let us say, all such local improvements are paid for out of the general fund, whereas in municipality B they are assessed against the abutting property. The public at large uses all these improvements and has the benefit of them, and it seems only just and reasonable that -the owner of the abutting property should be permitted, in preparing his return, to deduct such taxes as well as the general tax against his property.
The other day we had a resolution from the hon. member for Athafoaska (Mr. Kellner) concerning federal aid to highways, and I know of no federal! appropriation which returns to the federal exchequer more money than does aid to good highways. There is no question in the worfd about the meaning of the resolution which the hon. member introduced. He intended that resolution to be practically a renewal of the grant on the same lines as provided in the act of 1919 whereby $20,000,000 was appropriated and apportioned amongst the various provinces, 40 per cent being contributed by the Dominion towards the construction of highways, the other 60 per cent being furnished by the provinces. Such a contribution from the federal government is justified, I contend, because the tourist and the -motor car are the -main factors in encouraging good roads. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), in 'his publication of March, 1928, makes the plain statement that it is estimated approximately that through the motor car tourist traffic distributed throughout Canada during the year 1927 the huge sum of $260,000,000. That was from tourist traffic alone. In, addition there was collected during the past year, in excise and customs, on freight and passenger cars, the sum of $25,000,000. And as there are- I think this will be admitted-approximately
1,000,000 cars in CapaRa, each one of which pays not one cent/fess\han $30 in sales tax, you have $30,000,000 frotn that source. The
various provinces, too, collect annually by way of fines, registration and gasoline tax another $25,000,000, according to the report of the highways commissioner. One can readily see therefore that -there is probably no disbursement from the federal treasury which would bring back such generous -returns to the business interests of Canada as would a vote in aid of highway construction. It is difficult to understand ho-w any member opposite can go back to his constituents and justify his vote against federal aid to the construction of highways, because every province is keen to have -more roads built into the hinterland, and this aid from the federal gov-ern-mnt -permits of the construction of more central roads. One hon. minister felt he would be so embarrassed if his vote were recorded that he sidestepped the vote entirely.
As to policy, the budget states that it is the policy of this government to encourage production at home and the export of excess products. That may be all very well in theory; it sounds well, but actual evidence shows that the real policy of this government is to discourage production at home by encouraging the importation of surplus farm products from the United States.
The Canadian producer only asks that he be given an opportunity to sell his products in the Canadian market. It must be remembered that such conditions existed years ago, -and that in 1921 the Conservative party enacted statutory provisions restricting the importation of surplus farm products. These restrictions were discontinued in 1922, and an amendment was adopted making it discretionary with the minister to apply the restrictions if he saw fit. Unfortunately he never saw fit to do so; from 1922 to 1925 the Liberals applied these restrictions only in the year 1923, when several large fruit importing concerns were penalized. However, their penalties were handed back to them, according to page 109 of the Duncan report.
Then we come to 1926, when the Conservatives came into power for a short time. While we were in office only a few months we worked fast on behalf of the farmers. We went into office on June 29 and it took the acting Minister of Customs (Mr. Stevens) only two weeks to pass an order restricting the importation of these surplus farm products. That was a good order; apparently this government admitted that to be the fact, because they passed a similar order in council in November of the same year. However, while the government considered this measure an excellent deterrent to the importation of farm products there happened to be a political alliance between Progressives and Liberals. We
The Budget-Mr. Esling

have heard a good deal about this hybrid grain ticket, but I would call this a hybrid political matrimonial alliance, by which those hon. members agreed to obey the Prime Minister so long as he met their wishes. It was not long until they demanded1 that these restrictions be removed; the Prime Minister hesitated to do so because several of his own ministers did not deem it expedient to adopt that course. However, this little group put the gun to the head of the Prime Minister and he had to remove the restrictions, which was done in March of 1928. Since that time many protests have been addressed to the government; we had protests against the importation of surplus strawberries and surplus crops of all kinds from many sources. The Conservative members moved a resolution asking that these restrictions be restored, but that resolution was defeated, Liberal members opposite were quite willing to sacrifice the farmers of this country.
We also had a rather amusing political situation in British Columbia in connection with the removal of these restrictions. According to a press despatch under date of May 16, I find that Hon. E. D. Barrow, the then Liberal Minister of Agriculture for British Columbia, expressed confidence that Canadian farmers would be adequately protected against attempts to dump imported produce upon their markets. Then a little later a telegram was sent by the then Premier of British Columbia requesting the government to restore the dumping regulations which had been removed by the order in council to which I have referred, and he asked Hon. T. D. Pattullo, then provincial Minister of Lands, to take up the matter. This will indicate the feeling of the people of British Columbia, not only of the farmers but of the Liberal party as well; we have both the Liberal Premier and the Liberal Minister of Agriculture of the province requesting that this situation be rectified, but nothing was done.
Then I would refer to the Minister of Health (Mr. King), and I do so because he is the minister from British Columbia. In defending section 47a he said that it was for protection against unfair and unreasonable competition and that the amendtnent was only intended to overcome conditions which arose at certain times when there was an unfair competition under which the grower of natural products could not exist. During the last session of this parliament I submitted several protests to the government which indicated conditions under which the farmer and fruit grower of British Columbia could not exist, but no attention was paid to those protests 
notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister said such conditions could foe remedied at a moment's notice.
These two statements to which I have referred, coming from the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia, were made during April and May; there was a provincial election in the offing in July. The Premier and the Minister of Agriculture then became enthusiastic about having these restrictions restored and the matter almost became a campaign issue until some of their friends reminded them that from 1922 to 1928 the Conservative members of the British Columbia legislature had consistently and persistently urged a resolution asking this government to enforce these restrictions against the dumping of U.S. surplus farm products. That was rather embarrassing of course, because the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture and every Liberal member of the legislature had voted against that resolution. So they withdrew the dumping clause as an issue and took up other issues. You all know the result of that election.
The Minister of Health is the sole representative of our province in the cabinet, and he knows the adverse conditions under which the farmers, the fruit growers, and the poultry-men of that province are suffering. He took the trouble to go into the Okanagan district to ascertain just what those conditions were, but I submit that he, having been a member of the provincial legislature for many years and having been a minister in this government since 1921, should have known just what those conditions were when he voted against the restoration of these restrictions. I ask the Minister of Health to use his influence in urging the government to bring those restrictions into effect, which they say it is possible to do at a moment's notice, and thus give some relief to the farmers, the fruit growers and the poultry-men of West Kootenay and Canada.


Mr. A. GOULET (Russell) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time that I rise to address the house since 1925, when the people of the riding of Russell did me the honour of electing me to represent them in parliament.
I trust therefore that my hon. friends will be indulgent towards me.
With pleasure I join the hon. speakers who have preceded me in this debate in order to extend to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), my hearty congratulations-no less sincere for being somewhat late-for the clear and precise statement which he made on the financial situation of this country. The budget which he has just brought down in the house is,
I think, his eighth since he holds the strings

The Budget-Mr. Goulet
of the national purse. All have been received with evident and well justified satisfaction; the last introduced on March 1st is an additional proof of the efficient Liberal administration under the sound leadership of the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
Under the Conservative regime, the Canadian people awaited with uneasiness the end of each fiscal year. They foresaw that the statement of accounts would but confirm their doubts on the good faith of their government, that the announcement of the increase of the debt and thereby the decrease of its credit, would possibly be followed up by a peremptory demand-under the form of additional taxation-to cover the accumulated deficits. The present Minister of Finance has changed this state of affairs. Uneasiness has made way for confidence. The Canadian people calmly await each year the financial statement, knowing that their affairs are administered soundly and economically.
The financial statement for the year 192829 is most satisfactory, and the general prosperity which it discloses highly justifies the trust of the people in the Liberal government. It shows not only that our national revenues have been sufficient to meet our obligations, including the payment of $125,000,000 in interests on the public debt, inherited mostly from our hon. friends on your left, Sir, but also that the debt itself has been reduced by $70,000,000. A surplus of $70,000,000 from receipts of $455,000,000 is by itself a remarkable feat, and I am sure that the whole nation-with the exception possibly of hon. members on the left-will be thankful to the present administration. But we have greater expectations. This sum of $70,000,000 applicable to the reduction of our national debt foreshadows the redeeming of this debt in the near future.
I have before me an article published recently in Willsons Monthly, a serious publication discussing public affairs in Canada and the British Empire, and I shall quote the following extract:
In his budget speech of March 1, 1929, Mr. Robb stated the present amount of the debt to be $2,330,835,086. For the past four years the average annual reduction of the debt has amounted to roughly $47,750,000. While for the past year alone it will amount to nearly $70,000,000. If we add together the amounts paid as interest on the debt and the amounts applied in reduction of the debt we find that for the past four years there has been applied to the debt an average amount of over $171,000,000. Taking the last year by itself, the total is over $190,000,000.
If we continue to wipe out the debt at these rates, how long will it take to retire it completely? It may come as a surprise to many to learn that if the rate of reduction for the past four years is maintained, there will be no national debt in 24 years. If we keep up the pace we went last year the debt will be wiped out in less than 20 years.
In twenty years our national debt will be extinct if our Minister of Finance continues to present us with budgets like the one which now occupies the attention of the house.
The hen. members on your left, sir, although admitting that the country is prosperous, deny that the present state of our finances is due to the good administration of the country. They make use of all possible arguments in endeavouring to ascribe this prosperity to an entirely different cause. Their acknowledgment that after eight years of Liberal administration the country is prosperous is something in itself if we recall the alarm they raised during the electoral campaign of 1925, when they were seeking power by attempting to have the people believe that rain awaited them if the Liberals continued to administer the affairs of this country. Forced to submit to evidence, they seem today more anxious for the future of their party than that of the country. They are aware that it is the Conservative party which the Liberal government is ruining by fostering national prosperity.
The hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. J. A. Mercier) quoted the other day certain statements given out by the leaders of our large institutions on the financial situation of Canada. The hon. member, I trust, will allow me to read again one of these statements, the one by the President of the Bank of Montreal, which is a further proof that the prosperity of the country is general and reaches almost every industry. Sir Charles Gordon says:
Canada as a whole has enjoyed more prosperity than ever before; our live stock industry has shown marked improvement. Cattle have been in better demand at better prices than for some years past. Between 1926 and 1927 there was an increase of about 25 per cent in the output of our dairy factories, and progress has continued in 1928. One of the' happiest developments has been the definite revival of prosperity in the maritime provinces, coming into line with the rest of Canada in this respect.. Canada is great in agriculture, but the glory of her heritage lies in the variety of her resources. Minerals are steadily growing in importance. The tourist trade is of the highest importance; according to government statistics tourists from abroad spent $275,000,000 in Canada in 1927. Reports from all provinces report an even larger number of tourists, and the amount spent has no doubt also been greater in 1928.
The general prosperity of the country spreads to our railways. It is true that here our hon. friends disavow Providence and consider the
The Budget-Mr. Goulet

financial situation of the Canadian National as their work. They congratulate themselves on the purchase of this railway. They now pretend to ignore what, in 1919, they were at great pains trying to convey, that state ownership of the Canadian Northern was not of their choice but that they were forced to introduce this measure to protect the shareholders. They forget to mention that it is thanks to the sound and honest administration of the Liberal government if the Canadian National is to-day in a flourishing state. The Liberal government neglected nothing to make a success of this enterprise of which it assumed the management when it was bankrupt. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) and the President of the Canadian National (Sir Henry Thornton) are therefore entitled to our congratulations.
I aim pleased, sir, to note thaft the budget includes a reduction in the sales tax and I express the hope that this tax will gradually disappear. It is no longer required and its disappearance will not be regretted. The income tax is certainly far more equitable, since it reaches especially those who can most afford to pay.
I have closely followed the debate on the budget and I am sorry to note that members have devoted too little time, in my opinion, to the study of problems connected with agriculture. Other industries have 'had their full share of the discussion; but agriculture notwithstanding its importance, was but touched upon. We should bear in mind that probably half of our population is either directly or indirectly interested in agriculture, and that the problems which concern and interest such a large number of our people is entitled to a more serious study. I would even venture to say that a wiser and more appropriate expenditure could not be made than the one which would foster prosperity and happiness among our farming classes.
I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), for what he has already done for the welfare of the farmers. His task is difficult, but I am confident that he will bring to a happy issue what he has already so well begun. I wish to thank the minister, his deputy and also assistant deputy, for the special interest they have all taken in the beautiful county of Russell by endowing it with a demonstration farm for the preserving of home products, the first of its kind in Canada. This farm has given a great impetus to this industry in my county and its establishment has already been amply justified; it is only reasonable to hope that before long [Mr. Goulet.)
this industry will be flourishing not only in my riding but in all rural districts in Canada. You will no doubt be astonished to learn that the products of our demonstration farm are to be found already on the tables of our best hotels. May I ask hon. members, when they dine at the Chateau Laurier not to forget to ask for Indian corn preserved at Bourget. I guarantee them a real treat which will convince them at the same time of the excellent quality of this product.
Let me refer to another question. The hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) mentioned the case of a young Canadian who, having begged for a meal on the streets of Edmonton, was arrested and brought before the magistrate Having heard that he came from eastern Canada, he was given twenty-four hours to leave the city with the option of one month in gaol. On the same day, a number of immigrants, arrested for the same offence, were sent to the railway company which undertook to feed them. I had no intention to discuss the immigration question: it is an intricate subject which requires much study and especially interests the western provinces. I admit, however, after hearing of this incident, that it is my duty to make a few comments on the subject. The immigration problem is very much to the fore at present; the press is continuously discussing it, the public is daily taking a greater interest in it and the government are seriously endeavouring to solve the problem in a satisfactory manner. Much money is spent each year in an endeavour to attract to our western lands European citizens and, according to an agreement concluded for some time past, youths from 14 to 17 years old hailing from Great Britain and the north of Ireland, who wish to settle in this country are brought over at the expense of the Imperial and Canadian governments. Adults, themselves, who come over with the intention of settling on the land have almost their entire travelling expenses plaid. I do not intend to criticize the government's policy, being of the opinion that this expenditure is justified; however, it seems to me that the first step to take in order to solve this problem of immigration and colonization would be to use every possible means at our disposal to keep in this county our people and thus stem the exodus of Canadians to the neighbouring republic. A practical way to attain this end would be to offer to the sons of our farmers the same material advantages that we beg immigrants from the British Isles to accept. I am convinced that the evil from which we suffer would not long resist this efficient remedy.

The Budget-Mr. Goulet
Most of the young men who emigrate are sons of farmers horn and brought up on. the farm, and they need no further training. They are already acclimatized and are the proper people to settle our fertile free lands in the west. Our old Canadian parishes which should be the natural recruiting grounds for our settlers, are unfortunately but the recruiting grounds of artisans for the industries of large American cities. There comes, in the life of most of the young people of our countryside, a time when they must leave their native village to go wherever they expect to make a livelihood. They have heard of the fertile soil of the Canadian west, where labour is generously rewarded, and many of them are anxious to settle there; unfortunately their financial means are not sufficient to realize the dreams of their ambitions, they are therefore forced to take the roads leading to the large American cities which seem to offer them an easy means of living. This emigration of our young people is a serious problem which gives food for reflection to all Canadians who have at heart the welfare of their country, and I have no dioubt the government will give their kind and special consideration to this problem and that, before long our young farmers will choose the road thet leads to the beautiful western provinces in preference to that of flange cities.
After taking every possible means to stem this emigration of our people we shall endeavour to bring back to this country those whom we have had the misfortune to lose; that will be repatriation. If we place at the disposal of Canadians abroad attractive financial advantages, we shall obtain very happy results and the return to the native land of these prodigal sons will be of great benefit to us.
I do not intend, sir, to praise up the riding of Russell; my feeble voice would not suffice to describe the beauties of this corner of Canada where I have lived for over 30 years, or to enumerate the real and Stirling virtues of its people. It is an essentially Canadian population and they have at heart the expansion and progress of Canada first and all. The interests of my constituents are intimately linked with those of the citizens of the Capital. This means that what affects the government service affects them personally since a large number among them are members of the Civil Service, and I must frankly admit that many others would also wish to be included in this service. Unfortunately, they often find obstacles to their ambition, and these are legitimate for the most part. There is one obstacle, however, upon which
I want to draw the attention of the house because it seems not to have been foreseen by the authors of the Civil Service Act, and to-day it creates a situation prejudicial to the interests of Canadians. The preference in appointments granted by the Civil Service Act to the veterans of the Great war has my hearty support in so far as it applies to our Canadians or veterans of the allied nations who resided in Canada when they joined the army. But this preference goes much further and in order to explain its effects, I cannot do better than to cite the following incident. The Civil Service Commission some time ago advertised an examination for a position then vacant. Two candidates applied for the post, one of them belonged to my constituency. The latter, had all the qualifications required but had only done military service in Canada. He had voluntarily offered his services in the first months of the war, however, for reasons of health, the military authorities would not send him overseas and employed him in Canaria during the whole course of the war. According to the act, his services gave him no right to any preference. The other candidate had come from England three years previous and had, if my information is correct, been conscripted in 1918; his military service was limited to a few months passed in training camps in England immediately previous to the armistice. According to the act, England is considered as a seat of war, giving right to military preference; this gentleman was therefore given the position to the detriment of the Canadian whose qualifications were much superior to his. This case is probably not the only one. Other members no doubt could cite similar cases; it therefore seems to me that the time is ripe to remedy such a state of things. Canadians have a right to expect that they be placed at least on an equal footing with strangers. Our Canadian veterans find themselves displaced by people recently come to this country. Canada belongs to the Canadian, the latter is intelligent and industrious and must receive first consideration, especially when it is a matter of a position in the service of his country.
I am greatly interested in the Civil Service and I should have liked to discuss at length all questions connected with it. As I do not want to prolong this debate, I shall content myself with adding to what I have already said that I am entirely in favour of a reasonable minimum salary for all the employees of the Civil Service, in order that the most humble among them can live in a decent manner and provide for the needs of his family. This generous act of the government
Privilege-Mr. Kennedy

would be not only to the benefit of the employee himself, but in the interests of the country at large.
I have, sir, spoken longer than I intended to. It was not in vain that at the outset of my speech I begged the indulgence of hon. members; they have granted me a very kind hearing and1 very sincerely do I thank them.
On motion of Mr. Casgrain the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 9, 1929