1929-04-11

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West) presented the third report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, as follows:
Your committee recommend that it be given leave to sit while the house is sitting; and also that its quorum be twelve members instead of fifteen, and that subsection (c) of section 1 of standing order 63 be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be concurred in.
Mr. SPEAKER:: By leave of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I desire to table the tenth annual report, in English and French, of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. Copies are being distributed to all members this afternoon through the post office.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
AUDITOR general's REPORT-UNFORESEEN EXPENSES
['I was paired with the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.\nGarland (Carleton), Anderson (Halton),. Wilson,\nHocken,\nRobinson,\nMacDonald (Cape Breton South), Maloney,\nMacNutt,\nCantley,\nHanson,\nBlack (Yukon),\nBell (Hamilton),\nBell (St. Antoine), Casselman,\nAnderson (High Park), Barber,\nHodgins,\nJohnstone,\nRyerson,\nPiunkett.\nC.N.R.-Branch Lines']
Mr. FRASER:: What are the details of the vote "Unforeseen expenses" found on page 36, Vol I, of the Auditor General's report for 1927-8, under the 78594-93
headings: (a) External Affairs, $20,297.60; (b) National Defence, $84,959.96; (c) Privy Council, $9,675.99; (d) Public Works, $7,325.62?


Mr. RINFRET:: All details of this vote are printed in the Auditor General's report, Voll II: (a) Part E-8; (b) Part Q-73; (c) Part U-3; and (d) Part V-30.



Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the number of appointments made by the Minister of National Revenue (formerly Minister of Customs) to the appraiser service from April 1, 1927, under authority of the exemption from the provisions of the Civil Service Act as provided in the estimates and in chapter 37 (18-19) George V?
2.	What are the names of those who were subsequently dismissed and the reasons for dismissal in each case?
3.	What are the names of those appointed during the said periods, and who are still in the employ of the Department of National Revenue ?
4.	What is the nature of the inquiry or extent of the test applied in the selection of the appraisers above mentioned, as to physical fitness, intelligence and integrity?
5.	In the case of dismissals for cause, what are the names of the person or persons recommending such persons for employment in the government service?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	17.
2.	None of the persons appointed as appraisers were dismissed.
3.	16: Thomas Costello, H. F. W. Funston, Sidney Jones, S. J. Kelly, E. A. Cook, Chow T. Tong, Gaston Pelletier, C. H. Richardson, F. A. McCann, F. T. Curley, T. C. Rubbra, W. G. Stamp, George Chapman, William Patterson, L. M. Major, Thomas Smith.
4.	All applicants were personally interviewed by a board and in each -case the report of the board was accepted.
5.	Answered by No. 2.


DISMISSAL OF PREVENTIVE OFFICERS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: In regard to sessional papers No. 307 (Return to an order of the House of Commons, dated April 25, 1928), setting forth that 114 persons were employed as preventive officers under authority for exemption from the Civil Service Act, of whom 46 were dismissed for cause:-
1.	What was the nature of the offence or cause of dissatisfaction in the case of 33 of the said employees who were dismissed; "service terminated, recommended by chief, preventive service" ?
2.	What was the nature of the inquiry or extent of the test applied in the selection of the 114 members of this staff as to physical, mental and moral capacities?
3.	From whom were recommendations received for the employment of the 46 members of the staff who were dismissed for irregularities or on recommendation of the chief preventive officer?


KEVI8E3 EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Mr. EULER:: 1. 24 positions abolished.
. 5 Unsatisfactory-poor results.
1 Did not devote full time to service.
1	Charter of vessel, commanded by
officer, expired.
2	Accepted appointment by the Civil
Service Commission to port staff.
2 and 3. No information.


IMPORTATIONS OP MOTOR CARS
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What was the number of motor cars imported into Canada during the calendar year 1928?
2.	What was the invoice value of such cars?
3.	What was the total amount paid by way of duty and sales tax on such motor cars during the year 1928?


Mr. EULER:: 1, 2, 3. Statement of imports of automobiles entered for consumption in Canada during the calendar year 1928, showing number and value of cars and the amount of import
duties collected:
Item
Automobiles, freight	
Automobiles for conveying passengers only, valued at retail, when new, with standard equipment complete at not
more than $1,200 each	
Automobiles, passenger, n.o.p	
3.	Sales tax collections are not recorded as applied to separate commodities and figures are not available therefore, of sales taxes collected on imports of automobiles.
DEPUTY MINISTERS-SALARIES On the orders of the day:


Edward Joseph Garland: May I refer the government to questions Nos. 7 and 8 on to-day's order paper? They were placed on the order paper on March 21, and it is now the 11th of April. The questions are very simple, and I do not think it should take very long to answer them.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: These two questions relate to all departments, and the various answers are assembled by my department. The replies, however, were not all made in the same spirit. In certain cases the salaries of the deputy ministers were given as they existed last year, and in other cases the increases in the main estimates for the current year were taken into account. I am endeavouring to have the replies coordinated, and the answers to the questions should be available very soon.
INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS On the orders of the day:


Mr. M. E. MAYBEE (Northumberland, Ont.):: On March 13th last a question which I had on the order paper concerning the Customs department was passed as an order for a return. I should like to know when I may expect the return to be brought down. 
No.	Value	Duty collected7,182	$ 8,305,235	$1,644,166 9527,957	15,998,828	3,365,800 8812,269	16,528,813	4,365,421 76


William Daum Euler: I shall make inquiries and give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.


Mr. E. A. PECK (Peterborough):: I would like to remind the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) of an order of the house which was passed on March 11th last for the return of correspondence relating to repairs to the Lindsay arsenal. The return has not yet been brought down.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I shall make inquiries. I feel sure that the return will be brought down immediately.


VESSELS CARRYING LIQUOR TO UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: I should like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister a question which I intimated I would ask him to-day, namely, whether any correspondence has taken place between the United States and Canada with respect to the clearance of vessels laden wholly or partly with alcoholic liquors for transport to the ports of the United States of America.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: There has been correspondence with reference to the clearance of vessels. It would be proper, I think, that any correspondence brought down should be brought down simultaneously here and in the United States. I will take steps to arrange to try and have the correspondence brought down at an early date.

The Budget-Mr. Church


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 10, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Hugh Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: The sifbamendlment which has been moved to the 'budget brings up the whale question of better trade relations between this country and the motherland, and concerns boitlh British preferential trade and inter-rmiperial trade. With all due respect to the government, I would ask if they think the people of this country are satisfied to allow the present condition of affairs to continue and for us to go on importing from the United States every year $900,000,000 worth of high-priced manufactured goods, while our own sons and daughters have to leave our shores in large numbers to seek employment in the United States. Conditions in the old land are very similar.
The subamendment urges upon the consideration of the government an immediate and substantial increase in the British preference. The subamendment reads:
That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after "house" and substituting therefor the following:	_	_
"urges upon the government the consideration of an immediate and substantial increase of the British preference as a step towards freer trade relations between Canada and other nations."
In other words, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), who has moved this amendment, is following the line which was suggested by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that when we are shut out from the United States market we should look elsewhere. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) referred to Russia as a country to which we might look for increased trade when we are virtually kicked out of the United States by the new tariff changes and he also spoke about Great Britain. The tariff policy of the United States is based on the principle that charity begins at home. That principle in fiscal matters has been enunciated by all the great presidents of the United States from Lincoln down to Roosevelt and Hoover. They have always taken the stand that in matters of tariff charity begins at home, that the
home market belongs to their own manufacturers and working men. But unfortunately for this country the government at Ottawa seems to be asleep. It has given preferential treatment to twenty-eight countries bordering on the seven seas; but when it comes to the motherland, oh, what a difference. If Canada is to be a self-respecting country the government should write an economic note instead of a peace note to the government of the United States to the effect that we can no longer continue-the present one-sided reciprocity under which we buy nine hundred million dollars' worth of high-priced manufactured goods from our neighbours and pay for them with our raw materials; that we can no longer squander the capital and labour of future generations in this manner; that if the United States government desires to enter into an equitable reciprocity arrangement with us, it must do so with all convenient speed, otherwise we shall take immediate steps to put in operation such a national policy as will conserve our raw materials for our own manufacturers and our own workmen and to deal with the United States as they deal with us by making our duties the equal of theirs and intimating to them that we will have a proper reciprocity or none.
A few days ago the Prime Minister said that in dealing with the United States we must keep cool heads. Well, it seems to me that the government has not only a cool head, it has got cold feet too. No self-respecting country in the world would tolerate what Canada has had to put up with in the past in the shape of the various tariff barriers which have been erected by our neighbours. The government of the United States is well able to take care of the economic and other interests of its own people. Would that we had a government as fully alive to the interests, economic and otherwise, of the Canadian people; then our working men would be more fairly dealt with. This government turns a deaf ear to any proposal to give really preferential treatment to Great Britain. Within the confines of the British Empire there are several hundred millions of people, and we should put into force a system of interimperial trade. That day cannot come too soon. The Prime Minister may know Ottawa, he may know the White House; but the leader of the opposition knows all Canada and all England, he knows what Canada and the empire need-an economic tariff. He knows that in an imperial fiscal sense charity begins at home. Instead of the Prime Minister talking about our keeping cool heads and giving the United States a chance, why does he not take steps to give Canada a
The Budget-Mr. Church

chance, the British Empire a chance, interimperial trade a chance? We have had too much government from Washington and altogether too little from Ottawa in a fiscal sense.
This government has established a Canadian embassy at Washington. It would seem to me, judging from the speeches delivered in the United States by our splendid minister extraordinary-and I say he is extraordinary -that our embassy is just an agency for boosting pan-American trade at the expense of the British Empire. Only the other day this extraordinary plenipotentiary took the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) in hand-a minister who is the "glass of fashion "-and walked him up to the White House to see President Hoover. It was also announced that our minister plenipotentiary down there would be happy to introduce any other member of the House of Commons to Washington and to the present occupant of the White House. I do not know if I am likely to be in Washington any time this year, but if I am our minister extraordinary will not have an opportunity of walking me up to the White House. Of course, I may not be the " glass of fashion " like some hon. gentlemen who are driven around in ten-thousand-dollar high-powered cars. In 1925 I accompanied Mr. Hoover and his friends over the Welland canal and St. Lawrence waterway for two days and gave a banquet in Toronto to him and about two hundred other people in connection with the harbour development there.
From my contact with him then I became convinced that he is a man of exceptional ability, and I am sure he will prove himself to be one of the greatest presidents that the United States has ever had. But besides his intimate knowledge of his own country he knows the British Empire as no other American knows it. He lived for 23 years in the British Empire. Of course, he recognizes the right of every country to shape its own fiscal policy so as to ensure markets for its own people and work for its own working men. I know he is very friendly in his attitude towards the British Empire and wishes to see it become even more abundantly prosperous.
Last year we were visited by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Baldwin, by Mr. Amery, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and last but not least, by Mr. Chamberlain, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and by Sir William Clark. Each of them urged Canada to stay within the British Empire to foster inter-imperial trade, and to buy in other parts of the empire such products

as she did not produce herself. No one can take exception to their advice. It is good Conservative doctrine. But what can we expect from this government? In reply to the kid-glove platitudes of the hon. Minister of Justice, I submit that we are not retaliating against the United States if we keep on buying nine hundred million dollars' worth of goods, notwithstanding the avowed purpose of the United States government still further to raise its tariff barriers against Canada. The policy of this government seems to be, if they smite you on the left cheek, turn to them your right. Talk about keeping coo! heads! Every member of the government from the Prime Minister downwards seems to have cold feet. They refuse to do anything for the motherland in the way of an adequate British preference that would expand our trade with the British people and would mean diverting to them the thirty or forty per cent of trade and of money that is now going to the United States for high-priced goods. The policy of the government has made us hewers of wood and drawers of water for the United States. What does this government care about a proper British preference which will assist the motherland? Hon. gentlemen opposite care nothing about it. They are indifferent to farm relief and rural depopulation in this country, indifferent to unemployment so long as they can continue their policy of semi-free trade with the United States. They have simply pursued a policy of laissez faire towards the British Empire and the motherland and the British preference. The next general election cannot come too soon in the interests of this country; it will, I believe, put an end to this policy on the part of the government. Tens of thousands of tons of Welsh coal could be brought to this country, providing employment for the miners in the old country, and thus implementing the British preference; but instead of that the government are content to have this country send millions of dollars over to the United States to provide employment for the miners of Pennsylvania. It was not free trade and Cobdenism that made England the great country she became; it was the union of coal and steel one hundred and fifty years ago. That was what made England great, and if the government in office here have the interests of the Canadian people at heart they will inaugurate a policy which will have for its object the development of the coal and steel industry of this Dominion and the encouragement of preferential interimperial trade. The government do not seem to realize that this country is a heritage which must 'be safeguarded for those who are to follow. Mussolini, the great leader of Italy,

The Budget-Division
speaking of a country, says: A country does not belong to those who inhabit it to-day; it is an inheritance from the past, a possession for the present, and a trust for the future. The same thing applies to Canada. But what do hon. gentlemen opposite care about the future prosperity of Canada or the trust they hold to-day to foster inter-imperial trade and advance our empire.
The policy of this government, in their attitude towards Canadian development and Canada's relations with the motherland and with the British Empire generally, seems to be twofold: First, that nothing that can be bought in the United States should be made in Canada, especially in eastern Canada ; and, secondly, that everything that cannot be bought in the United States shall be imported from continental Europe, preferably Germany and not from England. That is the preferential policy of the present government. The Conservative party on the other hand believes in a tariff which will, in the first place, develop the industries of this country and, after that, promote trade within the empire. The government are wasting a lot of money on research. The first thing is to search and research for a proper tariff policy and dig up a policy that will help the British Empire, preserve our markets and our work for our own people, and encourage the manufacturing industries of Canada. So far as encouraging trade within the empire is concerned, and particularly assisting the_ mother country, this government's policy may be called "I'm alone." The Prime Minister talks about keeping a cool head; he says we must have a coolheaded policy with the United States. That is a favourite expression of the Prime Minister's. His policy is full of doubts and fears and "ifs" and "buts," provisos and whereases and wherefores, and that he calls keeping a cool head. Well, the government's policy towards the mother country has been very cool; the mother country has always got a very cool reception from this government.


Mr. GOTT:: Before the vote is announced I would like to ask if the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) voted?


Mr. DUNNING:: Yes, I voted.


Mr. YENIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. LANG:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Toronto North East (Mr. Young). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. HOWARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Cassel-man). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Toronto West Oentre (Mr. Hocken). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Colchester (Mr. MaeNutt). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Hewitt Bostock: The question now is on
the amendment.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the amendment, which reads as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
"this house regrets that the financial proposals of the government make no provision for reasonably safeguarding and protecting the interests of those engaged in agricultural pursuits or in industrial employment in Canada."


Mr. HEENAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. CARDIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I was paired with the
hon, junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. GLENN:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Athafoaska (Mr. Kellner). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. BOWMAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Hod-gins). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.

One of the difficulties in connection with an amendment of this kind, in common with all amendments proposed in this house, is that everyone uses his own method of interpreting it. The other day the Prime Minister referred bo this amendment rather extensively, and I think he told the house that it meant more protection, which I understand to mean increases in the tariff. He went on to say that in 1921 the Conservatives appealed to the country on protection and were defeated; that they appealed again in 1925 and in 1926 and got what he said was a knock-out blow somewhat similar to the blow that was given protection in Great Britain about 1905.
The Prime Minister then went on to say that since 1926 protection had -been creeping about in Canada under " modest and belittling pseudonyms," and he instanced this amendment which used the participle " protecting " instead of the substantive word " protection ". However, I think the Prime Minister forgot one

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy
or two other pseudonyms such as "freer trade" and "lower tariff" which have been applied by himself and his own party to what we have in Canada to-day, which without question is a protective policy. If protection received a knock-out blow in the election of 1926, in my judgment there has been no evidence of it in the three budgets which have been presented in this house since that election.
Does the Conservative policy mean, or has it always meant, increasing the tariff? I know it is possible to quote some Conservatives in the affirmative on that question. The Prime Minister referred the other day to the great increase in agricultural production in Canada during the past few years, the increase in acreage and the increase in yield. 1 believe that the Conservative government, or the Union government, was responsible to a large extent for encouraging that increase in production when some years ago it took the duty of small farm tractors.
I do not believe any one reduction in the duty on agricultural machinery has done more to increase production in western Canada than the removal of the duty on small tractors.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house by quoting the speech of the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards), who placed on Hansard at page 956 a list of some reductions brought into effect by the Conservatives. While I am not willing to accept the statement of the Prime Minister the other day as being the correct interpretation of this policy, or the extreme statements made on the other side as to what the Liberal policy means, I think we should remember that the policy of the Conservatives has been followed very closely by the Liberals during the last seven years. I think that is a safer guide than the interpretation given by some Liberals and even by some Conservatives as to the meaning of this amendment. After all, is there any harm in a party which says " if we must protect certain individuals in Canada we must protect everyone "? Surely that is the only logical position for any party to take that adopts protection as a policy if they undertake to protect some people they should go the whole way and protect everyone, as far as that can be done. That is much more logical than promising to abolish protection while giving protection to some and not giving it to others.
The farmers of Canada has not been greatly benefited either by increases or reductions in the tariff. To-day in Canada there are some farmers who believe that the tariff should be increased; they want it increased on their goods because they believe it will mean increased prices to them. On the other hand
there are some farmers who have taken the other view; they want to reduce the tariff. They take that position because they think protection cannot be applied to their industry and they say if that is so it should not be applied to any other industry. However, both groups realize the inequality of the present situation; they desire equality whether it is brought about by increases or decreases in the tariff. In Canada the low, or lower, tariff party, the free traders, or whatever you wish to call them, have been in the ascendancy so far as organized agriculture is concerned, and across the line the farm bloc has been and is protectionist. I want to remind hon. members on both sides of the house that increases in the tariff on agricultural products either in the United States or in Canada do not mean real protection to agriculture. The reason for that, of course, is the impossibility of organized agriculture, to-day taking advantage of a protective tariff. At one time I believe we had a situation in Canada under which a protective tariff on wheat could be taken advantage of; that was when the wheat board was organized in 1919 and if I remember correctly the government of the day passed an order in council compelling the board to sell wheat to the Canadian miller at a price equivalent to that obtained elsewhere less transportation costs. The farm bloc in the United States were successful in 1922 in getting the Fordney-Mc-Cumber tariff passed. In the main, this was a farmers' tariff, and as I do not wish to delay the house longer than necessary, I will not discuss that tariff in detail. I think all the members of the house are sufficiently familiar with the details of that tariff to know that it was chiefly a farmers' tariff. Before it was passed, wheat, cattle and a few other commodities were on the free list, but a duty of 14 to 2 cents per pound was placed against cattle, and a duty of 30 cents per bushel was placed against wheat; by a proclamation of the president, the duty on wheat has since been raised to 42 cents per bushel.
What has been the result in the United States of the application of this increase in duty? I have in my hand a volume entitled Farm Relief, the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, which summarizes the conditions existing in U.S. agriculture between the years 1920 and 1925, and refers in a general way to the conditions prevailing in later years. I would like to quote a few passages from this volume, beginning with a passage entitled "Farm Prices," which is as follows:
When price data are used, we find an appearance of a depressed condition to-day in the business of farming, as compared with pre-war

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy
years. The index number of the price of farm products averaged 131 in 1927 and varied from 134 to 148 during 1928 on a basis of the prewar half decade as 100. On the same basis the prices paid by farmers varied from 154 to 157. Thus the purchasing power of farm products, at the farm has recently varied from 85 to 95, using the pre-war half decade as a basis of 100.
Another article dealing with mortgage indebtedness, reads as follows:
The total amount of mortgage indebtedness for the country as a whole increased about 13 per cent in the five years ending in 1925. This increase is significant when it is considered that the percentage of the total number of owner-operated farms mortgaged decreased slightly, that a certain amount of indebtedness was wiped out by foreclosure, and that the value of farm real estate decreased nearly 25 per cent.
Naturally, there was a large increase in per cent of mortgage debt to value of farm real estate reporting mortgage, for the United States as a whole from 29.1 per cent in 1920 to 41.9 per cent in 1925. This is indeed a startling change. Moreover, it was marked in every geographic section, even in New England and the middle Atlantic states. In the northwest central group the percentage increased from 26.5 to 44.9; in the single state of Iowa, from 27 per cent to 49.2 per cent.
Thus, while the percentage of farms operated by owners decreased considerably in the major farming areas, the decrease in the percentage of equity owned by the farmers was very much more significant.
The farmers in the United States have an organization known as the American Farm Bureau Federation, and I would' like to quote a few remarks by Mr. Thompson, the president, as follows:
An analysis of the present situation shows that not more than eight hundred thousand farms in this country are being operated today at a profit; eight hundred thousand out of six and a half million.
Full realization of the program of the farm bureau will mean that four and a half million or 80 per cent will be operating at a profit;
That is based on the assumption that the program of the bureau is adopted. In the November Current History is an article entitled "The Farm Problem Made Clear," and I would like to read one or two paragraphs, as follows:
Prices for Farm Products-Taking as a basis of 100 all prices averaged for the five years, 1909-14, the prices for agricultural commodities at the farms which reached a peak of 209 in 1919, dropped to 116 in 1921, and since then have averaged around 130. But prices are relative. The wholesale prices of non-agricultural commodities, on the same basis, reached their peak in 1920 at 241, and since then have been in the neighbourhood of 160 until 1927. For the past year and a half they have been about 152. Thus, the purchasing power of farm products. 100 in 1909-14, reached 107 in 1918, went to 69 in 1921, and has since ranged around 75 to 85, being now about 92. If the com-
parison is made for a period of nearly thirty years, with the prices of 1913 as the basis, it is found that prices for farm products have been lower than those for non-agrieultural products for most of the years during the entire period.
The article goes on to deal with the costs of production, which have been increased on the farm, and also deals with the increase in the prices for farm requirements. Another paragraph entitled " Taxes " reads:
Taxes on farm property increased in the ratio of 100 in 1914 to 250 in 1927, while farm prices increased only to 130. The total amount of the taxes paid on farm property increased during this period from $340,000,000 to $870,000,000. In recent years taxes have taken one-third of the net property income of farmers, and in some areas one-half.
Another paragraph entitled "Debt" reads:
Between 1910 and 1925 the amount of mortgage debt on owner-operated farms increased from $1,726,000,000 to $4,517,000,000; and the ration of debt to value, from 27.3 per cent to 41.9 per cent.
The last paragraph I desire to quote, entitled " Share of National wealth " reads as follows:
The wealth of the nation was perhaps $175,000,000,000 in 1910 and is now possibly $400,000,000,000; farm wealth was $40,000,000,000 in 1910 and is now $60,000,000,000, a dTop from nearly $80,000,000,000 in 1920. Twenty years ago our farmers possessed nearly one-fourth of the national wealth, whereas to-day they have less than one-sixth of it. Moreover, the purchasing power of the farm wealth of the United States is 15 per cent less than it was fifteen years ago.
The United States has evidently gone considerably farther than we have in Canada in the tabulating of the relation between the prices at which the farmer sells his produce and the prices which he has to pay for the different articles he requires. I hope we will have in Canada some day as complete a knowledge of the conditions which prevail here. All the indications we have, however, show that the conditions prevailing in Canada with respect to the relation between the agricultural industries and the other industries are similar to what they are in the United States, and these conditions have not been altered in any substantial degree by any changes which have been made during the last few years in the tariff.
This is a problem for both Canada and the United States and it cannot be solved merely by raising or lowering the tariff one per cent. I think the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) in her speech the other day, showed pretty conclusively that, so far as we have information, conditions in Canada are very similar and anybody who has lived for a while in a city and for a while amongst the farmers and new

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy
settlers in the west, knows that living conditions amongst the farmers are very far from what they ought to be, judged by the standard of even the common people in the towns and cities.
The United States farmers have been attempting to solve the problem of making protection apply to United States agriculture. A great deal of the talk in this house regarding the possible action of the United States at the special session of congress called to deal with farm relief does not, in my judgment, mean very much. I do not believe there is in Canada anyone who is going to criticize seriously the president of the United States for calling a session of congress to deal with the pressing problems confronting that country, or congress for doing anything it feels it must do in order to put the farmers of that country on a parity with the manufacturers and other classes who are getting the benefit of a protective policy. How can we criticize them? They know they have a problem to deal with and surely their responsibility is to their own people, just as ours is to our people in this country. If they feel that is what they must do, we cannot criticize them. If the United States people, by experiment, can find a method of farm relief that will solve the problem over there and will demonstrate that the protective policy can apply to the farmers as well as to the rest, any temporary disadvantage the farmers of Canada might suffer might well be borne if a real solution of the problem could be found. But I doubt it. The people of the United States are carrying on their experiment apparently in a sincere and determined manner, and we will watch the result with much interest.
But what are they asking? Just a few increases in the tariff? Oh, no. The McNary-Haugen bill, as I understand it, is a bill to give the farmers a board and government money to enable them to sell the produce that will be absorbed by the home market in the United States, and to prevent the surplus that they might sell abroad from depressing the price, thus enabling the board which is selling that produce in the United States, to take advantage of any tariff protection or increase in the tariff that is granted. The Conservative party has stated on various occasions that its policy is to prevent people who are getting protection from taking advantage of the consumer, and this is one way whereby we might get equality or something nearer equality than we have to-day. The farmers in the United States and those who are supporting them in congress and elsewhere, are taking the view that the manufacturers take advantage of the
tariff, and while they are not trying to stop them, they simply say that the government, having done that for the manufacturers, is in duty bound to turn around and give the farmers an organization which will enable them to do the same thing in the sale of their products.
In regard to the problem of the export surplus, they are asking for export debentures which amount to a bonus. They are asking also for a readjustment of the taxation burden as between the rural districts and the cities, reducing the farmers' taxes. They are asking for lower interest rates. They are also asking for very much reduced freight rates, and I am sure the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) will be interested in that.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will permit me to say that they can stand a great deal of reduction before they are down to our level.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: About ten cents on a
bushel of wheat. They are also asking for control of production and that no more land be brought under cultivation by irrigation or drainage or any other method until such time as they have this problem solved. They are asking for increases in the tariff. These are the things which the farmers in the United States have laid down as being the protective policy that, in their judgment, is necessary to put agriculture on a par with the other organizations that have been enjoying protection in that country.
They are also taking the view-and they have expressed it-that unless they can get protection for all, so far as they are concerned there must be protection for none. I think I can submit this to both parties; certainly the budget we have to-day is a protective budget. Our policy has been protection for our manufacturers, and if hon. members will examine closely the schedule in the present budget there are no substantial changes downward at all. Of course if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) Shows us afterwards that there are, and that it means anything to the ultimate consumer, I shall be only too pleased.
The farmers in the United States are also asking for tremendous assistance to their cooperative organizations. This has to do with the organization for the marketing of their produce. While it has been stated time and again that the policy of the government across the way is to help farmers in connection with marketing their crops, there is in the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) one statement which I cannot quite understand. He said, as re-
The Budget-Mr. Kennedy

ported in Hansard of March 14, 1929, at page 948 near the top of the second column:
The Department of Trade and Commerce is not exercised over the sale of such commodities as wheat, because those commodities find their own markets; but we are interested in assisting the sale of manufactured products.
The farmers in Canada will have to raise their voice still louder in order that both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce may grasp more thoroughly the fact that while the problems of production are great, a solution of them will not mean very much to our farmers unless along with it we have a real solution of the problem of marketing. While I do not believe the pool or cooperative marketing is going to solve all our problems, it is possibly the biggest thing we can do in the near future to help agriculture in the Dominion of Canada. The wheat pools are well organized, but I think it is generally recognized that the marketing organizations in connection with cattle, which may be affected by an increase in the United States tariff, are in a very poor condition as compared with the wheat organizations. We certainly need to pay a great deal of attention to marketing, and I hope that as a result of the investigation made by the agriculture and colonization committee some arrangement will be come to that will impress upon the government and the department the need for greater marketing opportunities, -and that it will never be possible again for a minister to stand up in the House of Commons and make such a statement. <
I shall! refer to the main motion before I conclude, because I do not wish to make another speech. I for one cannot vote for the budget. If I voted for it I feel that I would be declaring that my votes on the budgets of the last two years were wrong. If I felt that I was wrong in 1927 and 1928, I would get up here and frankly say so, but I still ieel that I was right, because we were working on a policy of lowering the tariffs, and we were advocating at least the collection of our revenue by direct rather than indirect taxation, and in that respect the budgets of 1927 and 1928 both moved in the wrong d'reetion. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) to the budget of 1927 to this effect:
Whilst recognizing the advisability of certain minor changes proposed, this house regrets that the budget as presented by the hon. minister of Finance contains no effective provision for the reducing of the high cost of living, in so far as it is due to the protective tariff;

That the budget shows a further departure from the principle of direct and visible taxation based on ability to pay;
And further, that no systematic effort is being made to reduce our national debt, the interest on which absorbs so large a proportion of the revenues of the Dominion.
Then last year I supported an amendment to the budget moved by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher), reading as follows:
That all the words after the word "regrets" in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor;
That the government proposes further reductions in the income tax, this making a serious departure from the principle of direct taxation;
That the proposed revision of the customs tariff is inadequate to bring effective relief to the consuming public, and that the 6ales tax on the necessaries of life has not been eliminated.
I still believe, Mr. Speaker, that we were right in advocating that the income tax should not have been reduced, and right also in the position we took on the tariff. Therefore I intend to cast a vote along the same lines this year, and it must be against the budget.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: I would not get up at this time, Mr. Speaker, but for the fact that I would like to clarify somewhat the statement that has been made and reiterated so often in this debate regarding prosperity, which has been so vulgarly flaunted in the face of our farmers and agriculturists both in the speech from the throne and the budget debate.
The amendment which we are considering is a camouflaged pronouncement on the principle of protection and is meant to catch the unwary agriculturist. I do not think that any debate in any session of parliament since confederation has been equalled by this one for dissimulation or duplicity in argument. From the time the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) spoke, every member on the Tory side of this house has advocated protection as the one thing needful, *and has also in argument spoken of the Liberals as a free trade party and treated the government as though it had presented a free trade budget this year. They say that this budget is going to bring ruin to the industries of Canada. The truth is that both Liberal and Conservative parties in this house are high protectionists, and while both parties express concern for the agriculturists and for the industry of agriculture, not one of them cares one iota for the welfare of the farmer to-day, further than to trap him into asking for protection so that a valid excuse may be found, if possible, to increase the tariff on manufactured goods. Both parties know that

The Budget-Mr. Evans
agriculture in the United States to-day has been reduced to a state of penury through protection, Which is the ideal to be attained here-a state in which those in control of manufacturing, distribution, and the credit of the nation will have the rest of the population at their meTcy.
The Prime Minister declared that there was truth in the statement of the hon. member for South Wellington when he said that there was unbounded prosperity in this country. I want to say that both hon. gentlemen were *wrong. Either they made the statement in complete ignorance or with a desire to create a wrong impression. I received a letter from an old friend in Saskatchewan the other day, from the constituency of my hon. friend the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), which well clarifies the situation so far as prosperity for the working farmer in western Canada to-day is concerned. He says:
During the twenty-five years I have lived here. I do not think I have seen so many foreclosures and hardships. The oldtimers are nearly all losing their land. If I were to draw a plan of my township, I believe seventy-five per cent of the land has changed hands in the last year or so. In some cases the wife acquired the property from the mortgage company, and now it is the wife's turn to move. Yet we have never had a crop failure in the district. This year, of course, frost hit most pretty hard. How it is in some districts where they are subject to hail, drought, and so forth, it is hard to Imagine.
Saskatchewan to-day, Mr. Speaker, is in just the same position that compelled the government to appoint the Duncan commission to inquire into conditions in the maritime provinces. We need a Duncan commission to-day to inquire into conditions in agriculture in the west just as much as a commission was needed to inquire into conditions in the maritime provinces. The one concern of the government and of all protectionist interests throughout the country is to bring in from Europe and other parts of the world those who will take the place of the old settlers in this country, knowing that they can be more easily brought to accept a lower standard of living than is possible on the farms of Canada to-day. The statement that there is unbounded prosperity is reiterated for the purpose of trying to hide the iniquitous system of the concentrating of the earnings of the nation in the pockets of those who profit by acts of legislation giving a privilege to filch the earnings of the workers and agriculturists from their very pockets. Prosperity as boasted of in the budget is the result of the legalized brigandism for which both the government and the opposition are noted.
I was much struck with the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). He struck a high note in the debate. He showed that wars were due to false trade policies. I am sure we are all glad to know of the nations' outlawing war by any and all means whatsoever. The hon. gentleman said that world peace will now depend on the subsequent actions of those nations who have put their names to the Kellogg treaty. He believed that trade restrictions and tariffs were the greatest cause of enmity between nations. Now, to hear a member of the government give utterance to such sentiments is in itself very gratifying. But at the time I could not help wondering how soon we could bring about world peace at the rate the Liberal government is moving towards free trade to-day.
The hon. gentleman said that Canada is competing and can compete with the world. The facts do not bear out his statement as far as urban industry goes. Not one industry in Canada to-day outside of agriculture has been able to stand on its own feet. Because of this system of protection the manufacturing industry and exchange of Canada are centred in the hands of a ring, and no business man who may be willing to come here and establish business on his own account, depending on his own industry and ability, has the slightest prospect of success unless he first of all links up with the politicians, or what may be termed the legislative faculty of the ring. If he does not do so, sooner or later he is put out of business. I can refer to several incidents to show that this is the case, and I do not need to tax my memory very far back. I have only to recall some incidents in our distributing system and our co-operative efforts and enterprises in western Canada to confirm my statement. I can remember when we intended opening a big wholesale house in Regina to supply our own needs; but we found out there and then that through the protectionist system of Canada we could not buy one dollar's worth of the commodities we needed, we could not under any circumstances enter the wholesale business in the city of Regina.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Is the hon. gentleman
able to point to any legislation :by the federal parliament which would prevent a man starting up a wholesale business anywhere in the Dominion? I think he has made an incorrect statement.


John Evans: When we failed in Regina we thought we could open up a wholesale establishment in the great distributing centre of Winnipeg. We did so. How? We had to get another concern to buy for us. Both that
The Budget-Mr. Evans

concern and our own have been out of business for some years. This happened to Saskatchewan Grain Growers in their cooperative work.
Then what happened to the farmers of Ontario in their efforts along the same lines when they did not take care first of all to link up with the politicians in this house? When they could save two or three cents a pound on binder twine by getting it from Belfast they sent an order there. The shipment was held up in Montreal, and $30,000 was seized -all done with the idea of reducing the agriculturists of this countiy to a dependent state. That twine was afterwards released by the customs on payment of $6,000 in cash-stolen from the farmers of Ontario. Twine is on the free list. I want to show how free it is. Last year the consumers of Canada paid at least $555,000,000 because of this tariff system to put $185,000,000 into the Dominion treasury.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) says that by half a dozen strokes of the pen the Minister of Finance can cure the problem of unemployment. Like the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie), he would stop the export of raw material. I am sure he would not dare to put such a policy into force were he in power. But he made the statement, forgetting that the class for whom last year this nation sweated to the extent of $555,000,000 because of the tariff do not even believe in their own policy of protection. I know what would cure unemployment in this country-the investment of capital for the exploitation of our natural resources. I obtained from the Bureau of Statistics figures showing that in 1927 our Canadian capitalists invested in foreign countries $1,330,586,000. This large sum of the people's earnings was invested abroad by a class who claim to have a monopoly of Canadian patriotism. Well, the hon. gentleman said nothing about patriotism.
I find from the magazine published by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that those foreign investments increased during 1928 by over $330,000,000. The investment of this huge sum in the development of our resources would cure unemployment. But I say again, as I have said before when speaking for the farmers of Canada, the Canadian capitalists care nothing for the working men of their native country as long as they have a hungry crowd around the factory doors each morning seeking jobs. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) declared that our workers are living better than are the workers of any other country. This is not true. The average wage paid to our workers last year was $920-a wage far below the living line to-day.

The conditions of life on our Canadian farms are also of a very low standard, with heavy mortgages on the self-imposed slaves, and the landlord and tenant system with all its evils increasing each year. During the war the farmer's produce was commandeered at a price representing about 50 per cent of its value-less than 50 per cent compared with the sky-rocketed prices of those for whom our war debt was borrowed. Yet the government can relieve that class from payment of their just share of the national debt by making two successive reductions in the income tax in 1927 and 1928. If this boasted prosperity is so prevalent throughout the country, why does not the government now increase the income tax by making a sharper graduation in the scale?
The 1929 budget to my mind is simply a call for tenders in preparation for the next election. The slogan of the whole fiscal horoscope appears to be " For manufacturers' use only." The consumer is not relieved of any corresponding amount of the penalty he has to pay if he imports any goods made from the articles now placed on the free list or on the drawback list, which is increased again this year. No; this vulgar boast of prosperity, flaunted in the speech from the throne and now again in the budget speech, has reference only to the tariff filching propensities of this government, who are directing things at present. The government may well feel satisfied with its tariff filching propensities, but I would issue the warning: Don't call it prosperity. Surely there are means of finding revenue without putting the burden on the worker and his family-and the bigger the family the heavier the tariff penalty imposed is felt.
I would suggest to the government to-day to consider a sharp graduation in the income tax, and particularly should this be done to meet our war debt by the class for whom the war debt was incurred. We could meet our war debt to-day in an easy manner if all classes were taxed equitably, if an equitable method of taxation were found as between one class and another. Those who are making excess profits should pay a greater share than they are paying. We are allowing watered stock to be added to the capitalization of our concerns on which interest is expected to be paid, and a greater burden than ever is placed on the worker. Again, all unearned increment belongs to the community. I think a more sharply graduated inheritance tax would also furnish a good part of the revenue. While this is used to some extent by the provinces it is not used in Canada as it should be. The

The Budget-Division
most prolific means of taxation in Canada today is practically untouched, and that is land values, which would beyond any doubt furnish a large portion of our revenue. But as yet we prefer to follow the uncivilized method of taxing the food and clothing of the worker instead of the land of the rich which the worker has made valuable. Some reforms are needed along these lines, and I could not let this opportunity go without showing some of the abuses laid upon certain classes by other classes in the country, with the consent of this government.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fontaine). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. VENIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for lY>rk-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Beniah Bowman: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Hod-gins). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Peter Heenan: I was paired with the
hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


James Allison Glen: I was paired with the hon.
member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Pierre-Ernest Boivin: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto WTest Centre (Mr. Hocken). Had I voted' I would have voted against the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: The question now is on
the main motion.

( Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, at this late stage of the debate I regret that I should be compelled to take a further part in it than I have taken already.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MANION:: I am very much pleased
to be able to say something which draws applause from my hon. friends; I hope they may applaud me when I sit down.
My reason for presuming upon the indulgence of the house for a very few minutes, Mr. Speaker, is because I feel that there were many questions dealt with in this debate and many attitudes taken, particularly by the members of the government, which should be drawn to the attention of the people of this country. I think it is time the people of Canada should learn the policy of this government, or the lack of policy of this government, however we may put it, because at times it is difficult to know just for what policy this government stands.
I listened with a great deal of attention to previous speakers in this debate and particularly to the speeches of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister; I hoped that perhaps they might give us something constructive and might offer something in the shape of a real Canadian policy which would be of benefit to this country in the days to come. But, Sir, I listened in vain; I hearo' nothing from any of the speakers on the other side of the house but vain boastings of a prosperity which is at least doubtful and certainly spotty. Certainly for such prosperity as does exist this government is no more responsible than I am responsible for the revolution of the planets.
Of course, at this late hour I do not intend to take very much time to deal with the remarks of the other speakers in this debate, but just for a few moments I wish to deal with one or two parts of the speech of the Prime Minister which illustrate the difficulty of depending very much upon that speech. My right hon. friend started off by pointing out that this country was very prosperous and he gave many figures to support that statement. Among the first figures he gave was the acreage under field crops in Canada; he said that in 1928 the acreage amounted to 59,351,000, or 3,000,000 acres more than in 1927. With that statement I shall not quarrel, but I would like to point out to the right hon. gentleman that if the acreage in field crops is a typical criterion of the prosperity of our country, then our country has not been prosperous since this government came into power. The Canada Year Book shows that the acreage in field crops in 1921 amounted to 59,635,000 or 300,000 acres,

The Budget-Mr. Manion
in round figures, more than the total acreage of last year, 1928. The figures in the Canada Year Book show that there have never since been as many acres in field crops as there were in 1921.
The right hon. gentleman used the word " deception " a number of times. He is usually very courteous, but I must confess that I thought he would be called to order by Your Honour. He used that word in referring to a number of speeches on this side of the house, and I think he came pretty close to political juggling if not deception when he gave the figures which he gave.
He also mentioned that this side of the house had thrown overboard the word " protection," but in the amendment upon which we voted a few moments ago there appear the words " safeguard and protect." It is quite true that the word "safeguard" is not used very much in Canada, but I would like to know just when it has become a crime to use a good British word here in Canada. While we may have neglected on some occasions to put in the word " protection " we have always advocated protection and, when we were in power we always lived up to the principle of protection; but what must we think of a party which when in or out of office have preached a policy of free trade and ever afterwards practise protection?
The right hon. gentleman said, as he has said before, that we should have conscripted the wealth of the country. That may be a little touch of demagogism, but he pointed out in his speech, as he has in many others, that we did not put on sufficient taxes during the war. I would like to quote three or four lines from a little book I have in my hand entitled English Public Finances. This was published in 1920 by the Bankers Trust Company of New York City, so I hardly think the right hon. gentleman can object to it. This book deals with the public finances of Britain from the early days of the Norman conquest right up to the present time. In dealing with Great Britain in particular, the article says:
For the active war period covering the five fiscal years ending March 31, 1919, from 22J per cent to 34i per cent of the expenditure was raised from taxation, other revenue collections, and war contributions.
In referring to the dominions, it says:
The dominions have made an equally good or even better showing. Canada has taxed herself for nearly fifty per cent (48.10) of her total war time expenditure; Australia raised 40 per cent from taxation and New Zealand appears to have raised 57 per cent from taxation.
In view of those figures I hope the right hon. gentleman will hesitate about making similar statements in the future.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Who is the
author of that?


Robert James Manion: The Bankers Trust Company.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Malcolm McLean: I would like
to know the author of that publication, not the publishing company.


Robert James Manion: Harvey E. Fisk, of the
Bankers Trust Company, New York.
The right hon. gentleman regretted that there was a tendency in some parts of this country to mix up the tariff with the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. That was a most extraordinary statement for him to make, because, in replying to a question by the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), he turned right around and mixed up the two things himself, proving that he was the first one in this country to mix them. He quoted from a letter which had been sent to the Secretary of State of the United States, and I would like to quote from that letter which is a part of the official correspondence tabled in the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends seem to be cheering me as easily as they cheered some of their own speakers. The right hon. gentleman said in his speech:
May I say that I can conceive of no greater misfortune than that the question of the St. Lawrence waterway should be mixed up in any way with the question of the tariff of this country or of the United States. Each question must be dealt with separately on its merits.
In replying to a question of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) he proceeded to read the letter which had been forwarded to the government of the United States. In part, this letter reads:
In this connection, it may be said that Canadian agriculture is more directly affected by the restrictions on the importation of Canadian farm products, which have been imposed by the United States in recent years, with the object, it is understood, of assisting agriculture in those western states which would share so largely in the benefits of the proposed St. Lawrence waterway. This situation, and the effects upon the maritime sections of Canada of United States duties on the products of the fisheries, are among the factors which have contributed to bringing it about that public opinion in Canada has not so clearly crystallized in favour of the waterway project as appears to be the case in the United States.
I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman if that is a species of self-hypnotism.
The Budget-Mr. Manion


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was not mixing them up; that was keeping them separate.


Robert James Manion: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that if the Prime Minister was in a hypnotic trance when he quoted that letter, he certainly has not come out of that trance yet. If that was not self-hypnotism, then it was self-deception; it was sophistry of the worst kind, if it was not just ordinary poiitical humbug. What attention will the people of this country pay to the words of the right non. gentleman when he contradicts himself like that?
Then he said that we should conscript the wealth of this country in the next war, not only conscript the wealth but conscript all other things.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: He did not say that.


Robert James Manion: I have not the time to look it up, but I remember the expression very well. I am very glad the right hon. gentleman has a policy for the next war, because he did not have very much of a policy for the last one. The trouble with the Prime Minister is that he becomes too enthusiastic after an event, rather than before. I do not like that expression of conscripting the wealth, and I do not think it would be feasible, but so far as the conscripting of the services of all our people is concerned, if another war should unhappily come upon us, I am just as strong for that as is the right hon. the Prime Minister. I feel that all people should serve, but when the Prime Minister sets a course like that I am afraid he is likely to steer away from that chart when the time comes.


Mr. VALLANCE:: What about the conscripting of wheat in the last war?


Robert James Manion: I will let my hon. friend
deal with that next year. I have enough points against the government; in fact, I have: so many I cannot begin to exhaust them all in fifteen or twenty minutes and I do not intend to speak any longer.
A couple of words which I used in my speech seem to have caused a good deal of antagonism on the part of my hon. friends.
I do not know why they should have taken umbrage as they did, but I used the words "red-blooded Canadian policy." I did not assail the United States, and I do not assail the United States now. I like the United States, but I love Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in dealing with that-and I found myself laughing a little 
when he came to the words "red-blooded," because I thought he would not conclude his speech without referring to them-said that it was not "red blood" we needed but "cool heads". The difficulty with the Prime Minister is that he has his extremities mixed. It is not a cool head that is troubling this government; it is cold feet that is troubling them, and if he had studied physiology in his youth as I did, he would realize that in both matters, not only to warm up the feet, but to cool down the head, you need red blood anyhow, and they need it on both counts.
My hon. friends from the prairies will remember there are trains out there that go out empty in order to come back full. They are what we call deadhead trains. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that the coolest kind of a head is a deadhead, and the trouble with the government is that it is a deadhead government-nothing but platitudes and no policies.
I listened with great attention to both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who usually make interesting speeches. I have heard the Minister of Justice making what I consider witty and brilliant speeches in the house, but his last speech was not up to the mark. Yesterday in reply to one of my friends, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys), the Minister of Justice suggested that he would like to have finished his speech. We all realize that he had not finished it, because when he was talking, he did not get anywhere; he did not have any terminal facilities. The hon. gentleman, in coming to a lot of theoretical conclusions and getting nowhere practically, made me think of a remark of the Hon. Mr. Harcourt who, speaking of one of his colleagues, said that the trouble was he was a brilliant enough fellow but he lacked that vulgar quality of common sense. I am afraid that is what the speech of the Minister of Justice lacked the other day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: I do not say that with any disrespect. What was the gist of the speech of the Minister of Justice? The entire speech was that an abstract resolution carried by a group of men at Geneva a couple of years ago, Should be the whole basis of policy in the Dominion of Canada. He forgot, for example, that the whole United States press- and I read much of it at the time-criticized their representatives for having |put their names to such a resolution. He also forgot, when he read the names of the five members who represented Canada, that not one of those members had ever been, so far as I know,

The Budget-Mr. Manion
elected to a representative body in this country. I am not saying this in disrespect of their capabilities; but they had not been up against practical problems; they had been dealing with theoretical questions all their lives. They agreed to a theoretical proposition, and now the Minister of Justice says that his complaint against us is that we do not agree with this resolution; that we have not put this into force to a greater extent. As a matter of fact, he pointed out himself that the only country in the world that had put this into force was Canada. Even free trade England never put it into force. Since the war, free-trade England, the only country that for a hundred years has practised free trade, has been putting up tariff barriers under the term of safeguarding industries. We have been the only country who have dared to reduce our tariffs to any extent at all, thereby killing our own trade and increasing that of the United States. This reminds me of the story of the old mother who was watching a regiment passing and who said: "They are all out of step but our Jimmy."


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not new.


Robert James Manion: I know, but I want to use it with relation to the members of the Liberal party. They think all the ministers of finance throughout the world are out of step except their Jim. They forget that the tariff is a weapon by which we can negotiate with other countries for trade favours, and we alone have thrown away our weapons. It is a weapon which has been used by all countries in the world. But it has not been used by this country because in practically every trade treaty we have made with other countries, we have suffered. The strange thing of it all is that the Minister of Justice, who is a pet son of the province of Quebec-and I have no complaint in that regard-who has always been a favourite son of Quebec, is so indifferent to that province that loves him so much that he prefers Geneva to Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert James Manion: Why, the hon. member
for North Simcoe yesterday in the house, in a very able speech, read a resolution which was passed unanimously on March 27 in the provincial legislature of Quebec, after Mr. Taschereau agreed to withdraw his motion to go into committee of supply. That resolution which they agreed to unanimously was entirely a protective resolution; every word of it was protective.
And, how did the Prime Minister deal with the speech of the Minister of Justice? How did he take this attitude on trade policies? He left Geneva and, by the way, this was a 78594-94
great government to travel. If they cannot travel in private cars or trains, they travel in automobiles all over Europe, and when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is taunted with it, he says: "What have you got to say about it?" That is his attitude. But the Prime Minister left Geneva and went across to Washington for his policy. He says: " We have to be very careful in regard to our whole policy at the present time or we will provoke Washington." That is a sort of policy,,whereby we must not do anything; we must take an attitude whereby by no word of ours should we seem to have any opinions of our own at all. I have heard a great deal of abuse of the word " retaliation," I do not know why; it seems a good enough word, but I am not using it because some hon. members do not seem to like it. But the Prime Minister seemed to think that if anybody used the word " retaliation," it was almost a crime, rendering one liable to go to gaol; that if anybody talked about British preference, there was a danger of provoking Washington; that we should have a sort of " sit quiet, hush-hush " policy. The trouble with this government has been that it has been a " hush-hush " government with regard to any policy that would build up Canada. Since 1925 there have been travelling throughout the country the leader of the opposition-


An hon. MEMBER:: The leader of the government.


Robert James Manion: The leader of the government. It is only a little time until the leader of the opposition will be leader of the government, so my mistake is one only of time and not of intent. The leader of the government and the Minister of Justice have been travelling from end to end of Canada, talking about this magnificent status to which we have attained, this wonderful status of Canada. They say that they have broadened out our whole status; that we have become a real nation. What kind of a status is it when we do not even dare to call our souls our own? What kind of status have we attained when we do not dare to do anything but practise a " hush-hush " policy, no matter what the United States says or does. We are a proud nation, it seems to me, but under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice we have attained to that great position where it is advocated by the Minister of Justice that we take our policies from Geneva and by the Prime Minister that we take our policies from Washington. Mr. Speaker, the members on this side of the house believe in taking their policies from Ottawa. Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Manion

I would like to quote to the Prime Minister a statement which he has no doubt read that appeared in this morning's Ottawa Journal, a statement 'by Senator Borah, one of the outstanding men of the United States:
Washington, D.C., April 10. Replying to an inquiry from the Canadian chamber of commerce in the United States, Senator Borah, Republican, Idaho, declared to-day he would support "reasonable" tariff increases on agricultural products-"not that I love Canada less, but that I love the United States more."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend used the same expression as his own a moment ago.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I do love Canada
more and the United States less. Do I take it from the Prime Minister that he loves the United' States more and Canada less?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend took his words from Senator Borah.


Robert James Manion: I do not know what the
right hon. gentleman is referring to. Senator Borah may come out and give an interview saying that he is going to look after the interests of the United States, and that is all right, but if we dare to pass any opinion like that about Canada we are provoking Washington, the Prime Minister says. We should not dare to take any attitude at all with regard to Canada's policies. I wonder if that is why in the- Easter recess the Prime Minister and so many of his cabinet spent the recess down in the United States. The Prime Minister himself was down there, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) was down there, and so was the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning), with the emphasis on the canals because we are going to deal with a canal question shortly with the United States. Were they down there learning the attitude that we should take on such a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They accompanied my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Perley).


Robert James Manion: Then I would say they
were in good company, but the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), let me point out, is not handling the affairs of this country at the present time, unfortunately for the country.
The trouble at the present time is that we have no leadership of any kind in this country, and' that at the very time when we need leadership as we never needed it before. What kind of leadership is it, I would ask this house, that brings in old age pensions one day, and brands it as a vicious principle the next?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I take direct issue with my hon, friend on the statement which he has just made. I let it pass when made by some of the backbenchers, but he is a front-bencher, and I do not propose to let him get away with it. .


Robert James Manion: My leader made the same statement, and he is no back-bencher, and the Prime Minister stood for that. Not only that, but I heard the right hon. gentleman himself make the statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I say that I never made a statement of the kind, and I ask my hon. friend to give the house his authority now.


Robert James Manion: Of course, the right hon. gentleman is very clever in getting up and asking me to give the authority just when I do not happen to have it. I did not think his politics would make him deny such a . statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is your authority?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Give the
authority.


Robert James Manion: I will read it.
Mr, DUNNING: Read it all.


Robert James Manion: I will read it all. The statement of the Prime Minister has just been handed to me, and I am handing it to the Prime Minister now. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) was speaking, and he said:
But something still more significant was the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a few days ago when we were discussing the question of federal grants to the provinces for highway construction. Referring to that system of federal assistance to the provincial governments, the Prime Minister stated:
It is a bad system, a thoroughly vicious system, and that is the reason why the present administration has been seeking to put an end to a system that grew up at a time when the country was in the throes of war or had to meet a post war situation.
I asked the Prime Minister:
What about old age pensions?
He replied:
I am glad my hon. friend speaks of that. There is another ease where we are giving to the provinces a lot of money in addition to what they are raising.
Mr. Ladner: Is that vicious?
Mr. Mackenzie King: I think it is, yes;


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Let me finish the quotation :
Mr. Mackenzie King: I think it is, yes; 1 have come to the conclusion that it is a thoroughly vicious principle.

The Budget-Mr. Manion


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker-


Robert James Manion: I have the floor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to a question of privilege.


Robert James Manion: I have the floor.


Hewitt Bostock: I cannot allow any interruptions unless the hon. gentleman who has the floor is willing to be interrupted, but I understand that the right hon. gentleman is rising to a question of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To a question of privilege. I say, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend entirely misinterprets the words he has read.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: That is not a question of privilege.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a question of privilege. I have a right to say that the words my hon. friend has quoted have reference to a system of taking money from the federal treasury and giving it to the provinces, and no reference whatever to old age pensions or highways or anything else, and my hon. friend knows it and the house knows it.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I will let the right hon. gentleman wriggle out of that as he has wriggled out of so many other things.
What kind of leadership are we getting in this country from a government that talks of free trade, in theory, on the hustings throughout the country, but, in practice, in the house puts into force a protective policy? What kind of leadership is it which advocates senate reform when it is on the hustings and out of power, but stands for senate stability when it is seated in this house? What kind of leadership is it that spends millions on the decoration and beautification of the city of Ottawa, but has not one dollar for technical education or national highways? What kind of leadership is it that permits for lack of a proper immigration policy thousands of Europeans to come into our country and drives out, by lack of a Canadian policy, the same number of Canadians to the United States? What kind of leadership is it that builds up United States industries and destroys Canadian industries? What kind of leadership is it that has no word of support or protection for the dairy and fruit industries of this country, but builds up the dairy and fruit industries of other lands? What kind of leadership is it that says we must not mix up the tariff and the St. Lawrence questions, and then proceeds to make a salad of the two? What kind of leadership is it that permits our purchasing nine hundred million dollars' 78594-94J
worth of goods from the United States, and when members on this side of the house urge that the Canadian attitude should be to refuse to continue that condition of affairs and offer a remedy, resents our advice and says that its adoption would provoke Washington.


Mr. ROBB:: Will my hon. friend say what is the remedy?


Robert James Manion: Yes. The remedy is a
proper Canadian policy. And until my hon. friend became Minister of Finance nobody knew that better than he. I have sat in this house for twelve sessions and have listened to him on many occasions when he made as good protective speeches as the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), and he is one of the best protectionists in the cabinet.
I have heard the Minister of Finance make as good a speech for protection as the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) made for free trade when he announced the death knell of protection. If it was not for love of power at any price the Minister of Finance would put in force a good Canadian policy. Nobody knows better than he what kind of policy we need. I am tired-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Apparently some of my
hon. friends opposite are tired too. I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am tired of this hush, hush! policy; I am tired of this pernicious anaemia that the government is suffering from. I believe it is time we brought in a policy of Canada first, decided here in Ottawa without any fear of provoking Washington, without any reference to a theoretical resolution passed in Geneva. I think that our interests, and ours alone, should be considered in shaping a policy to give that prosperity to the farmers of this country which every farmer representative in this house denies they are enjoying to-day, a policy that will build up this country industrially and economically so* that our boys and girls will have an opportunity of remaining in their native land instead of being forced by the tens of thousands, yes, by the hundreds of thousands, to go to the United States to earn the living that they are denied here.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time
that I have ever seen such a performance. It is like the effect of a cerebral seidlitz powder. I have the highest regard personally for the hon. member who has just re-
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

sumed his seat (Mr. Manion), but I think that his speech, judging from the applause with which his colleagues greeted it, must have been sorely needed to revive their drooping spirits.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have as many friends
on the other side of the house as I have on this side, and I am very much surprised that my friends opposite are so noisy. Who is the greatest man of the Conservative party to-day?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Tasche-reau ?


Jean-François Pouliot: I enjoy a point of
humour, but not a pointless interruption. May I say with all respect to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who is a personal friend of mine, that he is not the greatest man of his party? May I say also that the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen was not the greatest leader of the Conservative party, because he never won an election? The greatest leader of the Conservative party was the man who has retired from politics and is now living in Ottawa-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Taschereau!


Jean-François Pouliot: -a man who has more
brains than several members of the Conservative party put together, I mean the Right Hon. .Sir Robert Borden-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry that his name should be jeered at by my friends opposite. Now that he has retired from politics and has given himself to the study of constitutional questions, they never speak of him with pride, in fact they seem to forget all his accomplishments. But, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the greatest man of the Conservative party is he who led the party to victory in 1911

Sir Robert Borden.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Taschereau!


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to read the following extract from the Ottawa Journal of August 15, 1928? It is headed:
Ottawa branch League of Nations passes resolution of congratulation on trip.
The article proceeds:
At a special meeting of the executive committee of the League of Nations Society of Can-
[Mr. Pouliot.1
ada held in Ottawa yesterday, the following resolution was moved by Sir Robert L. Borden, seconded by Tom Moore and passed unanimously :


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am going to speak
about Geneva.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps my hon. friends
opposite will allow me to proceed. This is the resolution:
Resolved that the League of Nations Society in Canada congratulate right hon. Prime Minister on his decision to represent Canada at the ninth session of the assembly and the fifty-first meeting of the council of the League of Nations-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friends opposite
ought to find this resolution very interesting. Perhaps they will allow me to proceed. It continues:
-and also on his decision to attend at Paris for the purpose of signing the treaty for the renunciation of war.


Eccles James Gott: Mr. Speaker, I rise'to a point of order. Since the hon. member for Temis-couata rose to speak he has not touched the subject matter that is before the house.


Hewitt Bostock: The point of order is
not well taken.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, Sir John
Macdonald is dead, Cartier is dead, Lafon-taine is dead, but the member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) is alive.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: And the
Liberal party is dead.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: But to continue with my
quotation:
In representing Canada for these purposes the Prime Minister, we believe, is expressing the unanimous desire of the Canadian people to seek by all possible means the establishment of an ordered and peaceful world society and the substitution for war of arbitration, conciliation and conference.
This is what the most eminent man in the Conservative party, the only living man in that party who has won general elections, declares. This is what Sir Robert Borden says, now that he has left active polities and is enjoying the quiet of private life in Ottawa, in a position to study the great problems that affect our country. He has no prejudices; he has no longer any interest in the

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
welfare of his party but is concerned about the future of this country which we a'l cherish. And if he were in the house now he would be silent instead of being noisy, like hon. gentlemen who prefer noise to argument. He stands out as the great figure of the Conservative party, a man personally above all reproach. And what does he say? He says that the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King) is doing his best for Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend from Fort William spoke of political juggling, and I noticed when he spoke that he was doing his daily dozen before dinner. He spoke of the many attitudes taken by the members of the government and said, "I am not responsible for the revolution of the planets." I do not say that he is a wandering star in the Tory constellation, but he is responsible for his own evolutions, because he had two distinct policies in 1917. He was then a Laurier Liberal and afterwards a Unionist. He spoke of the lack of leadership and qualified this as a deadhead government. The Tory party is a hydra, a seven-headed monster; there are nearly as many leaders in that party as there are front seats on that side of the house.
Then my hon. friend referred to the fact that many members of the cabinet went to the United States during the Easter recess, and at the same time he spoke of cold feet. Yet he saj^s he likes the United States; ignoti mulla cupido, he could not like that country without knowing it. Although he reproached the members of the government for going to the United States he went there himself during the Easter recess in order to get his cold feet sunburned. He was surprised that the Prime Minister was not called to order for using the word "deception" while referring to speeches made by Tory members. If the word "deception," like truth, hurts so much, does my hon. friend think the Prime Minister should have used instead the expression "sour grapes"?
There are two kinds of governments; there is the government of the people, by the people and for the people, which is the Liberal government, and there is the government for the few privileged classes, which is the Tory government. On this side of the house the
Liberal party has a red-blooded Canadian policy; on the other side of the house the Tory party has a blue-blooded class policy. My hon. friend said he did not like the expression "conscription of wealth" but he is willing to conscript the services of the people.


Mr. QUINN:: Conscript them all, Frenchmen and everyone.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hon. gentleman opposite
do not like the conscription of wealth because they are a capitalistic party looking after capitalistic interests and hoping for a capitalistic future. The hon. member for Fort William approved the issue by the Tory government of victory bonds free from income tax. This was not conscription of wealth but far from it; it gave an opportunity to people who were well off to buy large quantities of victory bonds of that kind and- escape the payment of income tax. In that way the rich Tory lords evaded taxation.


John Wesley Edwards: May I ask
one question? Is it not a fact, that the issuance of tax-free victory bonds was approved unanimously by the house?


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps I might ask my
hon. friend a question also: Is he one of the wealthy Tory lords who enjoyed that benefit?


An hon. MEMBER:: Answer the question.


John Wesley Edwards: I will answer my hon. friend at once; I am not a wealthy Tory lord. Now will he answer my question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I do not understand how my hon. friend can be a Conservative; he should be a Liberal. It is not a fact that the bankers' trust had for sale an issue of Canadian tax-free victory bonds and that they stated Canada was heavily taxed in order to have a better opportunity to sell those bonds?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if my hon.
friend knows that all the municipal bond issues in the United States are exempt from income tax?


Jean-François Pouliot: This is just another instance where hon. gentlemen opposite, who complain very much because we are friendly with the United States instead of being at war with them, quote the United States as an example for Canada.
My hon. friend from Fort William said that the Minister of Justice did not finish his speech. He did not do so because of the interruptions of a member on the other side of the house, so why should he be reproached
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

because he was unable to conclude his remarks? Then my hon. friend said the Minister of Justice was disloyal to his own province, but that assertion does not stand for a moment. The Minister of Justice stands very high in Quebec; I am proud of his accomplishments, and moreover I used his name in my county when Mr. Patenaude was bringing in his policy of nothing.
We all heard the Prime Minister say that the tariff policy of this country has been and always will be decided in Ottawa, and that is the course which will be pursued by the Liberal party. This afternoon the hon. member for Fort William was quoting Senator Borah and a banker named Fiske in the United States, and to-night his leader quotes the municipalities of that country as an example for us. This is the dessert after dinner.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell us about
Taschereau.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friends opposite
tell me to speak about the Premier of Quebec, but I will not do so to-night because I have no orders to take from hon. gentlemen opposite. To use the expression of the hon. member for Fort William it would be a kind of disappointment.
May I say this about the resolution which has been passed by the Quebec assembly; there are three kinds of protection, high protection, moderate protection and low protection.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Liberal protection.


Jean-François Pouliot: When our friends speak of protection they do not say whether they mean high protection, moderate protection or low protection. High protection protects the capitalists only, the money lords of this country, while moderate protection is of benefit to the manufacturer as well as to the consumer. That is the policy which has always been advocated by this party, but our friends do not say just what kind of protection they want to have; they do not say whether they want protection for the rich or for the poor.
The acreage in field crops is not the only criterion of prosperity. The banks are boasting of the prosperity in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Premier Taschereau.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the Seven Sisters.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Premier Taschereau can boast of prosperity because he is a financier himself. He is a director of the Sun Life Assurance Company, the Metropolitan Life, Barclay's bank, and a savings bank in Quebec. He is very wel acquainted with business conditions, and when he says the country is prosperous, at least he must be prosperous himself. The banks are boasting of the prosperity of this country, and so are the financiers. Even the member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) is boasting of prosperity; he said that his business is prosperous. The heads of the great railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway, are also boasting of prosperity. AVhen this government boasts of prosperity it is only repeating what is said by the men who know the true state of affairs. When any member says that the government is killing our trade he only shows that he is, not a disappointed, but a "sour grapes" politician.
Low prices are sometimes caused through there being a better harvest than in previous years, but the policy of this government has always been the policy of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Before recess, and with regard to Geneva, I mentioned what Sir Robert Borden had said. An article appears in to-day's five o'clock edition of the Ottawa Journal, which gives an interview with Sir Robert Borden who had just returned from a two months' visit to the United States. He stayed there longer than the hon. member for Fort William, so he should know of the conditions prevailing there. Sir Robert Borden has had more experience in the government of this country than any hon. member on the other side, and the article, which appears on the front page of this newspaper, reads:
A few days were spent in New York, where Sir Robert had the privilege of meeting at dinner a gathering comprising many men very prominent in finance, industry and transportation. He was particularly impressed with their friendly attitude and with their warm appreciation of Canadian development, progress and institutions.


An hon. MEMBER:: Dispense.


Jean-François Pouliot: The article continues:
"Without exception," said Sir Robert, "they evinced the utmost faith in the future of our Dominion, and emphasized its abundant resources. A leading New York banker spoke with great admiration of our banking system and of its remarkable success.
The vice-president of a very important railway commented on the fact that in Canada we had practically only two railway systems while in the United States there are more than one hundred, and he expressed the opinion that Canada in this respect occupied a more advantageous position than the United States. He

The Budget-Mr. Pouhot
spoke also of the excellent organization and service of both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways. Keen interest was evinced in the remarkable development of electrical energy in Canada and the mineral development in the northern portions of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba."
As my hon. friends have asked me to talk about matters pertaining to Quebec, I will read from a Tory paper of Quebec, the Chronicle-Telegraph of April 8, which has the following to say about the Conservative party:
Campaign Afoot to Split up Federal Conservative Party and divide the Leadership
Cahan is Named as the Sectional Leader
That a subtle campaign is now on foot to split the federal Conservative party, and create in the province of Quebec what may be descibed as a Nationalist-Conservative wing, with Mr. C. H. Cahan, member for St. Lawrence, in the saddle-
I suppose that refers to the dark horse. The article continues:
-to divide control with the Hon. R. B. Bennett, appears to be substantiated following the discovery of an underground movement, engineered within the province, and sponsored delicately by some sections of the so-called provincial Conservative press.
Already the movement has gone so far as to nominate delegates, agreeable to the proposal, to attend a convention to be held in Montreal in the near future, at which it is presumed tangible shape will be given to the scheme. Absolutely no authority for any such convention has been given by the federal Conservative organization, it is claimed, and if this is the case, there is no alternative but to believe that the project is a deliberate attempt to split the party on racial lines, with the province of Quebec playing an isolated and it is hoped dominant role, in the prospective destiny of the Conservative party at Ottawa.
I do not know on which side they will be when they are called upon to give their opinion. The article concludes:
The genesis of the trouble in the Conservative party goes back to the Winnipeg convention when the leadership of the party went to Mr. Bennett in preference to Mr. Cahan. Mr. Cahan no doubt believed he had a legitimate title to leadership and a change came over his attitude in the federal house which the French press or sections of it were not slow to note. From the "Mail and Empire", Toronto. came the news that the member for St. Lawrence was in actual revolt against his party. If his activity in fighting the federal Liberal party was unabated, it was felt that it was out of no love for his chief Mr. R. B. Bennett.
I think I like his chief more than he does.
It is no secret that the Conservatives of the province have for some time been dissatisfied with the treatment the party headquarters meted out to them and the stage seemed all set for a split.
A curious procedure then followed. Reorganization of the party in the province has long been necessary. But the means adopted are, to say the least of it, distinctly odd.
It is understood that Mr. J. L. Gauthier, an ex-candidate for Dorchester, has been busying himself in the matter. It is known that he has gone through the province arranging meetings of Conservatives and Quebec was one of the places visited. His business, it is understood, was to have delegates appointed from the various constituencies in the province who would attend a convention in Montreal in the near future, and the question is being asked what the business of this gathering will be.
To Create Schisms
At any rate other leaders of the party are apparently convinced that he has no good intention in the matter and have circularized the delegates thus appointed with various pointed questions. "Did Mr. Gauthrier say who gave him the mandate for acting so and what is the aim of this convention?" they are asked.
Continuing the circular letter points out that its writers are convinced that Mr. Gauthier had no mandate from Mr. Bennett nor from General McRae-
In a local theatre there is a play called Mother Machree where Belle Bennett plays a leading role. Mother Machree is a hen which has been breeding ducks.

chief organizer for the Dominion, and that this so-called convention has in reality a hostile object to Mr. Bennett. They believe the aim is to appoint a Conservative chief in the province who will be in a position to dictate to the leader or create a schism in the Conservative ranks which would do irreparable damage to the party.
The damage is already done.
The pro-Bennett Conservatives apparently believe that the provincial leader is to play something of the role of a king-maker-
We have our own King and we made him what he is. We are proud of his accomplishments.
-or at least dictate to the legitimate chief just how he must act.
In view of the existing situation it is believed that General McRae will shortly visit Quebec to conduct an elaborate investigation of the whole matter

Hear, hear.
-ascertain just how far the movement has gone and naturally attempt at all cost to preserve the integrity of his party and prevent the formation of anything in the nature of an independent provincial Nationalist-Conservative party.
Cryptic Editorials
Cryptic editorials have recently appeared in the local press which readers have been at some difficulty to understand. For example a recent editorial-
It must be an editorial in L'Evenement, a Tory French paper published in Quebec.
14S4
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

-points out that while the Conservatives in this province do not disown Mr. Meighen's successor (Mr. Bennett) they have a tendency to follow the leadership of the member for St. Lawrence who is characterized as the possessor of a legitimate ambition with important financial backing.
Important financial backing.
The editorial continues that to assure the success of this manifestation a provincial convention will be held in Montreal in April.
It will be called the Montreal convention.
The convention is to be a replica of the Winnipeg convention, only on a provincial scale and Mr. Cahan is to be rewarded for the goodwill he showed in vindicating the rights of the French minority.
The hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George, is to be rewarded, like old man Simeon, before his death.
Continuing, it is pointed out that the aim of the convention is to invest Mr. Cahan with the high command of the Conservative forces in the province of Quebec so that Mr. Cahan can in future speak to Mr. Bennett-
Apparently he does not speak to him now.
*-and dictate to him the conditions of a Tory alliance. Mr. Cahan has given no indication of his position in the matter but these chiefs of the Conservative party are apparently apprehensive of a schism in the party

What is the matter with these chiefs of the the Conservative party?
-and wish to nip the project in the bud.
I am proud to be on friendly terms with the leader of the opposition; I respect him very much as an individual; I think he is well fitted for the position, and I believe he will be leader of the opposition in this house as long as he wishes to be here, provided that he is elected in his constituencj'.
May I recall to you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that for four generations members of my family have been in this house. My great granfather stood for responsible government and against the family compact. My grandfather supported Blake, Mackenzie, Dorion; my father recommended you, sir, to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as member for Gaspe, and it was a very happy selection. They have all done their duty. I consider that I am the servant of the people; I do not care for the wealthy; I am the representative of the people who are the majority; they are the people who suffer and who struggle when the Tories are in power. When this party is in power it is a government of the people, for the people and by the people, and they are glad to support it.
There is another difference between the Liberal party and the Conservative party. The Conservative party is the party of the

few, where everyone expects to be a chieftain; but in the Liberal party we do not try to favour this one or that one; we try to do justice to all, and this is what has been done by the government since it has come into power. We are very proud of our Prime Minister and of his distinguished colleagues in the cabinet.
My hon. friend's speech will not help the Conservative party in any way; the Conservative party does not know how mucn damage it will suffer from such a speech, because the people outside of this house are not fools. They grasp the arguments and if they will read the resume of a speech like that of my hon. friend, they will find only words and not a single argument except two ridiculous quotations from Senator Borah of Idaho and a Mr. Fi^ke, of New York City.
Mr. Speaker, my last word is this: the Liberal party is strong in the province of Quebec to-day and it will come out stronger and stronger after the general election takes place-I do not know when. I shall not be sorry for them then, but those on the other side of the house who scream to-day will no longer retain their seats. There will be fewer Conservatives returned. The people of this country do not appreciate those appeals to prejudice. They do not appreciate the. appeals of the hon. gentleman from Fort William who goes to New York and dares to complain because other hon. gentlemen go there. This is a very trifling matter, and I never thought that a man of high culture like my hon. friend would use such matter in his speech. It is the Conservatives that will be the losers on account of such appeals. The people in the country will realize as we realize in this house that there is nothing in their speeches but gross insult.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I would ask the
hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will say then, Mr. Speaker, that they will lose their deposits.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
gentleman to withdraw the expression "gross insult."


Jean-François Pouliot: I withdraw it with pleasure, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of hurting the feelings of hon. gentlemen opposite at all.
I like them enough to tell them the truth, and that is why I am speaking in this way.
I can tell them that the people of Quebec remember the past, and they know that their real friends, the friends of the people in this country, are the Liberal party, and the Liberal party is sure of even greater attainments in the future than in the past.

The Budget-Division
Tha house divided on the main motion (Mr. Robb), which was agreed to on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:
Adshead,	Langlois,
Allan,	Lang,
Bancroft,	Lapierre,
Beaubien,	Lapointe,
Benoit,	Lavigueur,
Bettez,	Letellier de St. Just,
Blanchard,	Lovie,
Blatchford,	Macdonald
Bock,	(Glengarry),
Bothwell,	MacLean (Prince),
Bouchard,	McLean (Melfort),
Boucher,	McDiarmid,
Boulanger,	McIntosh,
Bourassa,	McKenzie,
Bourgeois,	McMillan,
Bradette,	McPhee,
Brown,	McPherson,
Cahill,	Malcolm,
Cannon,	Marcil,
Casgrain,	Mercier (Laurier-
Cayley,	Outremont),
Delisle,	Millar,
Denis,	Morin (Bagot),
Desaulniers,	Morrissy,
Descoteaux,	Motherwell,
Deslauriers,	Neill,
Dionne,	Parent,
Donnelly,	Perras,
Duff,	Pouliot,
Dunning,	Power,
Dussault,	Prevost,
Elliott,	Ralston,
Euler,	Rheaume,
Fafard,	Rinfret,
Ferland,	Robb,
Fiset (Sir Eugene),	Roberge,
Forke,	Robitaille,
Foster,	St-Pere,
Gershaw,	Sanderson,
Gervais,	Seguin,
Girouard,	Sinclair (Queens),
Gray,	Smith (Stormont),
Hall,	Steedsman,
Hay,	Stewart (Edmonton
Hepburn,	West),
Howden,	Sylvestre,
Jacobs,	Telford,
Jelliff,	Thorson,
Jenkins,	Tobin,
Johnston (Long Lake),	Totzke,
King (Kootenay East),	Vallance,
King, Mackenzie	Verville,
(Prince Albert),	Ward,
Lacombe,	Young (Saskatoon),
Lacroix,	Young
Laflamme,	(Weyburn).-107.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Arthurs,	Campbell,
Bell (St. John-Albert), Carmichael, Bennett,	Chaplin,
Bird,	Charters,
Black (Halifax),	Church,
Bowen,	Clark,
Boys,	Coote,
Brady,	Cotnam,
Cahan,	Cowan,
Dickie,
Edwards (Frontenac-Addington),
Edwards (Waterloo South),
Embury,
Ernst,
Esling,
Evans,
Fansher (Last Mountain),
Fansher (Lambton East),
Fraser,
Gardiner,
Garland (BowRiver), Geary,
Grimmer,
Guthrie,
Harris,
Hubbs,
Irvine,
Jones,
Kaiser,
Kennedy,
Ladner,
Lawson,
Lennox,
Lucas,
Luchkovich,
Macdonald (Kings), Macdonald (Richmond-West Cape Breton), Maedougall,
MacLaren,
Macphail (Miss),
McGibbon,
McGregor,
McQuarrie,
McRae,
Manion,
Matthews,
Maybee,
Peck,
Perley (Sir George), Pettit,
Price,
Quinn,
Rennie,
Ross (Kingston City),. Rowe,
Senn,
Short,
Simpson,
Sinclair (Wellington North),
Smith (Cumberland),. Smoke,
Speakman,
Spence,
Spencer,
Spotton,
Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds), Stinson,
Stirling,
Thompson,
Tummon,
White (London), Woodsworth,
Young (Toronto Northeast).-83.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)
Messrs:
Glen,	Kellner,
Lanctot,	White (Mount Royal),
Morin (St. Hyacinthe), Ryckman,
Rutherford,	..
Edwards (Ottawa),
Fontaine,
Kay,
Boivin,
Odette,
Bissett,
Guerin,
Ilsley,
Cardin,
Veniot,
Heenan,	,
Mercier (St. Henri),
Raymond,
Howard,
Chevrier,
Milne,
Bowman,
Baldwin,
Taylor,
Ross (Moose Jaw),


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ODETTE:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Garland (Carleton), Anderson (Halton),. Wilson,
Hocken,
Robinson,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Maloney,
MacNutt,
Cantley,
Hanson,
Black (Yukon),
Bell (Hamilton),
Bell (St. Antoine), Casselman,
Anderson (High Park), Barber,
Hodgins,
Johnstone,
Ryerson,
Piunkett.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: The first resolution
is:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend schedule A to the customs tariff, being chapter 44 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by chapter 17 of the Acts of 1928, by striking thereout tariff items 113, 215, 363, 369, 437, 438b, 442, 448, 453c, 453e, 453g, 460, 460e, 478a, 696, 777, the several enumerations of goods respectively and the several rates of duties of customs, if any, set opposite each of said items, and by inserting the following items, enumerations, and rates of duty in schedule A:-
Shall the resolution carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the Minister of Finance would have the resolutions printed in the votes and proceedings for use by the members. At present they have no knowledge of each particular item.


James Alexander Robb: May I direct my hon. friend's attention to the votes and proceedings of March 1, where he will find all these items set out? Before proceeding further with these resolutions to-night, as there are some matters which we desire to advance with the Speaker in the chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.


ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
A message from the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1930, was presented by Hon. J. A. Robb
(Minister of Finance), and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in measures to provide:-
1.	That the time for completion of the Canadian National railway line between Grand Mere and East Burrills, in the province of Quebec (1927, c. 13), be extended from 31st 
August, 1930, to 31st August, 1931, with the same location and mileage, an increased estimate of average expenditure per mile from $213,038 to $294,430, and an increase in the estimated cost of from $1,683,000 to $2,326,000.
2.	That the time for the construction or completion of the Canadian National railway line between Pilkington and Niagara Junction, in the province of Ontario (1927, c. 14), be extended from the 31st August, 1930, to the 31st August, 1932. with a change of location to a point near Montrose Junction, at a decreased mileage of from 16.7 to 7.0, an increased average expenditure per mile of from $69,700 to $107,143, and at a decreased estimated exist of from $1,164,000 to $750,000.
3.	That the estimated mileage for the construction of a Canadian National railway line, being a joint section from Rosedale southeasterly m the province of Alberta (1924, c 30), be decreased from 39 to 26.19; the average expenditure per mile (one-half) be increased from $23,642 to $34,936; the estimated cost (one-half of total by company) to remain at $915,000, and the location changed to run from Rosedale to a point in section 4, township 26, range 16.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may purchase the undertakings and railways of the Quebec Oriental Railway and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway, at a price of approximately $3,500,000; and that the governor in council may guarantee the principal and interest of securities to be issued for this purpose by the Canadian National Railway Company, not exceeding in aggregate face value such amount as the governor in council may consider sufficient to raise the said sum.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may purchase the undertakings and railways of the Saint

Western Postal Employees
John and Quebec Railway Company, and the interest of His Majesty in the right of the province of New Brunswick in such undertakings and railways, for a total price of $6,000,000, inclusive of certain outstanding debenture stock secured by mortgage, and the payment at maturity of certain debentures issued by the province; and that the governor in council may guarantee the principal and interest of securities to be issued for this purpose by the Canadian National Railway Company.
He said; His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, since
you took the chair we have been unable to hear a single word.
Mr. DUNNING; I stated that the Governor General had given his approval.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may purchase the undertakings and railways of the Kent Northern Railway Company, in the province of New Brunswick, at a price of $60,000; and that the governor in council may guarantee the principal and interest of securities to be issued for this purpose by the Canadian National Railway Company, not exceeding in aggregate face value such amount as the governor in council may consider sufficient to raise the said sum.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may purchase the undertakings and railways of the Inverness railway in the province of Nova Scotia, at a price of $375,000; and that the governor in council may guarantee the principal and interest of securities to be issued for this purpose by the Canadian National Railway Company, not exceeding in aggregate face value such amount as the governor in council may consider sufficient to raise the said sum.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before this motion is
carried I desire to point out that there are some documents that should be forthcoming w'ith respect to the recommendations and reports of the engineers made at various times upon the value of these different undertakings. When they are before us in committee 1 shall expect that these reports will be available for the benefit of the house; indeed, they should be produced before we are in committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite prepared to
produce documentary evidence of value of any kind which exists; but the procedure I was proposing to adopt, subject of course to the approval of the house, was to have the bills introduced so that the whole matter might be before the house, and the bills could then be referred to the committee on railways and canals in order that the officers of the railway-the railway having conducted negotiations-might produce all documents. However, if it is desired, every document can be produced before the whole house. I have no objection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The resolutions must go
to the committee of the whole, and when in committee of the whole we desire to discuss them in the light of the reports. There are, for instance, two separate reports I know of with respect to one of these matters-reports made some years ago fixing a value wholly at variance with the value now fixed. We desire to have these reports so that we may discuss the resolutions intelligently in committee of the whole.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will undertake to see
that everything is here, if it does not require a truck to bring it in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just the reports.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
READJUSTMENT OF SALARIES OF THOSE DISMISSED AND REEMrLOYEI)
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General) moved that the house go into committee tomorrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide for the readjustment of the salaries of certain postal employees in western Canada who were dismissed in 1919 and subsequently re-employed, to give them the benefit of salary they would have
1488	^	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
received had they re-entered the service in the class equivalent to the one they were in when dismissed, and of subsequent salary revisions, and to make provision whereby certain former employees not now in the said service shall be eligible for reappointment as vacancies occur.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this a notice, or is it a motion to go into committee?


Peter John Veniot: It is a notice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not put as a notice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He notifies
the house that to-morrow, and so on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. I did not hear any motion made, and I assumed that His Excellency had approved of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say
that I have the approval of His Excellency for these several motions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Customs tariff-112. Coeoanut, desiccated, n.o.p., per pound: British preferential tariff, 5 cents; intermediate tariff, 6 cents; general tariff, 6 cents.
Hugh Guthrie: What is the present rate?


James Alexander Robb: It is the same rate. It is
proposed to classify sweetened desiccated coeoanut and unsweetened desiccated co-coanut into separate items. It is estimated that one-half the product will be affected by the change in the rates.


Hugh Guthrie: Are you changing the
rate on the sweetened or the unsweetened?


James Alexander Robb: 
Hugh Guthrie: The matter has been
under discussion before the board?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: And they made a report?


James Alexander Robb: Yes; this is their memorandum.


Edward Joseph Garland: The amazing thing about this item would appear to be that, in accordance with some extraordinary fiscal sleight of hand on the part of the minister, he is able to undertake that the consumer of sweetened coeoanut-and after all it is in the sweetened state that it is consumed-is going to have to pay the sweeteners of it a duty over the unsweetened amounting to just about twice as much. It is an amazing form of fiscal policy for a low tariff government to persist in. The consumer is the only one who suffers under it. The manufacturer of desiccated sweetened co-coanut introduces his raw product, sweetens it, and sells it at a high rate. It is ridiculous.


James Alexander Robb: There is no change in the rate on the sweetened coeoanut, and it may interest my hon. friend to know that the application for this change was made by Dodwell and Company of Vancouver and was supported by the consumers' league. There was no opposition before the tariff board.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: According to my information the agent of the league was very much opposed to this change on the ground that it was a straight present to the manufacturers.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid the minister's information is inaccurate.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I do not know
whether or not the minister is aware that tins change probably will close up a little industry in Montreal which brings in coeoanut in this form. They have written me that they are afraid they will have to close up their industry in Montreal.


James Alexander Robb: I know of an industry in
Montreal which has represented to me for three years that they were going to close up unless this particular tariff was increased.


Hugh Guthrie: Are these decreases?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: There is no change in the
rates on sweetened cocoanut; it is a reclassification. The present specific duty on unsweetened cocoanut was stated in evidence to Rave an ad valorem effect of 60 per cent.


Mr. SHORT:: What is this consumers'
league, about which we have heard a great deal and which was referred to by the minister? Of whom do they consist?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend knows as
much about the consumers' league as I know.
I have noticed in the press and in the minutes of the tariff board that there is a consumers' league which from time to time appears before that board. The statement just made by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) is rather interesting, and in view of that statement I would like this item to stand, because I have a memorandum from the department saying that the consumers' league consented to this change.


Harry Bernard Short: Does the tariff board take
advice from an unknown association? The minister says he does not know these people but that they recommended this change. I would like to know who compose the consumers' league; I notice from the reports in the press that they have a man appearing before the tariff board all the time, and I think the minister knows who they are. Who is this man Deachman who appears before that board and makes all these recommendations? I think the house is entitled to know who he is, where he comes from, what is his business and who pays him.


James Alexander Robb: I said that this was a recommendation coming to me from the tariff board. The board sends me a memorandum that the application for this change was made by Dod-well and Company of Vancouver and that it was supported by the consumers' league. I do not know who are the consumers' league any more than I know who are Dodwell and Company.
M. GUTHRIE:	Did the tariff board recommend the change in the rate of duty on unsweetened cocoanut?


James Alexander Robb: The tariff board recommended all the changes I am submitting to the house.


Hugh Guthrie: Then they are more than a fact-finding board?


James Alexander Robb: They are a consulting board,
and are consulted by the minister just as I consuls the officers of the department.


Hugh Guthrie: I am asking for information, because from statements made by the -minister previously I understood that they were a fact-finding board. Now I understand that they have recommended these changes in the tariff


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has been a
minister and he knows the minister does not read all the evidence which comes before his department. When we proceed to make changes in the tariff schedules the members of the tariff board are called into consultation together with the officers of the department. When they are called into consultation after having heard the evidence on both sides, they suggest so and so and the minister may accept that recommendation and pass it on to his colleagues, or he may reject it. As I said before, they are a fact-finding board, and at the request of hon. members last year we ordered that the evidence be printed, so that now it is available to any person who wishes to read it.


Mr. CLARK:: Does the minister accept the recommendations without investigation and without checking the conclusions?


James Alexander Robb: I may or I may not do so.


John Arthur Clark: It would appear in this case
that the minister had not done so; he has simply accepted the recommendation without investigation.


James Alexander Robb: I did not say so.


John Arthur Clark: The minister gives the house two reasons why this recommendation should be accepted, one being that it was made by a certain firm and the other that it was approved by a certain league, and he does not know who constitutes either the firm or the league. Those are pretty poor reasons to give the house.


Martin James Maloney: Is the consumers'
league represented before the tariff board by any individual and if so, who is that individual?


James Alexander Robb: From my reading of the
press and of the evidence taken by the board, occasionally the consumers' league appear before the board, and sometimes other organizations appear.


Martin James Maloney: There is an impression
abroad in this country that a certain gentleman by the name of Deachman is the representative of this so-called, ephemeral consumers' league, but the main purpose of Mr
1490	COMMONS
Ways avd Means-Customs Tariff
Deachman's existence seems to be to spread propaganda throughout the country, in every weekly newspaper, in favour of this government.


James Alexander Robb: That is very laudable.


Thomas Langton Church: I would like the minister to explain who compose this league. It seems to be a one-man league, like the League of Nations, and apparently this man has been appointed by some outside agency to act as its paid representative before the minstrel show known as the tariff board. His purpose seems to be to bring out facts which will sound the death knell of protection. We have all heard of the consumers' league; what do they consume? Apparently they only consume tens of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money. It seems that this person who appears before the board on behalf of the consumers' league is connected with a number of Liberal newspapers for which he writes many articles, many of them scurrilous, having to do with the business of this house, and the chairman of the tariff board seems to be in league with this gentleman. Apparently the head of that league and the chief consumer are the same person, who appears before the board, takes up the time of the lawyers and causes a great deal of expense. The tariff board seems to be a sort of Alphonse and Gaston affair, with Mr. Moore at one end of the table and Mr. Deachman at the other. The quicker the tariff board is abolished altogether and the consumers' league disbanded and put out of business the better for everyone. I protest against this league, which is just wasting the time of the country when we should be looking after more important things; I think the time has come when we should instruct the chairman of the tariff board that it is not necessary to listen to the league any more. We should find out all about the league and all about Mr. Deachman, whom he represents, his superior officers and so on.


Harry Bernard Short: Can the minister tell us just who Mr. Deachman represents?


An hon. MEMBER:: Wait a minute, we will tell you.


Harry Bernard Short: You sit right down, and I will stand up just as long as I please. I do not take my orders from the members on the other side of the house. Do not give me any orders as to what I have to do, whoever you are.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Now you have been told.


John Frederick Johnston: Order, please; the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bothwell) has the floor.


Harry Bernard Short: You are not going to put one over on me, because he did not get up until after I had risen. I am going to appeal to the house to say whether I did not have the floor before the hon. gentleman got up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course he had the
floor.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I rose immediately the hon. member for Toronto Northwest sat down.


Harry Bernard Short: You rose after I did.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I did not.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman on this side had the floor; he rose immediately after the previous speaker took his seat, and I pointed to him. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) rightly and properly has the floor, even though the other hon. member spoke first.


Harry Bernard Short: I beg to take issue with you, Mr. Chairman; he rose after I did. However, I am gentleman enough to sit down and give him an opportunity to speak.


John Frederick Johnston: I hope the hon. member will not think there is any injustice being done.


Harry Bernard Short: You are showing partiality.


John Frederick Johnston: Order, please. When
the hon. member saw the hon. member for Swift Current rise, it was the second time he had risen.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps we could obtain a
compromise between the two hon. members by giving certain information which they seem to be seeking.


Harry Bernard Short: I have not finished my question.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps I can anticipate the question.


Harry Bernard Short: I do not want you to anticipate anything.


James Alexander Robb: I heard the hon. member asking who the Consumers' League of Canada is.


Harry Bernard Short: I rise to a point of order; the minister is going to answer a question before I have asked it. The Chairman has ruled that the hon. member for Swift Current has the floor and I am submitting to that ruling. The minister cannot answer my question until I ask it.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Some of the hon. members opposite seem to be very much concerned

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
about the Consumers' League of Canada. This league is an incorporated body made up of people from all parts of Canada, and Mr. Deachman appeared before the tariff board in the same capacity as Mr. Darby did for the Canadian Council of Agriculture. Mr. Deachman appears before that board to meet some of the foolish applications which, in our opinion, are being made.


Harry Bernard Short: I have seen a great deal in the papers about this man appearing before the tariff board, and I ask the minister if he is in the pay of the government.


Mr. THORSON:: You have had your answer already.


Harry Bernard Short: I did not ask you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member (Mr. Thorson) need not be so smart; the minister is here for that purpose.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The minister is not running the consumers' league.


James Alexander Robb: As to whether or not the government is paying Mr. Deachman, the answer is no. If the league is looking after the interests of the- consumer, I am rather surprised at the statement made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that Mr. Deachman has said that he is opposed to this change, because the change involves a reduction in the duty.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. minister will probably give the credit to the person to whom it is due; I think it was the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Ads-head) who made that statement. However, that is also my opinion.


James Alexander Robb: Both items were previously classified at 5 cents, 6 cents and 6 cents, and under the new classification, cocoanut, desiccated, unsweetened, will be reduced to 2 cents, 3 cents and 3 cents.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I would ask the hon. minister if he is not departing from the recognized principles of responsible government. He has introduced a resolution and he admits that he has no reason to offer why this change should be made, except that it was asked for and recommended by the tariff board. Surely a responsible minister, sitting in his place in the house, should be able to give some reason for the action which he asks this house to take. Surely we are not delegating the duty of the Finance minister to the consumers' league or to the tariff board or to anyone else. They may be an investigating body, but I think their duty should be to place the facts before the minister and
let him deduce his conclusions and give those conclusions to the house with his reasons therefor.


James Alexander Robb: After consultation with the officers of the department, I reached the conclusion that there should be this reduction from 5 cents, 6 cents and 6 cents to 2 cents,
3	cents and 3 cents. This will involve an estimated reduction in revenue of some $39,657.


Peter McGibbon: The minister does not see the crux of my question. What were the reasons upon which he based his decision to reduce the tariff?


James Alexander Robb: There will be a reduction in price to the consumer.


Peter McGibbon: I am afraid I am not making myself clear. The minister has surely some reason for the change outside of the reduction in revenue. What were the principles involved which led the minister to recommend the change?


James Alexander Robb: To give the consumer a reduction in price.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the consumer use this article sweetened or unsweetened?


James Alexander Robb: Both.


James Dew Chaplin: Is the minister speaking from experience? Is not the object of this reduction to allow people to bring the unsweetened article into the country and then sweeten it and sell it?


James Alexander Robb: I think that is a fair statement, but we are only proceeding along the lines which have been advocated by our hon. friends during the course of this debate; that this work should be done in Canada instead of being done outside of the country.


James Dew Chaplin: I am not finding fault with the item at alll, I am only asking for information. I was told at first that the article was used unsweetened, but it is now admitted that it comes in unsweetened, is sweetened and then sold. This extra protection must be given for the purpose of protecting an industry, and I think the minister should give us all the circumstances of the case.


John Anderson Fraser: Is not the effect of this amendment to give protection to the sweeteners of desiccated cocoanut?


James Alexander Robb: It is to take protection away from some who already have it.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Answer the question.


James Alexander Robb: Does the hon. member argue that it is an increase?
1492	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


John Anderson Fraser: It is a decrease upon the raw article, but you put it on the manufactured article.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Anderson Fraser: There is no question about that.


James Alexander Robb: There is no change in that at all.


John Anderson Fraser: It is a straight raise in protection from a low tariff government.


James Alexander Robb: It is a reduction.


Mr. GEARY:: The Minister of Finance
said that the basis for these changes is the finding made by a fact-finding body. We are told that there are not many results of investigations before the minister. I think he said in his budget speech that important investigations were still proceeding and the information from the tariff board, that is the finding of fact in regard thereto, is not yet before him. There is apparently a finding of fact in regard to this tariff item. Does the tariff board submit its findings of fact in writing? Does it follow up its findings of fact with recommendations, and if so, are the recommendations and the reasons for them also in writing? It would be very convenient for the house, which is called upon to discuss each and every one of these items, if it had before it the findings of fact of the tariff board and the reasons for its recommendation. That would be only fair to enable us to discuss these matters intelligently. On the *other hand, am I to understand from the minister that, after going to all the trouble of printing the record of evidence, these gentlemen come in a most informal manner to sit about the minister's office and have a general discussion from which the minister ultimately takes something which he [DOT]can recommend to his colleagues? If so, I submit that the tariff board is working on no principle. There is no way in which the house can check up its work or findings. If we are not to be made aware of the recommendations or findings of the board, what is the use of it? It is simply a sort of confidential ally of the minister.


Mr. STEVENS:: Buffer.


George Reginald Geary: It has been described as a
buffer; but there is nothing by which this house can check up the reliability of the findings of the board or the recommendation which, the minister says, is the basis for his changes. The tariff board is stopping short in its duty and it can be of no use at all to us, because what the house is asked to do is to take the transcript of evidence, draw
CMr. Robb.]
its own conclusions and then discuss what facts the house would have found and what recommendations the house would have made from the facts so found. It would be better if the minister and the cabinet, in making a change on the findings of the tariff board, were to have those findings in writing, together with the reasons for the recommendations which the tariff board makes to the minister. In that way we would have something to go on, and there would be none of this cross-firing as to whether or not the change was justified.


James Alexander Robb: I think it was made abundantly clear last session that the tariff board is in the same position as the officers of the department were before the board was created. There is this difference now that the tariff board has been created: before we had a tariff board, those seeking increases in tariff-and from my experience in the department people of that type are rather persistent; I am not saying whether they are right or wrong-would come into the office of the Minister of Finance and present their own side of the story without the other fellow being there to check them up. The minister had then to use his own judgment as to what was in the general interest of the country.


George Reginald Geary: The minister would find the fact.


James Alexander Robb: The tariff board is an open
forum, a court, if you will, because the hearings are conducted along that line. Each hearing is advertised and all parties, those who are in favour and those who are opposed, may go before the tariff board and present their case in the open, with the newspapers representing all sides of public opinion present to advise their readers in regard to the evidence brought out before the board. In order to meet the wishes of hon. members we decided last session to print the evidence of the tariff board and that evidence is available for every hon. member who desires to study it. Hon. members must assume the responsibility in reaching their own conclusions just as they do in reaching their own conclusions as to whether the public debt has been reduced or increased, or whether we have a surplus or not. I think that is a fair answer to the question of my hon. friend.


George Reginald Geary: Why in the world does the
minister call it a fact-finding board if the facts are not submitted formally to somebody? It is not a fact-finding body at all;
it is simply, as the minister said, another officer of the department and a tremendously expensive one at that.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Dew Chaplin: To come back to the item of the tariff under discussion, I find that item 113 in the tariff reads:
Cocoa-nut, desiccated, sweetened or not: British preference, 5 cents; intermediate, 6 cents; general, 6 cents.


James Alexander Robb: That is right.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister has split
the item into sweetened and unsweetened. I assume that the article will come in now ''unsweetened" at the lower rate of duty and "sweetened" at still the higher rate of duty.


James Alexander Robb: It remains where it is.


James Dew Chaplin: Where is there any reduction in the tariff in this case?


James Alexander Robb: When we made a similar
change in regard to automobiles in 1926, my hon. friend argued there was a reduction.


James Dew Chaplin: No; I argued that my
hon. friend fooled the people. There was not any reduction at all, and I contend that is true. It never reduced the price of automobiles in Canada one cent except in the matter of the excise taxes that my hon. friend had on them. My hon. friend fooled nobody except a few voters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to ask the minister a question with respect to this matter. On page 5 of the report dated January 5, 1928, of Mr. Moore, Chairman of the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, I find these words:
As was perhaps to be expected from a comparatively new departure in government, some question has been raised as to the boards' functions. As set forth by order in council, April 7, 1926, (P.C. 530).
"The duties of the board are to inquire into and hear representations on all matters pertaining to the tariff and other forms of taxation, as may be directed by the Minister of Finance, and to advise the minister in regard thereto."
Little difficulty has been experienced as to the duty of inquiry. Possibly we might have succeeded better proceeding under a set of questions stated by you, outlining the scope of the investigation, but we believe that on the whole our duty of inquiry has been discharged with reasonable satisfaction. Difficulty, however, exists as to determining the nature of the advice we are presumed by order in council to tender to the minister.
Applications in regard to customs invariably contain submission of evidence with the object of obtaining relief, whether by upward or downward revision of the tariff.
Parliament alone can grant that relief.
What then becomes the nature of the advice expected from the board? Is it for the board to express an opinion that the relief in question should or should not be given? If this be not its function, then is it possible for the board 78594-95
to report its opinion as to the extent to which the reasons urged for relief have been established, without reference or inference bearing upon the justification for relief.
The board has no desire to avoid responsibility. The board has a sincere desire to make its work helpful through you to parliament.
How best, then, may the board convey to you the information which it has received as a result of its investigations? As has been stated, verbatim reports are taken of the proceedings at public hearings. The transcripts will generally be found to contain much evidence helpful in the construction of tariff items in respect to their subject-matter. Reports of the inquiry into the major references, and some of the minor as well, are lengthy, and at times somewhat involved, usually containing valuable statistical matter. To present the evidence in precise form, possesses the advantage of brevity-and the disadvantage of incompleteness.
Then he proceeds about the arguments. The relevancy of the question put to the minister by the hon. member for Muskoka must be apparent in view of the observations of the chairman of the board, which observations I have just read to the house from his report. I ask the minister whether or not the report, upon which he arrived, with the aid of his officials, at the conclusions now embodied in this tariff item, is available? Was the advice tendered in writing?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If not, there has been a disregard of the duty which I conceive to be that of the board, because we should have before us in writing the advice tendered to the minister in order that we may study not only the evidence given but the advice tendered. I do submit that the purpose of the tariff board as indicated was to enable that to be done, and unless the minister provides us with something on which he grounds his recommendation with respect to this item, the tariff board is a perfect farce. All that the tariff board did was to hear people make statements which the minister was capable of receiving himself in written form from the gentlemen who made the application. Somebody else appears, but in the end what is done is that two or three gentlemen are invited into the ministry and become part of the cabinet. They tender secret advice. They are officers of the department-employees, the minister says. I ask the minister if that is what is intended, that there should be secret advice tendered to the minister, without any written recommendation which the house may be able to consider or criticize, and upon which it may arrive at a conclusion. Certain action is to be taken with respect to every item contained in these changes. Only this evening the minister stated that every change he proposed

1494	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
was based upon a recommendation made by the tariff board. That recommendation should be in writing. That recommendation should be before this parliament. That recommendation should be available to every member of this house. Otherwise, we have substituted for governmental responsibility two or three gentlemen-it was three at first; then one ran off to Manitoba to run an election for hon. gentlemen opposite and he has become a part of the administration in that province, leaving the chairman, who, with one other, considered some of the most important matters affecting western Canada without western Canada having any representative on the board. And now secret advice is to be tendered-nothing open-nothing written. All we have is the word of the minister, which is always beyond question, but his word is based solely on his memory as to the advice tendered him by this board. In the light of the statement made by the chairman of the board himself, that is not the function of the board.
Have we a report from the tariff board this year? I have not seen it yet. The last report I have seen was dated January, 1928. We have no report before the house for the calendar year 1928, and yet we are asked to proceed to a discussion of these tariff items and arrive at conclusions with respect to them, not having before us any report made by that body which cost this country so much money last year. I ask the minister if that is his idea. Does he want us to think that? I am sure he does not. I am sure that he intends that we should have before us the report of the tariff board in writing. I have seen no report brought down this year, and I do submit that it is time we had it. I would ask the minister when we may expect it. I had made a note to ask him that question on the orders of the day some days ago, but I failed to ask him. The report for 1928 has not been tabled, I think. The only one tabled, so far as I have been able to ascertain, is the one which I have in my hand, which is for a period of time ending January, 1928. Is it proposed that we shall have the report from the chairman of the tariff board, and that the report shall be printed and made available to the members of the house before we consider the tariff changes that the minister proposes? If that report is not available to us, I ask the minister why he talks about this board at all. It becomes then, I will not say a secret tribunal, but a public tribunal that is tendering secret advice. That is not what the Canadian people expect from a tariff board. This is not a hole-in-the-corner business of which

the minister used to talk. He used to complain of people affected coming to Ottawa and meeting the minister and making representations with regard to their particular industries, but is that any worse than the farce and hypocrisy of a tribunal that hears evidence publicly and tenders advice secretly?
The minister says that the members of the board are his servants. That is not the idea of the Canadian people. That was not in the mind of Sir Thomas White when he introduced his bill providing for the appointment of a tariff board, the bill that was killed in the senate. The purpose was to have a tribunal clothed with powerful functions, that the Canadian people should have a tribunal beyond suspicion, not men looking for office, looking to their own election in Manitoba or Ontario, not men who were concerned about their own political fortunes, but men who would sit in a judicial capacity and adjudicate and determine and make written recommendations in which the Canadian people would have some confidence and upon which the minister might act with confidence. The minister has before him nothing more than a limited knowledge of this whole transaction, and he hopes to get all his proposals through simply by saying: "All these changes are made on the recommendations of the tariff board. I do not know who Dodwell and Company are, or who Mr. Deaohman is, or the consumers' league, but I called them in, and they sat in my office. I heard their recommendations, and I ask you to accept these changes." That is not discharging the functions of the minister; that is not discharging the functions of the tariff board.


James Alexander Robb: I am sure that my hon.
friend did not mean to leave the impression that I bad called in the consumers' league and Dodwell and Company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the tariff board.


James Alexander Robb: I consulted with them along
with the permanent officers of the department, and the evidence taken by the board is printed and available to every member of the house. Perhaps I was remiss in not tabling and having printed the report of the board. I have the report here, and I shall be glad to send it over to nay hon. friend, and if the house desires, I shall be glad to have it printed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does it apply to all
these items?


James Alexander Robb: I do not think it does. It is a report generally. I can read part of it now.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want to tire the hon. gentleman by asking him to read it all, but perhaps he would read part of it.


James Alexander Robb: This is the annual report of
the advisory board on tariff and taxation, for 1928-29:
Since the date of its last annual report, the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation has received for investigation twenty-seven references, being numbers ninety-eight to one hundred and twenty-four inclusive. This brings the total number of references to this board to date, to one hundred and twenty-four, as listed in detail in the accompanying memorandum.
During the fiscal year now ending, the board has spent thirty days in public sittings, devoted to the initiation or furtherance of inquiry in forty-one references. In the period under report, hearings of references were as follows:
First hearings	 26
Second hearings	 17
Third, or further	hearings..	..	4
Total	 47
Major subjects of	investigation	during the
past year were: Cement, paints and varnishes, aluminum and aluminum products, copper rods, sewing machines, coal and coke, printed matter and iron and steel.
Inspections
The board has continued during the past twelve months, its policy of visiting plants, and meeting at the scene of their labours many of those whose problems have been brought, directly or indirectly, to its notice. These visits have been of the greatest value, not alone in adding to the store of information available to the board and its investigators, but in establishing between the board and scores of industries an intimate understanding that has been mutually beneficial. Farming areas also were visited in connection with references arising from or bearing specifically upon the industry of agriculture, notably in western Canada.
Printing
A new departure since last March is that of printing the records of public sittings. Printing of the verbatim records was begun in June, and to date complete records have been issued, or are now on the press, for the following:
Paints and varnishes Cement
Coal and Coke Iron and steel Stoves and parts Sewing machines Celotex
Sardines and herring Copper rods
Aluminum and its products
Enamel ware
Ethylene glycol
Thin plate glass
Cigars
Personnel
Changes in the personnel of the board were necessitated during the year by the resignation in June of Mr. Alfred Lambert, Montreal, and, in October, of Mr. D. G. McKenzie of Brandon.
78594-95J	*
Mr. Lambert's place was taken by Mr. Hector H. Racine, wholesale dry goods merchant, of Montreal, while the appointment of Mr. McKenzie's successor is still pending.
(Signed) W. H. Moore,
Chairman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the whole report? What is the date of it?


James Alexander Robb: February 22, 1929.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister will agree that he should have laid that on the table.


James Alexander Robb: I do. I will table it now.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: In view of the fact that the splitting of this tariff item-it was one item before-means a gift to the manufacturers of sweetened cocoanut of 866,000, I would ask that this item stand in order that I may be able to produce certain information.


Mr. SPOTTON:: I also was going to suggest that the item should stand. As the chairman of the tariff board is campaigning in his own constituency to-night, giving table talks on tariff, and the minister is confused, it might be well if the item were left over until the chairman is baok from his constituency and is able to tender the minister a little advice in the matter.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-172a. Directories for free reference directory libraries when imported by publishers of directories for use only in such free reference directory libraries: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the old rate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is this?


James Alexander Robb: Directories for free reference
directory libraries when imported by publishers of directories for use only in such free reference directory libraries enter under the present tariff at rates of five, ten and ten per cent. It is proposed to allow them to enter duty free. This request was made by Might Directories Limited, Toronto. The imports are not traceable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208f. Fused borax, commercially or generally known as borax glass: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Henry Herbert Stevens: On reference to the tariff
schedule I find that borax comes in free under item 208. Now we have this particular class of borax, known as fused borax, put on the free list. What is the object of segregating it in this way?
1496	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: The present rates on fused
'borax are 15, 17! and 17! per cent under item 711.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the reason for
the change?


James Alexander Robb: At present borax comes in free of duty under tariff item 208. The proposed new item will permit the free entry of fused borax. It is not made in Canada. It is merely borax with the water element driven off. The imports are not ascertainable.


Hugh Guthrie: What is it used for?


James Alexander Robb: In enamelling iron ware, forming glazes on earthenware, and in medicine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this the item wanted by William J. Michaud & Company, Montreal?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it borax glass dealt
with at the hearing on November 15, 1927?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: What is the significance of
the minister's statement that this is not made in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: I was giving that as information to the committee.


George Reginald Geary: What has it to do with the question, whether fused borax is made in Canada or not?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friends complain
when I give them information, and they also complain when they do not get any.


George Reginald Geary: I think the minister has
admitted that we should have information so that we may be able to consider the item and discuss it intelligently. Now the minister tells us that this commodity is not made in Canada. Apparently that is the fact-finding upon which is based the change in the tariff. I want to know from the minister of what significance is it to him that fused borax is not made in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: I have given the information
to the house that I think it is not made in Canada. My hon. friend can draw his own conclusions.


George Reginald Geary: Facts are nothing unless they lead somewhere. The minister is not finding facts in his tariff schedule; he is applying conclusions to the schedule drawn from facts. One of the facts, we are told, is that fused borax is not made in Canada. I desire to know how far that has influenced the minister in his action.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the question of the hon. gentleman is too difficult, because after all this government states at election times that it proposes to introduce a tariff for revenue, and then it takes the duty off those things not made in Canada in order to render it impossible to have a revenue tariff. You see the illogical character of the change makes it impossible for the minister to answer the question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask the minister
whether the tariff board find as a fact that fused borax is made from borax?


James Alexander Robb: I have given my hon. friend the information handed to me. The evidence is available to him; he might read it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think that is scarcely
fair. I am aware there is a great mass of evidence given before the board, but surely the minister will agree with me that members of the house cannot possibly read, and study, and weigh all that evidence, especially with Mr. Deachman in attendance, because from what I have seen there are reams, not of evidence, but of the most reckless form of propaganda. We have to wade through thousands of pages of that sort of stuff to pick out here and there a few facts. Here are the facts as I see them. At the present time borax, so described in the Customs Tariff, 1917, with amendments, is scheduled under item 208. Item 208 is free. Now, item 711, to which the minister refers, and under which he says fused borax has been coming in, provides a duty of 15, 17! and 17| per cent. I have no means of determining whether my reasoning is sound, but as near as I can see it the point at issue is this: Is fused borax made from borax, which is free of duty? Obviously it has been enjoying a protection of 17!. By the reduction from 17! to free, is the minister doing an injustice to any existing industry in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: I hope not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says he hopes not; but he is unable to give me the information I am asking for which will enable me to judge whether fused borax is made from borax, and if it is made in Canada.


James Alexander Robb: I have just told my hon.
friend that the proposed new item will permit the free entry of borax glass, which, according to the evidence at the public sitting of the tariff board, is not made in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is that the finding of Mr. Moore as chairman of the board?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: That is the statement that
comes over to me as a memorandum from the tariff board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it on the authority of Mr. Moore?


James Alexander Robb: I cannot tell my hon. friend. It is taken from the evidence.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the point I am
getting at,-is it simply an observation that has been made before the board, or a finding by Mr. Moore after hearing evidence? If Mr. Moore, on his responsibility as chairman of the board, says that this article is not produced in Canada, of course we will accept his findings; but if that is simply a part of the evidence given, we will say, by some person asking for the reduction or opposing it, then such a statement would not be of much value to the house.


James Alexander Robb: May I clear this up at once? A moment ago my hon. friend paid me a very great compliment. He says he has no time to read this evidence, but he thinks I have so little to do that I can read it.
Mr. STEVENS I did not make that statement.
Mr. ROBB That was the implication.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. I read a great deal of it. I receive it, as other members do, and spend hours reading it, but I do say that I find, looking through the evidence, that there are hundreds and, I venture to say, during the past year, thousands of pages containing merely prejudiced utterances and not evidence at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just yapping.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And I guarantee that the
minister does not read it. I will venture the statement that 90 per cent of the material in the evidence, under the name of Mr. Deach-man, is not read by the minister.


James Alexander Robb: Make it 95 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Ninety-five per cent, then. And the reason the minister will not read it is the reason I won't read it. I have known Mr. Deachman for twenty-five years and he is an estimable gentleman in many respects.


James Alexander Robb: Why pick him out?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because he takes up
most of the time of the board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, because he takes up the major portion of the board's time, not in presenting evidence but in making reckless statements.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Bringing out the evidence.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is one of the gentlemen who are supposed to pay for it.


George Spotton: Supposed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And they are now trying to induce an unsuspecting public to help to pay for the retention of Mr. Deachman before the board, giving him a cheap living, a good living. I have known him for probably twenty-five years, and in many respects he is an estimable gentleman. But he is an avowed free trader who positively will not allow to enter his mind any evidence that would go to interfere with his fixed ideas on free trade. He is an absolutely prejudiced witness of the most pronounced type.


Edward James Young: He is not a witness.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Exactly, that is the point. Material by thousands of pages is now published and presented on the public platform by the hon. member for Weyburn. as evidence given before a responsible tariff board, deluding the public. My hon. friend and others who sit near him go before audiences in this country, presenting to them printed statements under the aegis of this government, under orders in council of this government, and say, "This is evidence before the tariff commission of Canada." And it is nothing more or less than the vaporings of Mr. Deachman given forth as evidence. Then the minister comes in and says to me, with a smile on his face and a wink in his eye-


James Alexander Robb: Not the wink.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He says, "Surely hon.
gentlemen can read the evidence." And, as I say, about 60 per cent of it consists of the vaporings of Mr. Deachman. I refuse to waste my time reading it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the country's money.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the country's money as well.


James Alexander Robb: It is not fair to pick out only Mr. Deachman's and say that I did not read 95 per cent of it. I did not read 95 per cent of all the material.


James Dew Chaplin: That is what we thought.


James Alexander Robb: But this is the point before
the committee, namely, that the present rates on this product are 15 per cent, 17i per cent and 17i per cent. This borax is used in the enamelling of ironware, forming glaze on
1498	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
earthenware, and also in medicine; and after the hearing before the tariff board, where there was no opposition, and in consultation with the officers of the department and the members of the tariff board who had heard the evidence, we decided to put it on the free list. The question now is to decide whether or not the committee wants to put it on the free list or to leave it where it is with the rates of duty I have mentioned.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister told us that raw borax was used as flux. I would ask him this question: Is borax glass a waste product?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend probably knows more about it than I do.


James Dew Chaplin: It is information of this
kind that should come before the house. I did not hear what the minister said.


James Alexander Robb: I say I am not so well posted as my hon. friend.


James Dew Chaplin: Then we had better pass this item along because I shall have something further to say when I have the information.


James Alexander Robb: No; this is a fair item and we will test the committee on it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said that
this evidence had been printed, but the hearing took place six months before any evidence was printed, and there is no record of it for members of this house. The hearing took place in November, 1927, and Mr. Moore in his report says that he began to print the evidence in June. But, as I say, there is no record before the members of this committee. Is that fair? Is it fair to say now that the members of this committee had as good an opportunity to read, the evidence as had the minister, who asks us to come to a conclusion with respect to the matter.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is right; the
evidence was not printed.


Mr. WHITE (London):: The minister has not told the committee how much difference it will make to the revenues of the country if this item goes through. He has said that this article is to be brought in free. He has given us the information with regard to the free entry of borax, but he has not yet stated the policy of the government in the matter. He has not told us whether they have changed their policy and decided to bring in free everything which is not produced in Canada. If so, have they abandoned the old idea of a tariff for revenue? '


James Alexander Robb: I am unable to give the evidence as to the reduction in revenue because, as I have said, the commodity comes under another item and is not traceable.


James Dew Chaplin: I know what ordinary ground borax is used for; as the minister has told the house, it is used as flux. The people who work in iron and steel know also what it is used for. I am asking the minister now for information as to what borax glass is, whether it is a waste product and what it is used for. We have no information about that, and the minister does not tell us. No one in his department seems to know. The gentleman who is advising him on the subject cannot tell him. Why does he not let us know what the facts are?


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend object to the reduction?


James Dew Chaplin: That is the same old story again. The minister asked me the same thing about automobiles a few minutes ago and I gave the answer. I can answer him about this too if he wants the answer.


James Alexander Robb: I should like to have the answer.


James Dew Chaplin: But the minister is there to give us information.


Edward James Young: Give us the
answer.


James Dew Chaplin: You can wait too.


Mr. COOTE:: Would the minister be good enough to say whether this reduction is in the interests of the manufacturers?


James Alexander Robb: I have said that this product is used in enamelling ironware, in glazing earthenware, and also in medicine, and the rates of duty are 15, 174, and 174. It is proposed to make it free.


George Gibson Coote: Then that is an affirmative answer to the question I asked.


James Dew Chaplin: Absolutely.


George Gibson Coote: In view of that answer will my hon. friends to my right allow the item to pass?


James Dew Chaplin: My hon. friend knows very well that we have nothing to do with allowing the item to pass. We are asking for fair information which is not forthcoming from the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the record is not before the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have sent for the evidence and I should like to see it.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: It is not printed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is hardly fair on the part of the minister. He said I might have read it for myself and now he says it is not printed. There is a distinct question at issue on that point. The point is that fused borax is made from borax; fused borax is undoubtedly an article made from borax. I have asked for some information regarding this material so that we may estimate whether or not it is good business for this country to change from the classification of 711. Let me point out that the government have been classifying this article under item 711, which reads as follows:
All goods not enumerated in this schedule as subject to any other rate of duty, and not otherwise declared free of duty, and not being goods the importation whereof is by law prohibited-15 per cent, 171 per cent, 17i per cent.
That does not mention fused borax at all; it is simply an omnibus item into which classification the customs department can put a lot of miscellaneous articles and impose duty upon them. Borax is classified under item 208, and this has been the case right along.


James Alexander Robb: Not fused borax.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All borax.


Hugh Guthrie: Does not the minister
think he had better let this item stand until to-morrow in order to obtain further information? We do not know how much was imported; we do not know what the duty was; we do not know what the article is used for or what purpose is to be served by this proposed change. I think it would be well to let it stand until we get further ^ information on the subject; we cannot legislate in the dark like this.


James Alexander Robb: I do not mind telling the committee again that it is not possible to trace the importations because, as my hon. friend has said, this article came in under an omnibus item because there was no special classification for it. I have told my hon. friends what it is used for. The duty now is 15 per cent, 17J per cent and 17i per cent, and after inquiry we propose to make it free. There was a public sitting of the board, at which evidence was given that this article is ^ not made in Canada, and there was no opposition to the application.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Does not the
minister think the tariff board should have found out how much of this article is imported into Canada?


James Alexander Robb: How could they?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the
trouble? Would not the people appearing
before the board know something of it and what use is made of it? Surely the board have not exhausted their investigation if they have not found out those relevant facts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to ask the
minister a question in order to assist him in giving us the information. Will he tell us who are William J. Michaud and Company of Montreal? In order to show on what I base my question I may say that I give this name from page 10 of the report, item /8. That is all the printed evidence before the committee with regard to this item.


James Alexander Robb: I understand they are wholesale importers and jobbers. I do not know their rating, but if my hon. friends so desire I might look up Dun or Bradstreet and secure that information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the first light we have had on the matter. These people are not manufacturers and they are not competent to say whether or not an industry is being affected. They made an application to the board, presumably in good faith, in their personal interests. On their evidence, apparently, we are told that this article is not manufactured in Canada, and I submit that is pretty flimsy evidence. I think the minister should let this item stand until we have further information.


Mr. IRVINE:: I would like to ask the minister a question. Would he tell the committee whether Mr. Deachman has absolutely sanctioned the free importation of this article?


James Dew Chaplin: The minister said a few
moments ago that there was a duty on fused borax and that it was under a separate item. Would he tell us what were the_ importations of fused borax last year on which duty was paid? There was no duty on ordinary borax, which comes into Canada free.


James Alexander Robb: I have told the committee
already that it came in under a blanket item and that we were not able to trace the imports.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: At this late hour I
dislike to ask the minister to favour me, but I am engaged in the business of enamelling ironware and I have not heard what effect this change may have on that business. Frankly, I would like to make some inquiries.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend object
to the item?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not know; I may not object at all, but I could find out by a telegram wihat influence this change would have upon a business which is well established
1500	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
in Canada and in which many people are interested. If the minister has made exhaustive inquiries these people may be quite well satisfied, but this is an important business and if it is not interfered with I shall be only too glad to make no objection to the item. I ask this purely on personal grounds and in absolutely good faith.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend make
fused borax or does he use it?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The minister has said
that this article is used in enamelling ironware. I am a director of a company which is engaged in enamelling ironware as part of its business, and I have not heard anything about this change. I really would like to know whether I am attacked, boosted or thrown down.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is the first
member of the house to acknowledge that he uses this product.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I acknowledge that I
am interested in a company which enamels ironware.


James Alexander Robb: Before the hearing was held
a full month's notice was given the trade and no person appeared in opposition. If my hon. friend is interested in it we will let the item stand for the present.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-215. Stearic acid, n.o.p., 12J per cent, British preferential tariff; 17j per cent, intermediate tariff; 20 per cent, general tariff.


James Alexander Robb: The only change in this item is to add "n.o.p.".


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the reason for
merely adding those words? It is in the schedule now at the proposed rates, so why add the words "not otherwise provided". There must be some reason.


James Alexander Robb: It is proposed to widen item 215a, formerly item 777, to make it cover stearic acid for manufacturers of crayons as well as for makers of candles. The main raw materials of the crayon industry are paraffin, wax and stearic acid. The latter is not made in Canada, so the loss of duty would be negligible. Stearic acid for other purposes is dutiable.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Why should an ordinary
person who wants to use this article be discriminated against to the extent of 20 per cent while the manufacturer imports that article free of duty? I heard the minister say his was a low tariff policy; I supported the

budget this year, but here we have an item which is free to the manufacturers but which costs anyone else 20 per cent. Is that fair?


James Alexander Robb: The manufacturers of crayons were asking for an increase in duty, and the decision arrived at was that we were not disposed to give them that increase, but we thought we could help them by giving them this reduction in the raw material.


Edward Joseph Garland: For what
purpose is stearic acid used, outside of the manufacture of candles and crayons?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was that under reference number 96? Was that the application of the crayon company at Peterborough, heard on May 16, 1928 and November 30, 1928?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, that is the one.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are
the rates of duty on candles and crayons?


James Alexander Robb: Seventeen and a half per cent on crayons and 25 per cent on candles.


Edward Joseph Garland: In other
words, the policy of this government is to give the manufacturer his raw material at a cheaper rate in order to enable him to exact the full tariff from the consumer. I find item after item in the schedule containing the words "for manufacturers' use only," or their equivalent. No less than three items on the first page, three on the second and one on the last, contain this proviso.
Mr, IRVINE:	Is that expression used in
the budget?


Edward Joseph Garland: It is all in the budget. It only shows the utter hypocrisy of the low tariff policy of the Liberal party.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member probably
has lost sight of the fact that before the change was made the manufacturer of crayons was paying 20 iper cent on part of his raw material, while he had only 17i per cent protection on his manufactured article.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the situation now?


James Alexander Robb: He will obtain his stearic acid free.


Edward Joseph Garland: What will be the situation of the consumer with regard to that product?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The price will be lower.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
duty be increased to the consumer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly not.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the duty on the finished product any lower? The minister is telling us that he is lowering the duty on the raw material, which will benefit the manufacturer, but he is not touching the duty on the fininshed product.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Did the minister say that these applicants were asking for an increased duty?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And instead of
increasing the duty, he gave them some help by reducing the duty on their raw material?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is an indirect way of giving them more protection.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is a very
direct way.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And means a loss of revenue.


James Alexander Robb: That is not quite the fair way to put it. We must keep in mind the fact that he was paying more on the raw material than the protection he had on the finished material.


George Gibson Coote: Would that statement apply to candles as well as to crayons?


James Alexander Robb: The candle men have this
privilege now.


George Gibson Coote: Were the candle men paying a higher rate of duty than the rate of protection on candles?


James Alexander Robb: The candle men were receiving their stearic acid free of duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And candles were free.


John Evans: This incident may seem
insignificant but it is serious as showing the policy of the government in putting raw material on the free list but leaving the duty intact on the finished article. We find the same situation throughout the whole schedule; every change that is made is made in the manufacturers' interest. Is there nothing for the consumer at all? Is that the policy of the Liberal party? I would like to know if the tariff advisory board recommended that alteration, and I would like to know also if that board is simply to be a link between the manufacturers and the politicians.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does it not look as though the representative of the consumers' league was asleep at the switch?


Harry Bernard Short: What will the loss of revenue be in connection with this item?


James Alexander Robb: The imports are not traceable as they are mixed up with other items. It might interest the hon. gentlemen to know of some of the troubles we have in the department. These manufacturers of crayons made a very strong appeal for an increase in the duty on crayons; they wanted it increased to 40 per cent general, and 30 per cent British preference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is that evidence printed?


Harry Bernard Short: It seems as though we cannot get very much information from the minister on these items. A few minutes ago I understood him to say that the loss in revenue would not amount to anything, that it was immaterial; if that -is the case, it would appear that these items are being changed in order to deceive the public into thinking they are getting something for nothing; trying to make them think that some item is coming in free when they are actually getting no benefit whatever.


James Alexander Robb: We are putting it into a
separate class so that we will be able to trace it.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River). If there is to be very little -loss in revenue, I fail to see how the minister has met the wishes of the manufacturers in giving them the advantage they asked for.


James Alexander Robb: I have not.


Harry Bernard Short: They are fooling the public, that is the -idea.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid the minister cannot get away with that. Either he does not know what he is doing or he is doing something for the manufacturers.


James Dew Chaplin: It was the same thing it the case of automobiles.


Edward Joseph Garland: The unfortunate minister does not really know. I do not know whether Mr. Deachman has had anything to do with this, but someone has made the recommendation to the minister. I am inclined to discount much of Mr. Deach-man's material, but he appears to have stirred up the protectionists and in that way I am almost convinced that he must be of some value to the low tariff element in this country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a propagandist he is quite good.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not sure whether -the tirade against Mr. Deachman was not the result of one o-r two little articles
1502	COMMONS
Ways and. Means-Customs Tariff
which he wrote against the hon. gentlemen on the front benches of the Conservative party. But apart from the value of his material!-and after all, one has to study it a good deal to make sure that it -contains any value at all- there is a great deal of entertainment in it, and I am sure the -members of the house would not miss it for anything.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is good fiction.


Edward Joseph Garland: I -think the minister should be prepared at all times to give the committee the fullest possible information on these matters, particularly with respect to the possibilities of a loss in revenue. He should be able to tell us wha-t benefit will accrue according to his own opinion or the report he receives from the tariff board. If he would give us that information there would be much less difficulty in getting these item3 through, o-r at least in getting some of them through. If he would state at the outset that it was for the manufacturers' benefit, I do not think my friends in the Conservative party would raise much objection to the item.


Hugh Guthrie: Has the evidence in this particular case -been printed?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Hugh Guthrie: Could- we get -even a typewritten copy of it for our information? We are anxi-ous to obtain some information in order that we may deal intelligently with these matters. Some resolution or order in council was p-assed last session providing that all this -evidence should be available to the members of the bouse.


James Alexander Robb: I shall be very glad to table the typewritten evidence.


Hugh Guthrie: There must be some information regarding this particular item, and I would ask that this item stand until we obtain that information.


James Alexander Robb: I have not read the evidence, but after having listened to what the members of the tariff board had to say, I know -that the application was for an increased duty on crayons. I think that is what the evidence will show. We were not disposed to grant the application.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no evidence on this point at all, then.


James Alexander Robb: There is evidence that it is
used as one of their raw materials.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
think the minister is quite fair. He says that this was an application made to the tariff 
board for an increase in duty on crayons, and that he was not disposed to grant that. Did he say he was not disposed to grant the increase?


James Alexander Robb: Yes; I was not disposed to
give them the increase they asked for.


Edward Joseph Garland: The application was made to him as Minister of Finance. He was not disposed to grant the increase and he transferred the application to the tariff board. Is that the procedure?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: The tariff
board considered the matter. Did the board, on its own initiative and its own ability to determine policy, actually decide: Well, we cannot give these fellows this increase in protection; but we are going to do just as much for them; we are going to do the same thing as giving them protection; we are going to reduce the duty on the raw product, the material entering into their manufacture. They come to the minister and they say: These poor manufacturers came to us and asked for an increase; you told US' to consider their case; we have considered it and we think they are deserving; but we know it would not do for the minister of a low tariff government to bring in an increase in protection, and so we have made a recommendation that the duty be reduced on the raw product. The minister comes into the house and says that the whole policy of the government is to lower tariffs; that its policy is tariff for revenue. Then he turns around and gives the manufacturers the only relief that is given on the items I have read so far in the schedule. The situation is amazing. I would like the minister to tell the committee just on what argument he was convinced that he should provide this changed item in the tariff.


James Alexander Robb: On the argument of enabling this industry to get its raw material at a lower rate of duty than it was paying on the finished product.


Edward Joseph Garland: But why?


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend argue
that we should help industries in this country by charging them a higher rate of duty on their raw materials than on their finished product? A previous government at one time thought they could help the manufacturers of tractors in Canada by putting tractors on the free list and leaving the raw material with a higher rate of duty. The result was that they closed up all the tractor business throughout Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister mean
that seriously?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: I do mean it seriously.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, those are not the
facts.


James Alexander Robb: I have applications before
the Department of Finance now for rebates of losses that were made by certain industries that were closed up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what the
minister said.


James Alexander Robb: This is not a new policy of
attempting to make the duty on the raw material a little less than that on the finished product. That was the policy when the duties on agricultural implements were changed in 1924. That was the policy when the duty on automobiles was changed in 1926. That was the policy last year when the duty on textiles was changed. Each year, according to hon. gentlemen opposite-and they managed to get together on it, and sometimes, but not always, they managed to vote with the government- we have been ruining industry. Now the argument is that we are helping industry. It is pretty hard to satisfy the house when it is in that frame of mind.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the
minister through with his sophistry? because it is nothing else. The first of all raises the argument that hon. members to my right, to the left of the Speaker, did irreparable damage to the tractor industry of Canada by allowing tractors to come in free while leaving a high rate of duty on the raw materials, and then he proceeds to relate that to this item. The situation is as hypocritical as is the policy of the government. There is no relation at all between the two cases. In this particular case the minister is making the raw product free and leaving the duty on the finished product, which the customer uses, as high as it ever was. I believe it is high-17% per cent and 20 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: I think it is 20 per cent under the general tariff.


Edward Joseph Garland: After all,
the question is not: what is good for the manufacturers? I think the government is looking after them well enough. I am thinking of the consumer; I am more concerned with the consumer than with the manufacturer. If the minister could only find some means of inducing the protectionists within his party to consent to some reductions of duty that would be of direct advantage to the consumer instead of always to the manufacturer, not only would he be more in keeping with the policy of his party, but he would receive more support from this party.


James Alexander Robb: The duties on crayons are 15 and 17% per cent.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
very substantial considering the fact that the raw material comes in free of duty.


Hugh Guthrie: I confess I am a little
mixed up in connection with the nature of this application. I understood the minister to say that the application by the Crayon Company of Peterborough was for an increase. Am I correct in that?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can hardly understand the minister in connection with that observation. I hold in my hand the printed report of the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, and on page 11 I find reference number 96:
Subject

Crayons and chalk.
Upward or downward revision-Decrease. Applicant-Canada Crayon Company Limited.


James Alexander Robb: That is a decrease in the duty on the raw material.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I now turn to the manuscript dated 1928-1929, which the minister should have presented to the house and which, instead, he kept in his cabinet. And I find again on page 11:
Article-Crayons.
Applicant-Canada Crayon Company Limited. Peterborough.
Up or Down-Upward.
Dates of Hearing-First hearing, May 16, 1928.
Second hearing, November 30, 1928.
The evidence certainly was not printed, because Mr. Moore says in his report that he did not commence to print until June. He
says:
Printing of the verbatim records was begun in June, and to date complete records have been issued, or are now on the press, for the following.
And in the list I do not see any mention of crayons. But the last answer of the hon. gentleman and the observations he has made make very clear these words of Mr. Moore:
The board has continued, during the past twelve months, its policy of visiting plants, and meeting at the scene of their labours many of those whose problems have been brought, directly or indirectly, to its notice. These visits have been of the greatest value, not alone in adding to the store of information available to the board and its investigators, but in establishing between the board and scores of industries an intimate understanding that has been mutually beneficial.
I put it to the house; I put it to the country, whether or not Mr. W. H. Moore, who is holding tariff talks to-night in his constituency,
1504 ^	COMMONS
Ways arid Means-Customs Tariff
as the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) says, is not visiting these plants for the purpose of fixing these people up in a way that they do not ask in order to secure their support in the next election. This is the record of Mr. Moore himself:
In establishing between the board and scores of industries an intimate understanding-
Between the manufacturers and themselves. That is what this country has come to under the tariff board which the Minister of Finance has established. Where is the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) with his "intimate understanding?" Is that his idea of a tariff board: then when an application is made one year for a decrease and the next year for an increase, the minister, not being able, because it would offend these very gentlemen for whom he speaks, now changes his mind and says: We will put your raw material on the free list, but we will not reduce the duty on the finished article, so you will get that much protection, and in that way an "intimate understanding" is established between the manufacturers and the government?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps now that we have
heard from hon. gentlemen who are interested in this, it might be a good idea to hear what the crayon company themselves have to say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we have
been trying to get.


James Alexander Robb: I had a memorandum given
to me one day this week toy representatives of the company. It is unsigned. It is on their own letterhead.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, the government first decides, and then this evidence is produced by these gentlemen, and it is unsigned. Is this an "intimate understanding"?


James Alexander Robb: I should have said, it is undated. It is on the letterhead of the Canada Crayon Company, Limited, manufacturers of crayons, carpenters' and railroad chalks, Peterborough, Ontario. The letter is signed by the Canada Crayon Company, Limited, per
J.	W. Gravestock, Managing Director. It says that this company, located in Peterborough, were told to state their case to the tariff board, and on doing so they met no opposition, but considerable and unnecessary delay. They say:
We went ahead with the company on the basis of the government doing the correct thing with the tariff, but the only help they gave us was a total of about $40 a year by allowing stearic acid to come in free.
We have installed the most modern equipment and have adequate finances. It was our intention to add many moTe lines providing we got protection on the present ones, which are [Mr. Bennett.!
what would be described as our "bread and butter" lines. We intended to turn out various grades of water colour paints as soon as our crayon business had been protected, but now that we have been given no protection, not only can we not go ahead with the paint end of the business, but it is more than doubtful if we can even continue to manufacture anything here at all. We have been operating at a substantial loss ever since wre started and obviously cannot continue. Unless help is forthcoming before our present raw materials are consumed, we shall have to go out of business and have arranged that our machinery and equipment can be readmitted to the United States.
That sounds like an old story. We heard it in 1924 and again in 1926. We hear it every time.


Harry Bernard Short: The letter may have been
written in 1924. It is undated, the minister said.


James Dew Chaplin: Judging from the paper,
it looks as if it had been written ten years ago.


William Irvine: I think the point before
the committee is of considerable importance and I want to make sure that I have got correctly the steps of the reasoning which the questions to the minister have disclosed. First of all, I understand that there is in Canada a consumers' league. I understand that manufacturers are very large consumers, and therefore they belong to the league.


Edward James Young: You are dreaming.


William Irvine: It sounds like a nightmare.
I understand, further that this consumers' league, acting for some of the greatest consumers in Canada, has undertaken to give them relief through the reduction of customs duties upon the raw materials they use. These reductions in some cases have been material; in other cases the duties have been entirely wiped out and the goods put on the free list. This must, of course, reduce the amount of money coming into the treasury by the amount of the tariff reduction, and where the goods are put on the free list there would be no tariff revenue derived from that article at all. Meanwhile other consumers of Canada who do not belong to the consumers' league must still pay the 20 per cent on the finished product of the consumer of the first part, and not only that, but the consumers of the second part must also pay the deficit to the treasury which has been brought about by putting the articles on the free list in the interests of the consumers of the first part. Is that the position?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a scientific tariff.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward Joseph Garland: I would ask if this is what the minister calls scientific tariff making.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend object to it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely the minister is going to give us that evidence. I would remind the minister of what he said to me earlier in this discussion on another item. He rather threw across to me the evidence as if to say, let the hon. member read that. Now on all these previous items and on this item we have not the evidence printed, and we have not had an opportunity of reading it. It is not fair to come before the committee without something at least that would give us the information upon which to base an opinion. The only thing we have in this case is the undated memorandum which the minister read from the company.


James Alexander Robb: That is a criticism of the budget.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a criticism of the budget; it is not evidence upon which the minister bases his position at all. The facts are these, as far as I can judge from Mr. Moore's report. The company made an application for a decrease in the tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not on their finished
product.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Moore says it was an application for a decrease; the minister says an increase.


William Daum Euler: That is wrong.


Charles Avery Dunning: Has my hon. friend not heard of a manufacturer asking for a decrease on the raw materials entering into his finished products?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quoting from the
report which Mr. W. H. Moore made to Hon. J. A. Robb, Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Customs questions my statement. The point is this. We are asked to place implicit trust in this tariff board beaded by Mr. Moore. We are asked to accept everything they present through the mouth of the minister at one hundred per cent of its face value. I have shown the minister that inadvertently, because I am sure he would not do it intentionally, he has misinformed the house on this matter. He has been led astray by verbal reports, I suppose, from the tariff board, which are not in harmony with their written report. I submit that we should not be asked to pass tariff items on such a flimsy basis as this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: However insignificant the amount involved might be.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad my hon. friend mentioned that. The minister a moment ago said that it was only $40, but it was $40 to one company that was just commencing operations. How many other companies are affected? There was a pencil company in the constituency of North York, formerly represented by the Prime Minister, a company which enlisted his great support on one occasion. What would be the effect on them?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: They went broke.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister at one time was quite interested in their welfare-as a public man, I mean. The Minister of Customs expresses doubt as to the accuracy of my statement. He is very clear and logical when he deals with the tariff, and he knows a great deal about it. I am sure if he would give his attention to some of these items, this one relating to stearic acid, and one or two others that we have touched upon, he could contribute something that would be valuable to the committee. Of course, he has been wholly unable to read the evidence; we could not expect him to read it. None of the ministers has had the time to read the evidence. The minister says that the board does not make a finding. He tells the house that the board is a fact-finding body, but yet he bases his petition on some verbal discussions he has had with the board, after consultation with two or three of the officers in his department, and upon this general information that he has received from his officers and Mr. Moore and probably one of his colleagues, these items are framed and brought before us, and possibly the most influential voice is supposed to be that of the consumers' league. But as my hon. friends to the left are now finding out, there is a nigger in the woodpile so far as the consumers' league is concerned.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, when I stated to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that he must be mistaken, I based that statement on the knowledge that I have. I could not understand for a moment the consistency of a firm asking for a decrease in the tariff at one time, and then for an increase at another. Such a contradictory attitude is not reasonable. But I do happen to know that in both instances they did ask for an increase in the tariff, because members of the firm in question came to my office and spoke to me with regard to the necessity of an increase in the tariff if their business was to be saved.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On the finished product?


William Daum Euler: Certainly. If in the report which has been read by my hon. friend they
1506	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
are shown as asking for a decrease, I am very certain there must 'be an error. If they asked for a decrease, most assuredly it must be on the raw material which it is now proposed to make free.
I must say that I fail entirely to understand the position of my hon. friends opposite or that of my hon. friends in the corner to the right. The difference between them, as I take it, is to be found in the history of the two parties-one party being in favour of protection, the other being opposed to protection as a low-tariff or free trade part}'.


Peter McGibbon: The minister combines them both.


William Daum Euler: Just two days ago the representatives of this company came to my office and stated their difficulty. At the time I suppose they had no knowledge of the reduction in the tariff on their raw material.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, it was in the budget.


William Daum Euler: Well, they stated to me at that time that unless they received an increase in the tariff on the finished product they could not survive. I do not know whether that is true or not, but that is the situation as they represented it to me.


Hugh Guthrie: Should not the tariff board have found that out at the investigation?


William Daum Euler: I am just stating what is within my knowledge because of what my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre said a few minutes ago. I may go a little further. Speaking for myself alone-and I think what I am going to say will meet with the approval of everybody, my hon. friends directly opposite as well as my hon. friends to the right-I submit that if the government can assist any industry-and after all a rnanufiaeturer is a citizen of this country and deserving of consideration as well as any other citizen, and the mere fact that he is a manufacturer should not prejudice him-if the government can help any manufacturer without injuring the consumer, I think my hon. friends to the right will have no objection to such action. That, it seems to me, is exactly what was being done in this case. By giving a reduction on the raw material the manufacturer will be enabled to produce his product a little more cheaply, and, whether he does or not, he ought to pass on to the consumer some of the advantage,-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is the problem.


William Daum Euler: -if he can stand it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Daum Euler: That is a perfectly fair argument. If he has been able at all to survive with the duty on his raw material in the past, assuredly he should not increase the price to the consumer now that he is able to buy his raw material a little cheaper. Therefore by this act of legislation the consumer is not going to be injured, but the manufacturer may legitimately receive a little assistance. That seems to me to be the position.
For the life of me I cannot see why my hon. friends on the other side should object if the manufacturer is assisted, unless they accuse us of inconsistency in so assisting the manufacturer; but I see no inconsistency at all in our attitude. The consumer himself is not injured because the manufacturer can produce more cheaply than he did before, and at the very worst he should not charge any higher price to the consumer, and perhaps he will charge a lower price by reason of the fact that he can manufacture more cheaply.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, I have just found my portfolio, and before the house adjourns I should like to put the following on Hansard:
Examination of the records in the possession of the tariff board indicates:
1.	This company was established in Peterborough only in 1927, in the knowledge that the general tariff on wax crayons was 17i per cent.
2.	That in that same year (December 6, 1927) it applied to the Minister of Finance to have the general tariff on crayons elevated to 49 per cent and the British preferential to 30 per cent.
3.	That the first hearing of the application was held on May 16, 1928, and the second hearing on November 30, 1928.
4.	That in its first year of activity, namely, 1928, this company's sales were stated to be about $12,000 or, roughly, 40 per cent of the total Canadian market for the commodity.
5.	That the chief competing country of which the company complains is the United States.
Evidence at the hearing brought out the fact that the stock in the applicant company is owned in part by the American Crayon Company of the United States and the complaint that the Canadian concern was at a disadvantage with its larger American competitors in *respect of purchases of raw material and labour and distribution of costs. Evidence showed that there were in the United States nearly one hundred crayon companies and, therefore, the industry in that country was highly competitive. It was shown by the applicant company, that three of its major raw materials were paraffin wax, colours and stearic acid. It is proposed under the present budget that stearic acid for the manufacture of crayons be admitted free of duty; the duty on colours and pigments is still und'er review in connection with the reference re paints; there is before the board an application for the reduction of duty on paraffin wax. It is the case, therefore, that the application of the Canada Crayon Company Limited cannot be said to have been fully dealt with until the applications involving colours and paraffin wax have been disposed of.

Private Bills
That is part of the raw material.
So far as the board is concerned, there has been no delay in the investigation of this case; indeed, a measure of relief is proposed in the present budget, although two major factors of the cost of production of crayons are still under review.
At the second hearing of the application, Hr. R. P. Sparks,-
We have heard of him before.


An hon. MEMBER:: And you will hear
from him again too.


James Alexander Robb: Probably.
[DOT]-representing the Garment Manufacturers Association of Canada, objected to any increase in tariff that might involve chalks used in the clothing industry; these chalks, the applicants state, were not included in their application.
There are two ways to help the industry:
1.	Reduction of duty on raw materials;
2.	Increase of duty on crayons.
It has been decided to recommend some change of the duty on the raw materials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who is that from?


James Alexander Robb: An officer in the department.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 12, 1929