1929-03-13

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hay.
Second report of the special committee to amend and consolidate the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.-Mr. Howden.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Who has the contract for lights and buoys in the lower Detroit river?
2.	What is the contract price?
Questions

3.	When was last contract made and for how long?
4.	Was last contract made by tender?
5.	If so, who tendered and what were their tenders ?
6.	What did it cost and who was the contractor in the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928?
7.	Wha.t is the policy of the department in resetting this contract?
8.	Are there incidentals or allowances of any kind in addition to contract price? If so, what were they during the years mentioned?
9.	How many lights, buoys, etc., are involved in the contract?
10.	Are there any special regulations to be fulfilled in this particular area?
11.	How many miles does contract cover: (a) in lake Erie from mouth of lake, and (b) in river from mouth of lake?
12.	Has the contract always been let by tender in the foregoing years? If not, why?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	C. R. Hackett.
2.	$9,375 per annum.
3.	February 16, 1926. Three years from April 1, 1926.
4.	No.
5.	See answer to 4.
6.	Year	Cost Contractor1920	$8,291	25	C.	R.	Hackett1921	
8,962	50	C.	R.	Hackett1922	
9,075	00	C.	R.	Hackett1923	
9,075	00	C.	R.	Hackett1924	
9,375	00	C.	R.	Hackett1925	
9,375	00	C.	R.	Hackett1926	
9,375	00	C.	R.	Hackett1927	
9,375	00	C.	R.	Hackett*1928	
9,375	00	C.	R.	Hackett
*In 1928 $140.79 was paid for the maintenance of 6 temporary spars, this being the contract rate.
7.	The department recommends the renewal of the present contract.
8.	No.
9.	17 gas buoys; 8 lighted spar buoys; 20 spar buoys with float lights; 26 unlighted spar buoys; 4 barrel buoys, and 10 winter spar buoys, numbering in all 85 buoys.
10.	None as arising under the provisions of this contract.
11.	(a) 38 miles; (b) 14 miles.
12.	No. The price for the several classes of buoys were established by tender, and the contract renewed at those prices. The recommendation for the renewal of the contract was based on the satisfactory manner in which the work was performed and on the fairness of the price charged.


QUEBEC CITADEL EXPENDITURES
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What has been the cost of repairs and alterations to the Citadel at Quebec?

2.	What furnishings, fixtures and other purchases were made for the Citadel at Quebec during 1928?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	$174,432.62 from April 1, 1927, to February 28, 1929.
2.	$56,746.29.


IMMIGRATION FROM GREAT BRITAIN
Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	What contracts or agreements or undertakings at present exist for bringing immigrants into Canada, between the federal government or any department thereof, and the imperial government or any other government, concern, association, company, individual or individuals?
2.	What inducements are offered to these immigrants, in the way of, (a) reduced transportation charges, (b) assistance to agriculturists, (c) protection against unemployment or any
other considerations?


Mr. FORKE:: 
NAVIGATION AND WATER-POWERS REFERENCE- COUNSEL FEES
Mr. WHITE (London):: 1.	What are the names of the counsel who represented the Dominion government before the supreme court in 1928, relative to the reference concerning ownership of water-powers and other matters?
2.	What amount did each receive for his services?
3.	What was the total cost of the reference to the Dominion?


Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Hon. N. W. Rowell, K.C.; H. J. Symington, K.C.; Chas. Laurendeau, K.C.; Chas. P. Plaxton, K.C.; Vincent C. MacDonald.
2.	H. J. Symington, payment on account, $3,925.54; Vincent C. MacDonald, $9,221; Hon. N. W. Rowell, no payment yet; Chas. Laurendeau. no payment yet.
3.	Total cost to March 9, 1929, $26,074.46.


STEEL FROM BLACK SAND
Mr. BRADY:: 1.	Will the government inform the house as to whether or not British and American financial interests representing $500,000,000 have approached the Dominion government regarding erection of two electric plants, one on Vancouver island, the other at St. John, New Brunswick, for the manufacture of steel from black sand, which is available in large quantities on Vancouver island, Queen Charlotte islands, and in the region of the St. Lawrence river along the Atlantic coast?
2.	Did John W. Houldsworth, managing director of Iron Ore Process, Limited, of London, England, representing the above Anglo-American interests, interview the Dominion government or any member thereof to obtain Dominion government's co-operation in establishing proposed industries?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	The Dominion government has not been approached.
2.	No.


OLD BRIDGEPORT, N.8., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: 1.	Who is the present postmaster at Old Bridgeport, Cape Breton?
2.	When was such appointment made?
3.	How many applicants were there for the position?
4.	Were any of such applicants returned soldiers?
5.	Is the person who was appointed a returned soldier?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Miss M. Stephenson-acting postmaster. Competition for postmastership under way.
2.	No definite appointment made. Miss Stephenson took charge on death of her father who was acting postmaster.
3.	Four.
4.	Yes-two.
5.	Permanent appointment not made yet.


HAMILTON TAXATION DISTRICT COLLECTIONS
Mr. RENNIE:: 1.	What was the total revenue derived from the collection of federal income tax in the city of Hamilton for the fiscal year 1927-28?
2.	What was the total revenue derived from the collection of sales tax in the city of Hamilton for the fiscal year 1927-28?
3.	What was the total revenue from the collection of income tax from corporations in the city of Hamilton during the fiscal year 1927-28?
4.	What was the total revenue from customs collections in the city of Hamilton during the fiscal year 1927-28?
5.	What was the total revenue from excise taxes collected in the city of Hamilton during the fiscal year 1927-28?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Statistics are not maintained in such a manner as will yield the revenue collected from any given city in Canada. The Hamilton taxation district comprising the counties of Wentworth, Haldimand, Wellington, Lincoln, Norfolk, Waterloo, Welland, Brant and Halton for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1928, collected $3,944,635.37.
2.	$3,490,593.70.
3.	In fiscal year ended March 31, 1928, the Hamilton taxation district collected from corporations $2,669,272.46.
4.	$4,194,037.31.
5.	$3,477,119.62.


HAMILTON POST OFFICE REVENUE
Mr. RENNIE:: What was the total revenue of the post office in Hamilton, Ontario, during the fiscal year 1927-28?


Mr. VENIOT:: 



$570,158.86. QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS SOCIAL LEGISLATION

['I would ask that the record of the clerk be corrected accordingly.']
Mr. CHURCH:: In view of the validity of certain acts relating to social legislation being questioned,

Questions as Orders for Returns
such as the Old Age Pension Act: (a) by the Quebec government and their counsel in the Quebec legislature; (b) also the same question being raised in the international and industrial relations committee of this house,-
Will the government, in order to afford a solution of these questions, consider the policy of securing ia definite decision under the statutes in that behalf from the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference of the following questions dealing with social legislation and reported on by the industrial relations committee to the house in sessions 1924-28:	(a)
old age pensions and the right of the federal authority to vote funds under section of British North America Act 1867, relating to public debt and property; (b) unemployment; (c) sickness and unemployment insurance; (d) family allowances; (e) radio; (f) hospitals and aid towards relief of disease?



Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	Having reference to the report of the special committee investigating the Customs department, 1926, and of the report of the royal commission investigating the Customs department, 1926 and 1927, how many actions have been taken or claims made to date: (a) through the courts; (b) through the ordinary channels of the department, against persons or corporations for the recovery of customs duties, excise duties, sales tax or other amounts claimed by the department to be due and unpaid?
2.	What is the total amount, if any, which has been recovered during the years 1926, 1927, and 1928?
3.	What amount is still being claimed by the department against persons or corporations and remaining unpaid?


CIVIL SERVICE-EMPLOYEES OVER SEVENTY YEARS OP AGE
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Are there any persons who have passed the age of seventy years and who are still employees of the government?
2.	If so, what are their names and what situation does each occupy?


TRANSLATION OP GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Mr. PARENT:: 1. Has the publication of pamphlet entitled "Division of Botany", by H. T. Giissow, been translated into the French language and printed for distribution?
2.	If so, when?
3.	If not, why?
4.	How many publications in pamphlet forms
have been published since 1927 in the English language only, giving:	(a) the date of each
publication and the department responsible for same; (b) the authority of parliament authorizing such publication?


EGG STATISTICS
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	What was the total production of hens' eggs, by the dozen, in Canada, during the calendar years 1927 and 1928?
2.	What was the production of hens' eggs, by provinces, during each of the calendar years 1927 and 1928?
3.	How many	dozen of	hens'	eggs	wereimported into Canada during each of the calendar years	1927 and	1928,	and	what
quantity from each country?
4. What were the imports of frozen or canned eggs into Canada during each of the calendar years	1927 and	1928,	and	what
quantity from each country?
5.	What were the exports of hens' eggs, by dozens, during each of the calendar years 1927 and 1928, showing: (a) the countries of destination; (b) the province of export?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to apply a special seasonable duty or make a special valuation for duty purposes?
7.	Is the government aware of any intention or proposal on the part of the United States to raise the duty on hens' eggs entering that country?
8.	If so, is it the intention of the government to alter our duties?


PERMANENT MILITIA FORCE
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	How many men have been enlisted in each of the permanent units of the Canadian forces and discharged before termination of agreement during the years 1927 and 1928?
2.	What were the causes for such termination of agreement?
3.	Were any allowances granted for such termination of agreement?


Mr. RALSTON:: Return tabled herewith:
1.	In 1927, 483; in 1928, 560.
2.	As shown on attached statement.
3.	The regulations do not provide for any
such allowance.	'

Cause of Discharge.
Discharges-Permanent Force, 1927 Unit
K.R. (Can) 1926 Para. 386	RCD.	LSH.	RCA.	RCE.	RCS.	RCR.	PPCLI.	R.22e R.	RCASC.	RCAMC.	RCOC.	RCAVC.	RCAPC.	CMSC.	Total7	4	3	9	2	25 1 1 1 6 4 33 7 28 12 245 11 6 19 2 36 11 36 1i) Not finally approved	1	1 1 3	
1					2 1 6								
{v)a Mis-statement as to marriage	
'ri)a Rejected by Medical Officer and	2 2 1 6 4 56 6 4 5 1 3 4 8	1 8	vi)c Unfit within three months of enlistment	
vi)d Recruits undergone Course of Training and found unfit	
vi)e Recruits unfitted for an Instruc-	1 1 5	5 4	1	4	1	3	2	i	14 1 41 2	1	1 2 20 1 1	1 1 10 1	tional Corps	
(vii) Claimed discharge by purchase	3 5	1 6	(viii)	By purchase after three months.. (ix)	Claimed discharge under Militia	21 1 1 3	34	5	23	24	(xi)	Upon conviction by Civil Power. (xii)	Misconduct	3	2	1 1 14 1 8	2	1	1	1	(xiii)	Discharge with ignominy	
(xiv)	a Permanently unfit for Military Service	
(xiv)b Unfit for Military Service under existing Standards	
(xvi)	Services no longer required	
(xvii)	Having become unfit for specia	5 1 10 1	5 2 1	1 1	2	1 2 1	2 1 1	3	1	1	3	1	Total	50	62	106	13	14	89	48	30	41	11	19	483
Order for Return Tabled
fMr. Ralston.!
Discharges-Permanent Force, 1928
Cause of Discharge.	Unit
K.R. (Can) 1926 Para. 386	ROD.	LSH.	RCA.	RCE.	RCS.	RCR.	PPCLI.	R. 22eR.	RCASC.	RCAMC.	RCOC.	RCA VC.	RCAPC.	CMSC.	Total0)	10	9	20	3	4	1	80(iii)	False answer on Attestation	1	(v)a (v)b	Mis-statement as to marriage	1	1	Incorrect information re dependent children	i	(vi)a	Rejected by Medical Officer and O.C. Unit	1	1(vi)c	Unfit within three months of enlistment	1	2	2	2	4	(vi)d	Recruits undergone Course of Trainingl and found unfit	1	1	17(vi)e	Recruits unfitted for an Instructional Corps	3	3	7	(vii)	Claimed discharge by purchase within three months	5	i	1	19(viii)	By purchase after three months..	17	28	56	12	13	25	33	9	12	6	6	1	1	219(ix)	Claimed discharge under Militia Pension Act	1	3	2	1 1	1	1	(xi)	Upon conviction by Civil Power.	2	3	1	9 7(xii)	Misconduct	2	6	3	3	2	1	2	(xiii)	Discharge with ignominy	1	1	(xiv)a Permanently unfit for Military	1	2	31(xiv)b Unfit for Military Service under existing Standards	1	4	1	(xvi)	Services no longer required	4	16	21	13	4	35	8	15	19	2	' 13739	65	117	38	21	97	37	46	15	12	1	1	3	560
co
to

g
g
o

Order for Return Tabled

Privilege-Mr. Boys


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, report of investigation and evidence taken, in connection with the dismissal of Gordon Wilkie from patrol boat No. 4, North Sydney.


BRITISH COLUMBIA PUBLIC TERMINAL ELEVATOR TARIFFS
Mr. EVANS:: For a copy of the evidence taken at the meeting held by the Board of Grain Commissioners in Vancouver last August, in connection with public terminal elevator tariffs in British Columbia.


CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I should like to draw to the attention of Your Honour and the government question No. 12 which, it has been asked, should stand as an order for return. I submit, with all due deference to the Minister of Labour, that this is not a question properly calculated to be answered by a return. The answers are all very short and simple. I am not asking for a list of names or anything of that kind; I want simply the number. I should like to urge the government that the question should be answered in due course. I am not seeking to inconvenience the minister, but it does not seem to me a question to be answered by a return.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) :: The mistake is mine. I meant that question No. 8 should stand as an order for return. Question No. 12 will be answered.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would ask that the record of the clerk be corrected accordingly.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BOYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. BOYS (North Simcoe):: On a question of privilege I would like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Daily Sun under date of March 4. My comments are somewhat belated, but I received this in the mail only yesterday from a friend. The editorial which is headed "Patronage Gone Mad" is in part as follows:
The announcement by the Tolmie government of British Columbia that W. A. Boys, K.C., former Conservative whip, has been appointed to assist Leon J. Ladner, K.C., in handling British Columbia's freight rate problem, comes as a shock, and would appear to be an admission that the government fears that Mr. Ladner, 78594-58
on account of his inexperience in such matters may not be able to properly handle the case alone. Just why the government of British Columbia should have to go outside of this province and go to the east to get a lawyer to represent it in the all-important matter of freight rates, is a question which every business man in Vancouver should ask himself.
Then follow two or three other paragraphs which I need not read, but I will read the last one:
The government has now not only appointed Leon J. Ladner, K.C., of British Columbia, to represent it, but has also appointed W. A. Boys, K.C., of Ontario. Surely this is patronage gone mad.
I regret that no such honour has come to me. I have not been retained in any capacity whatsoever by the British Columbia government in connection with freight rates or anything else. I took the trouble to make inquiry as to the basis of this editorial, and I found that the services of Mr. A. C. Boyce, until recently a member of the Dominion railway commission, have been secured. Instead of the Vancouver Daily Sun criticizing this as "patronage gone mad," I think the government of Doctor Tolmie should be congratulated upon securing the services of such an eminent and able counsel as Mr. A. C. Boyce.
I would ask the representative of the Vancouver Daily Sun in the press gallery to make the necessary correction, and also to see that it receives, at all events, as much publicity as the editorial complained of.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: There is a motion on the
order paper under my name reading as follows:
That when the house adjourns on Friday, the 22nd of March, instant, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, the 2nd of April, next.
Since that notice appeared, I have been advised that in some parts of the house preference has been expressed for an adjournment from Wednesday, the 27th of March, until Monday, the 8th April, instead of the period, within the dates previously suggested.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I was
about to suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that instead of pressing the motion at the moment the whips of the different parties should get to-

914	COMMONS
Immigration of Miner-Harvesters
gether this afternoon and, if possible, take some sort of a census. The government will be pleased to abide by the wishes of the house as a whole.


Mr. BENNETT:: It stands in the meantime.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.



MOTOR AND PLEASURE BOATS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: I
would like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a question. I am not finding fault with the Prime Minister's answer of yesterday, because I realize that he cannot be posted on everything. But I have in my hand an order in council that was passed imposing a tax on all canoes and motor boats in the Muskoka lakes, a thing that is very much resented by the people in that district. I would ask the Prime Minister if he would be good enough to rescind it. It was asked for by people from outside Muskoka, tourists. The request did not come from the people of the district.


Mr. DUFF:: It is a license fee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend
(Mr. McGibbon) will let me see the order in council he has reference to. I think possibly my hon. friend is using a word that is not appropriate under the circumstances. It is suggested that it is a fee that may be imposed under a regulation. It is not an order in council imposing a tax. I will guarantee him that.



IMMIGRATION OF MINER-HARVESTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
'Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre): According to the press, Mr. Speaker, arrangements have been made for the 'bringing in of more miner-harvesters from Great Britain, but apparently there is no provision for them being sent back in case of their not being able to retain positions. May I ask, in that event, who is to be responsible for their keep?
Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I will try, Mr. Speaker, to allay the hon. member's fears, if I possibly can. There is a despatch in this morning's paper, unauthorized by myself-I have no idea how it leaked out. It is partly true, but it does not give the proper explanation of what has taken place. I can assure 
the hon-. gentleman (Mr. Woodsworth), however, that every precaution will be taken that anyone who is brought over here from Great Britain under any scheme of the department will be taken care of by the department.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: What is the precaution?


Robert Forke: That can be gone into at a later date. This is not the proper time to make an explanation of that kind.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ELEVATOR SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you are the protector of the rights and privileges of the members of this house. I call your attention to the fact that since the opening of the present session the elevators on the east corridor have not been operating either on Saturday or Sunday, or on any holidays we have had in the meantime. Unfortunately for the members from the eastern provinces also those from the province of British Columbia and other western provinces, we are forced to remain here over the week-end. Hon. members from Ontario and Quebec are able to go home over the week-end. Some of us endeavour to catch up with our correspondence on Saturday. You are aware, sir, that the room occupied by the stenographers is immediately adjoining one of the elevators that I refer to. As I say, during the present session, those elevators have not been operated on Saturday or Sunday, and I strongly protest against it. I appeal to you, sir, to see that- they are operated for the remainder of the session.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have nothing to do with the elevators. They come under the immediate control of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott). I have called his attention to this matter. As he is in his seat he might perhaps explain to the hon. member the reason why those elevators are not running on Saturdays and Sundays.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a desire in the Department of Public Works to observe the Sabbath day as far as possible. A certain number of elevators are kept going both on Saturday and Sunday, a number that was thought to be sufficient to supply the needs of the hon. members who were working on those days. I understand that such has been the case and that there is always an elevator available by just going round the corner from the elevator that is referred to by

The Budget-Mr. Ladner
my hon. friend. However, if it is found that anybody is suffering inconvenience on account of inadequate elevator facilities, either going up or going down, we will endeavour to rectify it.


Thomas Cantley: I know exactly what
elevators are operating, Mr. Speaker, and I know what elevators are not available. I expect that the members of this house will be able to obtain the facilities they formerly had. It is something new to find this government talking economy in matters of this kind.



UNEMPLOYMENT IN CITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether the government has any plan for providing useful employment to the great number of unemployed in the large cities of Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Up to the present, Mr. Speaker, the government has not given consideration to the matter to which my hon. friend refers.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Hugh Guthrie.
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I desire first to pay a tribute to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for his able, concise and clear budget statement. I desire also to pay a tribute to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) for his masterly review of the budget and for the manner in which he pointed out the fallacies and analysed the consequences of the minister's proposals.
Before entering upon the main theme of my remarks this afternoon, I wish to say a few words in connection with old age pensions. Hon. members will recall how in 1925 and 1926 the King government made a very strong appeal to the people of Canada to support their proposals with respect to old age pensions. They took the opportunity to claim full credit for having introduced that legislation. But having been elected to power, 78504-58i
we now see certain doubts cast on the constitutionality of the Old Age Pensions Act, and those who are raising such doubts appear to have the sympathy of the Liberal government as well as of other Liberal forces throughout the Dominion. We have lately read in the press a statement by the Premier of Quebec that he had obtained the opinion of three eminent counsel to the effect that the old age pensions legislation is unconstitutional, and that the Dominion government has no authority to make contributions to the provinces for that purpose. At the time, sir, I did not pay any special attention to Mr. Taschereau's observation. We know that the province of Ontario is about to adopt the old age pension scheme. British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have already adopted it.
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 gTew 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 case 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; 1 have come to the conclusion that it is a thoroughly vicious principle.
Mr. Ladner: Why doesn't the government provide for old age pensions itself instead of shifting it to the provinces?
Mr. Mackenzie King: It is the province's obligation, and so far as this government is concerned we have sought to safeguard the public treasury to the extent at least of one half of the required expenditure whereas hon. gentlemen opposite claimed they were prepared to duplicate what we are doing by assuming the entire obligation. What has been already paid in old age pensions in the province from which my hon. friend comes? We have given to the province of British Columbia $423,105.84; to the province of Manitoba $122,332.42; and to the province of Saskatchewan $76,417.62; or a total to these three provinces, thus far, of $621,855.88.
And the Prime Minister proceeded to state that hon. members would live to see the day when the annual payment will be something like twelve million dollars, which I think is
The Budget-Mr. Ladner

an extravagant guess. What struck me as being very significant was the fact that in the midst of a debate on federal aid to the provinces for the construction of highways the Prime Minister should happen to have lying on his desk detailed information with respect to the contribution by the Dominion government to the provinces in respect to old age pensions, a subject that has very little relationship to highways. I refer to this, Mr. Speaker, because to some of us it is a question of far-reaching importance to this country. The old age pensions system in my judgment is sound from an economic point of view. It is not only a humanitarian act to alleviate the distress of our old folks in their closing days, but it is the just and right thing to do in the best interests of the Dominion. If it is the fact, Mr. Speaker, to me it is inconceivable that this government and the Liberal forces throughout Canada should be parties to a scheme to submarine their old age pension legislation after it has served their purpose before the electorate. It seems to me that the suggestion to test the constitutionality of the Old Age Pensions Act by a reference to the supreme court is an indirect method of destroying the effectiveness of the legislation, resorted to by certain forces in the Liberal party that do not approve of old age pensions and would like to shift the whole burden upon the provinces.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the attention of the house to certain phases of the budget and to the fiscal policy of the government. The financial picture as disclosed by the Minister of Finance reveals, briefly, that we have this year a revenue of approximately $455,000,000, and expenditure of $385,000,000, and that this expenditure is $22,000,000 more than the expenditure last year. There is a surplus of approximately $70,000,000. The deadweight debt as of March 31 this year is $2,330,835,000. Our funded and bonded debt has increased by $28,000,000. But, sir, it is a source of pride that 71 per cent of the funded debt is held by the people of this country.
I wish to commend to the government the Suggestion of my leader (Mr. Bennett), which suggestion was repeated the other day by the hon. member for South Wellington, with regard to adopting a policy for the reduction and ultimate extinction of the national debt. That suggestion was a sound constructive one. My leader pointed out that by providing a fund of $15,000,000 per annum with interest at four per cent, the debt would be extinguished in a period of fifty years. The hon. member for South Wellington also recalled to our minds that notwithstanding the method in
JMr. Ladner.]
which the budget was presented to the house, during the five years prior to 1922, under the Conservative government, the average surpluses were $66,700,000 per year, while under the present government, which has enjoyed the advantage of prosperous conditions, those surpluses were $69,700,000 a year, or a difference of only $3,000,000. I repeat those figures because I think it is well for hon. members to keep them in mind.
The fiscal policy of this government is a very indefinite one. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our fiscal policy must be judged by its results on the masses of the people and upon the economic prosperity of the country. Throughout the world we are witnessing great economic prosperity-in North America, in South America, and in the European countries. When we analyze the returns in the report of the Minister of Labour we find this astounding situation, that due to our low tariff our working men are at the mercy of the cheap labour of foreign countries, and that comparing 1928 with the preceding years back to 1922, the average wages paid have decreased in all lines of industry; but while the wages have decreased the cost of living, based upon the family budget of twenty-nine staple articles, has gone up from five to ten per cent. So far as the manufacturers are concerned, raw or partly manufactured materials have advanced since 1922 between 7 and 10 per cent. But while the cost of raw material has gone up, the price of the manufactured articles as sold by the manufacturer has gone down. This report given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) discloses that the manufactured articles have decreased in price about 9 per cent. So that the industries in our country are placed between the millstones of an increase in the cost of raw materials and a decrease in the selling price of the product. In other words, the fiscal policy of this government is destroying our industrial life while it is not assisting agriculture. On page 7 of the minister's report it will be seen that carpenters, electrical workers, plasters, sheet metal workers, stone cutters, boiler makers and machinists have had no advance in wages during the six years of Liberal rule, although the cost of living has gone up from 5 to 10 per cent. That summary, with the authenticity of the data upon which it is based, should effectively dispose of the attitude of the government, that the best interests of this country will be served by a lower and ever lower tariff until the free trade stage is reached

The Budget-Mr. Ladner
In His budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) states very specifically, at
page 595 of Hansard:
The policy of this administration is not a high tariff policy; it is a low tariff policy.
In contrast with this we have the policy of the Conservative party, strongly held to and enunciated again in the amendment to this budget, that we believe in safeguarding and protecting our agricultural and industrial life. The positions of these two great parties are in striking contrast; and their relationship to each other and to the welfare of the country is brought forcibly to our attention by the attitude of the United States with respect to that country's tariff proposals, with which it is intended to deal at the special session of congress in April. I, for one, am of the opinion that we should deal with this matter in a spirit of good will, in a spirit of respect, in a spirit of tolerance, knowing that the question of the tariff in the United States is one of their own concern; it is their business. But in so far as it relates to their export trade, in so far as it relates to the $850,000,000, mostly of manufactured goods, which Canada purchases from the United States, then we in turn should give some attention to our own situation and our own welfare. I direct the attention of the house to some significant words of President Hoover spoken during his good will tour through the South American republics. Speaking in the republic of San Salvador he said:
Our international and economic relations can have but one real foundation: They can grow only out of the prosperity of each of us. They cannot flourish in the poverty or degeneration of any of us. Our economic progress is mutual: It is not competitive.
These are splendid words, but when we read the remarks of the leaders of the party in congress we learn their real intent. Not that 1 complain about it, but it is a fact of which we should be possessed. Mr. Wallace Hawley, chairman of the ways and means committee of the United States, as reported in the local press, stated the situation in congress in rather significant words. Addressing a meeting in Boston on Saturday last, he said:
The protective tariff is a domestic question. Foreign interests have no inherent right to trade in our markets. The admission of imports is an act of comity between nations, and we have the right to prescribe the conditions of which they shall enter our market.
I cannot see that the people of this country can have any complaint against that stand, but I can see where the government of this country can take notice of it and shape this country's course in a manner that
will serve the best interests of the people of Canada. The United States has in the neighbourhood of $3,300,000,000 invested in this country while Great Britain has $2,200,000,000. We have important business with the United States and we want to keep their good will; Big business can be done with our friends to the south, and we hope it will be done. But it is folly in the extreme for them to exclude, if they intend to do so, the comparatively small quantity of goods, mostly raw materials, which we are sending to the United States and expect us to buy nearly a billion dollars' worth of goods from them a year. If they expect that, they are expecting too much and they should not be disappointed if we endeavour to trade in some other portions of the world.
The people of Canada have too much pride to approach this problem in the spirit of a mendicant or of a dependent; we must have courage, self-reliance and confidence in our nation as well as in our people. Now the question presents itself: just what should we do? I propose to offer a suggestion, which is somewhat different from some of the suggestions that have already been submitted to parliament. The government's course is a negative one; they have been drifting for years. The Liberal tariff airship has been gradually floating southward. This is not good for this country. If I were the leader of this government I would ask parliament, in the face of this impending crisis, to give authority to my government to make such variation in the tariff as might be in the interests of Canada, having regard to the action which the United States will take in April next. Then, sir, the day on which that action became effective under the laws of the United States, tariff adjustments based upon the safeguarding and protecting of our agricultural and industrial interests should likewise be made effective in Canada. I submit that if we wait until next session, or until a special session of parliament is called, irreparable damage will have been done to the agricultural and industrial life of this country, and more particularly to the great masses of our people who depend upon their wages for their living. But it is very unlikely that the King government will take this course. They have never shown any real courage and backbone in handling either the tariff question or any other problem in relation to the United States, and in my judgment Canada would gain the admiration and respect of the people of the United States if we displayed a little more courage and confidence in our own country and looked after our own interests to the advantage of our own people.
The Budget-Mr. Ladner

The tariff question is something which is discussed annually in parliament; it has been discussed for years. Read speeches delivered in the past; read budget debates as far back as you like to go, and you will find that there have been always two schools of thought on the question. In the past we have had an actual experiment to show the effect upon the people of this country of the increase of our tariff. There is a fallacy, shared to a large extent by members of the government and by some of our Progressive friends from the prairies, that an increase in duties necessarily involves an increase in price. That is an economic fallacy. I would commend to hon. members a study of the budget* speech delivered by Sir Leonard Tilley in 1882. A very exhaustive and careful inquiry had been made of the consequences and the effects of the national policy of 1878, and Sir Leonard Tilley uttered the following words, to which I will ask hon. members to pay particular attention, inasmuch as they apply with equal
force to-day and no doubt are frequently quoted:
What our manufacturers say is "We can manufacture as cheaply here as in the United States, but we want the market. We are prepared for the sharpest competition, and we do not fear our friends on the other side of the line, _ if we have the home market, and competition among ourselves will keep the prices down to the consumer."
The basis and accuracy of the inquiry is evidenced in these words of Tilley;
I wish reliable data, not data that could be shaken by any statement of fact that could be produced in the house, because we want nothing but the facts, and if the manufacturers are getting larger profits, it would be just as well that -we should know of it, and deal with the facts as we found them.
Then he quotes a number of articles showing the variations in prices as a result of the increase in duty. I have copied them from the budget speech of 1882, and with the permission of the house I would ask that this short table be placed on Hansard:
Article
Etoffes	1
Tweeds	1
Fabrics	j
Grey and white cotton and brown sheetings..
Medium and fine woollen fabrics	
Woollen goods	
Flannels	1
Blankets	J
Coarse woollen caps and felt hats	
Underclothing	
Wagons	
Carriages	
Covered buggies	
Ploughs	
All agricultural implements	
Organs	
Sewing machines (with business trebled).. .. Boots and shoes and leather goods, hand made.. Boots and shoes and leather goods, factory made
Furniture, best class	
Furniture, ordinary class	
Stoves	
Iron castings	
Tools and files	
Cut nails	
Finished nails	
Pressed spikes	
Railway spikes	
Nuts and bolts	
Horse shoes	
Tea	
Sugar	
Molasses	
Rice	
Spices	
Soap	
Variation in price
Average price lower than during previous 10 years.
10 per cent lower.
Lower than any time in history.
Average price lower than for 10 years prior to 1878.
As low as any period in 10 years.
Lower.
Lower.
Lower (from $62 to $60).
Lower (from $105 to $100).
Lower (from $160 to $150).
15 per cent lower.
5 per cent to 20 per cent lower.
15 per cent lower.
$10 each cheaper.
15 per cent higher.
10 per cent to 25 per cent less.
Higher.
Lower.
A little higher.
9 per cent higher (equivalent to increased cost of pig iron and labour).
Cheaper.
5 per cent lower.
9	per cent lower.
12 per cent lower.
$2 per ton lower.
Cheaper.
8 per cent higher.
5 cents to 6 cents per pound cheaper.
50 cents per 100 pounds cheaper.
10	per cent cheaper.
10 per cent cheaper.
Duty and price unchanged.
12 per cent higher, owring to increase in raw material entering duty free.
The effect of the increase in the tariff duties was this: There was an actual reduction in the cost of living of from 5 per cent

to 10 per cent on the articles named. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this was an experiment; the conditions of 1878 were not the conditions

The Budget-Mr. Ladner
of 1928, but generally speaking the economic conditions of 1878 with relation to 1882 were very much the same, and from this experiment we may obtain facts of great significance and benefit to those studying this problem to-day. when we are about to be faced with a high tariff wall in the United States.
What were the consequences of the application of the national policy with regard to an increased tariff? During those three years 95 new factories were established employing over 7,000 men; cotton factories to be completed before the end of 1882 would employ an additional 3,000 men. Of the 440 factories investigated and in operation in 1878, less the 95 factories mentioned, there was an increase in the number of men employed of from 5 per cent to 30 per cent, or an average of 17 per cent in 350 factories. In other words, in that three year period there was an increase of 24,875 men employed.
A more exhaustive examination was made in the city of Hamilton, and the results are extremely instructive. By the application of the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald we find that the value of buildings occupied as factories in Hamilton was $705,200 in 1878, and by 1881 this had increased by $369,000, an increase of 51 per cent. The value of buildings had increased 113 per cent; the value of goods manufactured by 94 per cent; the number of employees by 117 per cent, and the average rate of wages per head showed an increase of 9i per cent. There was a further effect with respect to the activity of those factories which had not been operating full time. In 1878, thirty-three workshops were running full time and 24 were running short time; in 1881 fifty-six shops were running full time, one was running short time and 21 were working overtime. The rate of wages generally throughout the Dominion had greatly increased. These benefits were received not only by the industrial life of the country; our agricultural life received a great impetus as well. This report shows that there was an increased home market, an increase in the consuming power of the people, providing better home markets, and ability on the part of the farmers to obtain higher prices for vegetables, fruit, poultry, lamb, all kinds of meat, butter, cheese, oats and corn. In addition, the coal industry made a tremendous advance. A prominent Liberal manufacturer of Montreal named Green was asked this question: " If wages are higher how could the prices of commodities be lower? " Mr. Green's reply to Sir Leonard Tilley was, "Now we have doubled our production; we have orders ahead
and our expenses of mangement have not increased, so we can sell at lower prices than we could before." The national revenue was greatly benefited and a deficit of $200,000 was turned into a surplus of $4,000,000. I refer to these matters, Mr. Speaker, because a careful study of the results of the application of a protective tariff in order to safeguard the agricultural and industrial life of this country shows that the cost of living does not as a result go higher, but that wages increase and that the volume of business becomes much larger.
This phase of our national life, in connection with the prospective attitude of the United States, is of great importance to British Columbia, where we have a population of
625,000	people. From our ports we export one-ninth of Canada's total annual exports. In 1928 the value of our forest products was approximately $94,000,000; of our mineral wealth, $65,000,000; of our agricultural production, $58,00,000; of our fisheries, $26,000,000, while the value of our manufactured goods was $300,000,000. In other words, in British Columbia we have diversified employment. More ships entered the port of Vancouver in 1927 and 1928 than entered any other Canadian harbour, something over 22,000, and we have some sixty steamship lines plying from Vancouver. As I say, in British Columbia we have diversified employment and activity; we have lumbering, mining, farming, fishing, transportation and the production of hydroelectric power, and with us the question of tariff is a matter of life and death. Eighty-five per cent of our lumber and shingle exports find a market in the United States; that is one of our greatest industries, and you can see the probable consequences of what would ,be an almost complete elimination of that market if the tariff duties of the United States were increased. We would have to readjust ourselves and find new markets, and that would be a difficult thing to do. So, where British Columbia is concerned, they scrutinize carefully the conduct of this government, and I can assure hon. gentlemen opposite that unless a sure and careful course is pursued, British Columbia, together with the rest of Canada, will express it resentment at the next election and will return to power a government which will put into effect a policy which will safeguard and protect the industrial and agricultural life of this country.
In our province the Australian trade treaty is a matter of considerable importance, and I desire to say a few words in that connection because we believe that a great deal of benefit could be obtained from that treaty. In making
The Budget-Mr. Ladner

these observations, however, I wish to point out to the government that the trouble in which they now find themselves because of the harm done the agricultural industry of Canada, and particularly the dairy industry, is of their own making. They could have avoided that situation in the first place, and had they done so they would not find themselves in their present awkward position. When that treaty was originally negotiated it was worked out on what I might call a protective basis, to which the government of Australia were quite agreed. In order to give preference to Australia in the items contained in the treaty it was proposed to raise the general tariff with respect to other countries but to leave it as it stood with respect to Australia. In other words, the protective duty on butter and other agricultural products coming into this country from Australia would have remained as it was and Australia would have had the full benefit of the terms of the treaty; our industries would have been protected and we would have had no trouble. Instead of following that course, however, the Minister of Finance sent a representative to Australia, I suggest at the instance of the free trade members from the prairie provinces who raised some objection in the matter of raisins -and by the way, I believe that no quantity of raisins of any consequence has come to Canada under this treaty-and this representative brought 'back an alternative proposal from the government of Australia. Under that proposal the treaty was modified on a lower tariff or free trade basis. They allowed the existing duty under the general tariff to remain but in order to give Australia a preference, the duties on those items so far as Australia was concerned, were lowered. In that way they established preferences upon a free trade basis which caused unnecessary injury to the dairy business of this country. I must repeat the words of the Finance minister when he spoke the other day: "the policy of this administration is a low tariff policy."
I would like to refer to the matter of state health insurance. In my judgment the time will soon come, having regard to the surpluses we are enjoying and to the healthy condition of this country, when steps could very well be taken with regard to the question of medical assistance to the poorer people by means of some form of state health insurance. This system of aiding the masses of the people in medical and maternity benefits has been in operation in Great Britain and in other European countries since 1912, and has worked to the tremendous advantage of the masses of the people.

A matter of local importance to Vancouver is the question of an airport. Communications have been exchanged between the municipal authorities and the government of Canada, and some of us down here also have been in communication with the government. The government has announced its policy as that of being unwilling to assist in the establishment of airports, except to the extent of assisting the provision of beacon lights and making a fifty per cent contribution towards certain standard lighting equipment. I think the government should reconsider this matter. Canada has contributed vast sums of money toward the development of railway transportation systems. Aeroplanes and airships constitute a new system of transportation, and I think this is a matter of national policy which the government should consider. Aerial transportation is of great assistance to the Postmaster General in the transportation of mail, and it also is of no inconsiderable consequence in the matter of national defence.
A further matter of local importance is the harbour of the north arm of the Fraser river. That portion of the Fraser river is adjacent to the southern boundary of the city of Vancouver and constitutes the fresh-water harbour of the city. In the past, and particularly under Conservative governments, the importance of this arm for transportation and industrial purposes was realized, and approximately $900,000 was spent on the river. A jetty was built out to salt water, but at present that jetty is in a state of disrepair, and other works upon the river are urgently required. Our communications with the government in regard to this matter have not been entirely successful. There is a steady movement of industry from in and around the city of Vancouver to the north arm of the Fraser river, and these works are very necessary.
Another question of interest to the province of British Columbia is the matter of national highways. This matter was the subject of discussion in the house a few days ago, but the province of British Columbia stands in a special position in that respect. One of the terms under which we joined with the rest of Canada at the time of confederation was that in addition to a railway there would be constructed what was called in those days a wagon road through British Columbia to connect with the prairies. Certain concessions were made by our province in consideration of that arrangement. A dispute arose, and the government sent out a representative to make an investigation. The province offered, and the government of Canada accepted the

The Budget-Mr. Veniot
offer, to abide by the decision of the Earl of Carnarvon, who was to investigate the matters in dispute, the government of Canada agreed that his award, would be carried out. The Earl of Carnarvon investigated the whole matter and made an award to the effect that the government of Canada should construct that road. That however, has never been done, and I would urge upon the government that they discharge their solemn obligation in that respect. The highway to which I refer is absolutely justifiable and necessary so far as our province is concerned, and in my judgment a national highway is justifiable in the best interests of Canada as a whole.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I hope the government, in considering the problems which face this country, will forget the pledges of a political nature which have been made in the past, whenever such pledges are found to be unsound. The Prime Minister has told us that the platform of 1919 was merely a chart to guide him. That same reasoning should apply to-day when we are faced with possible action by the United States with respect to the tariff. I hope the government of this country, be it Liberal or Conservative, will have sufficient courage and determination and such pride in this country that they will give their best attention to the real interests of the people of Canada; that no matter what action the United States may take on this tariff question, their conduct shall be of such a dignified nature as to redound to the benefit of this country; that it will be characterized by good-will and tolerance, but also by a firmness of decision that the interests of Canada must come first.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on the budget I am not going to take up the time of the house in congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb); because congratulations have been so heartily extended to him by every member of the opposition who has spoken that it is not necessary for us on this side of the house to repeat them.
Before touching on the main points which I wish to discuss, and to which I have given some thought, I should like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), who has just taken his seat. In order to prove to the house that an increased tariff did not increase the price of goods at home, he went back as far as 1882 and quoted Sir Leonard Tilley, one of the ablest men the province of New Brunswick has ever produced. If the hon. member wished to be convinced he was in error in making the statement he did, he need not
have gone back to 1882; he had only to refer to the stand taken by the financial critic of the opposition, the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who in 1917 felt that he had proved absolutely to the house that an increased tariff did increase the cost of goods for home consumption. There is no need, I say, for my hon. friend to go back as far as 1882.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. gentleman
mean-


Peter John Veniot: Now, I did not interrupt
the hon. gentleman. I kept very quiet while he was speaking.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman has
made a mistake, that is all.


Peter John Veniot: I do not intend to allow
the hon. gentleman to throw me off my argument, or take up my time.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I rise to a question of
privilege. The minister is misquoting my statement. I said that the increase in duties did not increase the price of goods; I did not say consumption.


Peter John Veniot: That is what I said. If
I am not able to make myself sufficiently clear in English to the hon. gentleman, perhaps I can do so in French.
Let me refer to another point made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. When he discussed the Australian treaty, I rather thought he would have defended the Minister of Finance for his bringing about that treaty. The hon. gentleman says that now he feels he should condemn the Australian treaty because of the injury it has done to the dairy industry of Canada. The hon. gentleman had ample proof of what the Australian treaty could do and was doing when, during the by-election in Vancouver, he addressed a public meeting on November 28 last and took credit for almost compelling the Minister of Finance to bring that treaty in. This is how he tells the story; I am going to give it in his own way. He says:
I saw Mr. Robb later-
I am not going to read the whole of his speech.
-and he assured me he would reintroduce the treaty, which was done the next day.
Everybody knows how the Minister of Finance called the bluff of the opposition and withdrew his motion touching the treaty, but at the solicitation of the hon. member for Vancouver South, who had such influence with the Minister of Finance, he reintro-
The Budget-Mr. Veniot

duced the motion the next day in connection with the treaty. The hon. member takes credit for that. He goes on to say:
The records show that the first speakers to follow with support of the treaty were Doctor Manion and myself.
I noticed the other day that the hon. gentleman whom my hon. friend mentions as having followed him in influencing the Minister of Finance was one of those who applauded the loudest the financial critic of the opposition when in unmeasured terms he condemned the Australian treaty.


Mr. MANION:: My hon. friend is imagining things.


Peter John Veniot: I thought my hon. friend would rise at this. What is the spectacle we have in the house to-day? We have members of the Conservative party applauding their temporary leader when he condemns the Australian treaty, and others, when they go out into the country, claiming credit for having forced the government to put the treaty on the statute books. That is the situation. But we have a worse situation than that in the house. AVe have our friends discussing the tariff and pleading for higher duties, claiming that it is the only way to bring about prosperity in Canada, but perhaps, according to them, to continue the prosperity that we as Liberals have given to Canada under a low tariff. We have these hon. gentlemen on the one hand pleading for higher tariffs; but if you touch hard coal or bituminous coal for steel purposes in Ontario, if you add a duty to it, Ontario will go wild. On the other hand, we have our friends down in the maritime provinces, especially from Nova Scotia, asking for a duty on coal and more encouragement for the steel industry in the way of duty because, after all, the bonus amounts to that. We have the Conservative party representing Ontario at loggerheads with the Conservative party representing Nova Scotia.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friends say "No," because they are driven to the wall now. I am laying down the situation as it exists.


An hon. MEMBER:: The minister does not know the situation in Ontario.


Peter John Veniot: I know that the Steel Company of Canada and other steel works and industries in Ontario will not be satisfied until they have obtained a drawback on United States bituminous coal to help those industries. That is equal to free entry.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: They have it now.


Peter John Veniot: Exactly, they have it, but the very moment the government would attempt to impose a duty on coal, Ontario would go into revolt. It does not surprise me at all to find hon. gentlemen getting up from their seats when their political duplicity is exposed.
I want to refer to a few other statements of the financial critic of the opposition. The other day when he was delivering what I am satisfied to call a very good speech from the standpoint of the opposition, but one of the most inconsistent speeches that I have ever heard fall from the lips of any public man; when he was making his argument on the financial condition of Canada as reported in the budget speech, I happened to smile. I did not think it was any offence to smile while I occupied my seat in the house, but immediately the financial critic of the opposition threw across the floor of the house the question: "Why is the Postmaster General smiling? He has shown complete ignorance of the financial conditions of Canada." That was because I smiled. After this I suppose members on the government side of the house will have to go on their bended knees to ask hon. gentlemen opposite, especially those in the front seats, whether we may smile or laugh. I want to say to the hon. member for South Wellington that there was a reason for my smiling; it was because of the way he was handling the finances of the Dominion of Canada in direct opposition to the way in which he handled them and to the principles he applied in years gone by. Conditions have not changed from what they were in 1916 and 1917 when I, as a Liberal, was wont and proud to follow the arguments and to accept the principles of my hon. friend. If he was right then, he is wrong now, and if he is right now he was wrong then; and he led many Liberals in Ontario and other parts of the Dominion astray by the principles he laid down at that time. He is on the horns of a dilemma, and he cannot very well extract himself from either.
But there was another reason why I smiled at the expense of my hon. friend, and I am going to refer to it. For instance, dealing with the tariff, he laid down the principle that for the benefit of Canada we should have a high tariff, or a tariff higher than we have to-day; that that was the only salvation for Canada, the only solution of our present financial or economic ills. And my mind ran back to those days when I, with other Liberals, travelled many long miles to hear the eloquent voice of the member for South Wellington laying

The Budget-Mr. Veniot
down the principle that you must have free trade in Canada, especially in certain commodities.
Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote the hon. gentleman, and to ask if his stand then is consistent with his stand at the present time. In 1914 a debate took place in the house on the question of tariff. The Prime Minister of the Dominion at that time was pleading that if we admitted farm implements duty free into Canada, the great combines in the United States that were controlling the farm implements in that country would swamp Canada and put our manufacturers of farm implements out of business. On page 1567 of the Hansard of 1914, the hon. member for South Wellington said:
There is a free market in Great Britain, and the trusts and the combines, the tremendous organizations which manufacture agricultural implements in the United States, meet in the free market of Great Britain the manufacturers of Canada, and Canada holds her own.
Of course, Canada can hold its own. Canada has always held it own, especially under the tariff laid down by the present government. And then he goes on:
I desire in a few words to show that the removal, the entire abolition of the Canadian duties on agricultural implements, would not do an injustice to a single manufacturing establishment in Canada.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to have an explanation from the hon. gentleman. Perhaps he has had a change of heart. I should like to know why that change of heart came about in respect to those questions, his views on which I-older, I think, than he is in age, but perhaps not in politics-was so proud to follow when he laid down that principle in the statement I have just read.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Does the hon. member
desire the answer now?


Peter John Veniot: No, not just now. The
hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, had his opportunity, and he should have explained to this house his change of heart. But he thought the task was too heavy and he did not undertake it at that time, and I am not going to give him an opportunity now, in my time, to try to retrieve himself.
The acting leader of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, severely condemns this government because imports, he says, are too heavy, and of course he attributes this to want of a higher tariff in Canada. I wish to lay before the house a few figures to show that the principle laid down by the hon. gentleman was not a
correct one. Let us take, for instance, the United States, the highest protected country in the world'. I do not think I am making any mistake when I say that. We have it that under their high tariff the United States imported, in 1913, $1,756,900,000 worth of goods. In 1926-thirteen years afterwards- this had increased to $4,333,900,000. There is a country under the highest tariff in the world increasing its imports in thirteen years by three hundred per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about her exports?


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman will
just have patience I will come to that in a minute. Let us look at Canada, a moderately protected country, but a highly protected country in the first year that I will quote. In 1913 we imported $659,100,000 worth of goods, and, in 1926, $993,000,000, an increase of only thirty-one per cent, whereas in the United States, a highly protected country, they imported at a rate of increase of 300 per cent in thirteen years.
My hon, friend interjects a comment about exports. The United States exported in 1913 of domestic products-because that is the best way to deal with the exports of a country to show the effect of its tariff-goods to the value of $2,448,300,000. But in 1926 that had risen to $4,711,500,000, an increase of albout 100 per cent. What did Canada do, a moderately protected country? Canada in 1913 exported $436,000,000, and in 1926, $1,268,000,000, or an increase of 300 per cent as against an increase of 100 per cent in the highest protected country in the world. Those are figures that cannot be gainsaid, and they are, to my mind, sufficient proof to any person who wishes to be convinced that the argument now advanced by the hon. the financial critic of the opposition cannot hold water in comparison with his former views as I have quoted them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal for a moment or two with the speeches of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) during his tour in the maritime provinces. First I will take up his argument on the question of raw material. I find that the leader of the opposition very severely condemned this government because of the too large export of our raw material. If I mistake not, I think he laid down the principle that all raw material should be manufactured at home.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not, Mr. Speaker.
The Budget-Mr. Veniot


Peter John Veniot: He laid down the principle then, Mr. Speaker, that we are exporting too much raw material and that we should retain our raw material at home in order to give employment to our people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: I am accepting the hon. gentleman's word for what he did say, but the inference to be drawn from the newspaper reports is about what I say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That, I think, is out of order, Mr. Speaker.


Peter John Veniot: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman cannot accept the statement of an hon. member and then qualify it. He must accept it.


Peter John Veniot: I did not qualify it. I referred to the reports of the press. They may be all wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to argue the question, Mr. Speaker, but that is not what the hon. gentleman said.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman stated-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is this, Mr. Speaker: The minister accepted the statement and then qualified it by saying that he thought he was right, judging from the inference to ,be drawn from the newspaper reports. The hon. gentleman is bound by the statement.


Hewitt Bostock: That is the rule.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, if he accepted the statement unqualifiedly of the hon. gentleman. But that does not prevent my making this statement, that according to the newspaper reports the inference can be drawn as I stated. I am talking newspaper reports now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But, Mr. Speaker, that is what he cannot do.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman says that those reports are not correct, that ends it.
In 1927, Canada exported raw material to the value of $578,000,000. I am dealing with 1927, because that was the year that the hon. the leader of the opposition was dealing with when he was in the maritime provinces. Of this amount, $340,000,000 was wheat. Canada exported forty-six per cent of its raw material, including wheat. When I look at the statistics of the United States I find that, including wheat, it exported thirty-nine per cent of its raw material-that great protected country that was going to have all its raw material manufactured at home to give employment

to its people. If, Mr. Speaker, we leave wheat out of the Canadian exportation as well as out of the American, we shall find that the percentage of raw material exported by Canada is at least twenty below the percentage of the United States-that highly protected country which my hon. friend is always holding up to us for the soundness of its fiscal policy.
But let me go further. I am about to quote a newspaper report of a speech made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. If it is not accurate I will ask him to correct it, and I will accept his word unreservedly. He stated:
Mr. Hoover said last week that five hundred thousand families in the United States were working on products received from Canada. Would you not like to have some of those five hundred thousand families come to Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
minister has asked me to correct his quotation if it is not correct. It was contradicted at the time. If he will refer to the same newspaper he will find that I said Mr. Hoover was reported to have said certain things, and that I could not vouch for the accuracy of his statement.


Peter John Veniot: I can vouch for the accuracy of Mr. Hoover's statement, for I have got it before me. This is his statement:
More than two million families in the United States earn their living to-day producing goods for export, and another million families earn their living in the manufacture of raw materials which we import in exchange for our exports. This increase in exports has brought a living to five hundred thousand families.
There is an instance of the principle that even in a highly protected country you have to export some of your raw material in order to get back that which you require at home to manufacture into the finished article and send it out into the markets of the world. Mr. Hoover goes on:
This increase in exports has brought a living to five hundred thousand families.
Mr. Hoover was then referring to the trade of the United States with the whole world, and not to raw material imported from Canada.
Let me draw the attention of the hon. leader of the opposition to this fact. Of the 46 per cent of raw materials that Canada exports, 66.9 per cent goes to the United Kingdom and only 33 per cent to the United States. Do my hon. friends opposite lay down the principle that we are not to export our raw material to any great extent, that we must keep it at home and manufacture it to give employment to our people, and that

The Budget-Mr. Venial
we must cut out the whole or any part of that 66.9 per cent that goes to the United Kingdom to help out the British Empire? Will they lay down that principle? No, they dare not. In point of fact they dare not make any such clear-cut statement; but the arguments they use to condemn this government for the export of raw material can tend to no other direction.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me take up another argument used in the maritime provinces by the hon. leader of the opposition. He condemned this government, and quoted figures to show that we were importing far beyond what we should import from the United States. But in dealing with this phase of our trade relations with our neighbours to the south he was not fair to Canada. He knew that very large quantities of our goods imported through the United States are not credited to the country of origin, but because in the United States there are wholesale houses representing those other foreign countries most of the goods we receive in that way are credited as exported from the United States. In that way the figures are swollen and Canada is credited with receiving more from the United States than she actually does receive. Let me give an instance or two. Take cotton used in the manufacture of rubber goods-not one ounce of it is grown in the United States, but it is imported into Canada through the wholesale agencies located in the United States of the foreign countries producing that cotton, and of course the United States gets the credit for the exports. Then take raw rubber-not one ounce of that comes from the United States, yet if you examine minutely the trade statistics of the United States you will find that our rubber is credited as an export from that country. I could enumerate many other commodities. I might mention tea. We have in Boston to-day the largest wholesale teaimporting warehouse in the world, and most of the tea from foreign countries comes through that wholesale house, which by the way is owned by a Canadian. Yet the United States is credited as the exporter of that tea to Canada.


Robert James Manion: May I ask the hon. minister a question? What percentage of our imports from the United States is made up of imports from other countries that come through the United States?


Peter John Veniot: If I had thought my hon.
friend possessed so little knowledge of this subject,-


Robert James Manion: I am afraid it is my hon. friend who is ignorant.


Peter John Veniot: -I would have made inquiries and been prepared to enlighten him.


Robert James Manion: Not ten per cent.


Peter John Veniot: Then why did my hon.
friend ask me the question?


Robert James Manion: I wanted to see if the
hon. minister knew anything about what he is discussing.


Peter John Veniot: Does the hon. gentleman
know how much of the raw rubber that we import is credited as coming from the United
States?


Robert James Manion: No; but I know we get
$825,000,000 worth of goods from the United States, and a very small part of that is rubber.


Peter John Veniot: The value of that raw
material alone is somewhere in the vicinity of $28,000,000.


Robert James Manion: That is a very small part of $825,000,000.


Peter John Veniot: I know, but I could enumerate a lot of other articles that originate in countries outside the United States.


Robert James Manion: Co ahead.


Peter John Veniot: All the tea, all the molasses, all the sugar imported into Canada comes through the United States.


Robert James Manion: Give the figures.


Peter John Veniot: If my hon. friend will add together the value of all those commodities he will have quite a large amount.


Robert James Manion: About ten per cent.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman has
made his speech, and I may be permitted to go on with mine. Now I want to touch on the question of unemployment.


Peter McGibbon: Post office.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I can do that too
when the time comes, and I will give the hon. gentleman all he wants, as I did on a former occasion. In his tour of the maritime provinces the hon. leader of the opposition attempted to make a strong point of the fact that a number of Canadians crossed the border to seek work in the United States, and he stated that if we had a high tariff like that of our neighbours there would be very little unemployment in Canada. May I be permitted to point out that the percentage of unemployment in the United States to-day is far greater than in Canada. What do we find in the United States for 1927, the very year that my hon. friend was re-
The Budget-Mr. Veniot

ferring to? The New York State Department of Labour reported a decrease of 66,000 factory wage-earners in that state alone. The federal Department of Labour reported unemployment throughout the whole of the United States at five per cent less than in 1926. The percentage of employment in Canada-let my hon. friends follow this- in 1924 was 85-3 per cent; while in the United States it was 90-3; in 1925 our percentage was 86 as against 91-2 in the United States. But in 1926 our percentage jumped to 92 T, an increase of six points, while that of the United States remained almost stationary. In 1927 the percentage rose to 95 '6 per cent in Canada, a gain of fourteen points over the first year I have mentioned, while in the United States the percentage fell to 88-5, a decrease of 3-4 in that highly protected country. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) speaking in the town of St. Stephen, New Brunswick is reported to have said, on this question:
It was only this afternoon that I learned-
This was August 17, 1928.
-the cotton industry of Milltown was operating on part time, and I looked up the trade report to seek a reason, I found that the importation of raw cotton for the past year had decreased, while the importation of finished cotton had increased. That, to my mind, was one of the reasons why the cotton industry was only able to work part time.
I am glad he acknowledges that.
Employment was given to the people of the countries from which Canada was importing, and that is one of the reasons why Canadian young men and women were obliged to leave home and seek employment in foreign lands.
He condemns the foreign country because it is not sending raw material to us to give employment to our people, and he condemns us because we allow our raw material to go to other countries.
There were thousands of Canadians ready to return if they could get employment.
I do not believe that the leader of the opposition, when speaking in St. Stephen, realized the place he was in. St. Stephen is situated right across the border, a river separating it from Calais, in the state of Maine. There are two international bridges crossing that river. There is a cotton factory, there is a candy factory, and there is an axe factory at St. Stephen and Milltown,, and every morning in the vicinity of from 550 to 600 Americans- residents of that highly protected country- have to icome across the border to earn their living in the cotton factory and in the candy factory on the Canadian side. Is i't any wonder that, as I am informed, when the hon.

gentleman was making that highly protective speech at St. Stephen someone rose in the audience and asked him what he was going to do for the consumer and he was not able to give an answer.
I have only a few minutes left, but in those few minutes I wish to touch upon the question of immigration and emigration. I wish to quote again from the leader of the opposition-and I am quoting him frequently *to-day because I followed him with deep interest while he was making that tour in the maritime provinces. He spoke at several *places there, and when he came back to Ontario he addressed a meeting at Oshawa on July 23, when, according to the newspapers, be made this statement:
Since 1922, 573,000 people have been brought to Canada from all over the world. In the same period 591,000 have gone to the United States. In other words, since the Liberals achieved power 18,000 more people have left Canada to go to the United States than have come into it from all the world. Why? Because there is no work for the Canadians.
What are the facts? Why did not my hon. friend show both sides of the medal and tell the people whom he was addressing on that occasion that while it is true that a number of Canadians did leave the country it is also true that some 474,000 of them came back into Canada and are to-day residing in this country? Why did he not at the same time say to the people at Oshawa that while a number of persons left Canada to go to the United States there were somewhere in the vicinity of 147,000 people, residents and natives of the United States, who came across into Canada and are to-day permanent residents of this country? Why did he not treat the question as it should have been treated? As I say, why were not both sides of the medial shown? What is the record? We find that since the termination of the war 270,066 settlers left the United States-American subjects, American born-and came across into Canada to settle, being to-day permanent citizens of this country. Are we to infer that they had to leave the United States, that highly protected country, and cross the border in order to earn the living which they could not earn under high protection? And in the last fifteen years what do we find? We find that 524,772 Americans have left their native land and are to-day loyal and true citizens of the Dominion of Canada, earning here in a moderately protected country the living which they could not earn at home under a highly protective tariff. This is where my hon. friend was unfair. These facts should be known to him, if they are not. And the

The Budget-Mr. Barber
facts being known to him, he should have been sincere enough, or at least should have wished to be fair enough, to show both sides of the medal to the people he was addressing at Oshawa, allowing them to judge of the issue.


An hon. MEMBER:: No wonder he nearly upset the Rhodes government.


Peter John Veniot: I will not refer to that,
although the leader of the opposition did visit Nova Scotia a few weeks before the political landslide in that province. And from what I can hear there, a great many even of the Conservatives say that it would have been better for the Rhodes government if the leader of the Conservative opposition in Canada had not shown his face there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time, time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Peter John Veniot: Let me in conclusion quote from the Financial Post-and surely no one will tell us that this is a Liberal organ-regarding the question of immigration.
The fact that the two nations he alongside of each other is bound to remain a constant stimulus to the movement of people back and forth.
Everyone knows that; even the leader of the opposition knows it. The Financial Post did not need to tell us; we all know it. Yet my hon. friend pleads ignorance of that fact when he argues the other way. The article goes on:
After all what counts is the balance of immigration between Canada and United States. During June 4,346 Canadians left Canada to cross the border. At the same time 3,526 Canadians who had gone to United States to take up residence there returned to Canada. But there were in the neighbourhood of 3,000 Americans who came to Canada in June. The net advantage was distinctly in favour of Canada. Distinctly good business in Canada and a high level of employment are bringing Americans and ex-Canadians to Canada.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: I
will not undertake to reply to the remarks of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) in his tirade against my leader (Mr. Bennett), because I feel sure that when the leader of the Conservative party comes to speak he will be quite capable of dealing with such criticism.
This is one opportunity which the back bencher has to make himself known in this house, and it is fortunate that, under the rules, two debates are provided-one, the debate on the address and the other the budget-in which hon. members are not confined to any particular ground. I wish first of all to congratulate the hon. member for South
Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) upon his very able speech of Thursday last, in which he placed before the people of Canada the true condition of affairs as brought about by the policy of the present administration. Even our friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) admitted that the hon. member correctly diagnosed the troubles of Canada, although he did not agree that the remedy suggested by the acting leader of the apposition was a suitable one. In the matter of providing a remedy I think the physician in charge of the patient should be capable of prescribing an effective remedy, and in this instance those who have made a study of the branches of agriculture to which the hon. member referred surely should be in a better position to treat the case or to operate than the surgeon from Lisgar, who I think would take great pleasure in performing the major operation of severing the industry just above the shoulders.
Coming as I do from British Columbia and representing one of the richest districts in Canada I feel it my duty to make a few observations on this budget. I have said that mine is one of the richest districts in Canada; by that I do not mean that we have millionaires there or people with very large bank accounts but that the resources and the amount of money invested by the pioneers are very great. In order to convey some idea of the diversified industries and the richness of that district I would direct attention to the fact that not only are we rich so far as agriculture is concerned but that the amount of money invested in industry in the Fraser valley is about $55,000,000. We have great timber wealth, and although lumber has been manufactured in that district for over forty years we still have one of the richest stands of timber in the country. Over six billion feet of the very finest fir and cedar to be found anywhere on the continent are located in that district. We have some of the largest logging concerns in Canada operating in that valley and we have also the largest lumber mill in Canada. In addition to that, at the eastern end of the valley we have extensive mineral properties which are being rapidly developed.
The Fraser valley is perhaps more famous throughout Canada for its agriculture, for its dairy and poultry industries and for the production of fruits and vegetables; thousands of acres are devoted to the growing of small fruits such as strawberries, raspberries and loganberries, and such tree fruits as cherries, pears, apples, plums and prunes. Some of the largest commercial poultry plants are located in that district, running from 750 to
The Budget-Mr. Barber

5,000	birds per plant; and speaking of records, I would like to inform the house that the Fraser valley was the district in which hen No. 6 made her great record of production. The Fraser valley is famous also for its purebred dairy herds and a number of world records have been made by the cattle of that district. A newspaper man, in an article concerning the district, described it as a valley flowing with milk and honey; I believe this is literally true, because last year a river of over 9,000,000 gallons of milk flowed towards Vancouver, together with a smaller river of about 180 tons of honey. This is not all; we boast of the greatest rose gardens in Canada, covering an area of forty acres, and we have the largest hop garden in the world, consisting of over 000 acres. With reference to the growing of hops I might say that the entire commercial production of Canada is confined to the Fraser valley, where some 1,200 acres are devoted to this crop, the annual value of which approximates three-quarters of a million dollars. This is a very valuable industry which should receive encouragement, and I point out to the government that the condition of this industry at present certainly requires the very best consideration of the Minister of Finance and those associated with him.
This little picture I have drawn of conditions in the Fraser valley would lead one to believe that we are enjoying that prosperity mentioned by the Minister of Finance. I am prepared to admit that the farmers of that district are in a better condition than those of any other district I have visited throughout Canada, but at the same time I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to go into that district and try to convince the farmers and producers that they are enjoying this bountiful prosperity. I do not say that they would treat him roughly, but certainly they would direct him to an institution at Essondale maintained by the provincial government for those not quite mentally sound. Representing this great district and knowing the problems facing the producers there, I heartily endorse the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Wellington. I agree with him that the financial statement is clear and concise; it shows that the financial affairs of Canada are in a very satisfactory condition. It further indicates to me, and I think to the people of Canada, that we are enjoying sufficient prosperity at least to pay our taxes. And now that I have come to the subject of taxes I might say that I believe the country has been rather misled in this respect. If you notice the Liberal press of the day

following the presentation of the budget you no doubt observed headings which said "Robb Reduces Taxation;" "Taxes Reduced" and so on, and even the Minister of Agriculture said the other night that we should keep the Minister of Finance in office so long as he continued to reduce taxes. But, according to the minister's own statement, we find that he has been very careful not to announce a reduction in taxation. He announces a reduction in rates, but as someone has pointed out, it is not the rate but the burden of taxation that counts, and the burden of taxation imposed upon the Canadian people is increasing each year.
Let us examine the statement presented by the minister. Last year we collected from customs taxes about $185,000,000, an increase of some $28,000,000 over the previous year; in excise duties we collected approximately $63,000,000, an increase of $6,000,000 over the previous year; in income tax, we collected $58,000,000, in round figures, an increase of about $1,900,000. The increases from these sources totalled about $35,900,000, and then there were certain decreases. From the stamp and sales taxes we collected roughly $81,500,000, a decrease of about $8,700,000. We collected $450,000 in business profits tax, a decrease of $500,000, leaving a net increase in taxes collected from the people of Canada amounting to $26,700,000.
Another reduction has been made in the sales tax this year, but I think the people of Canada regret that this tax has not been entirely wiped out. Any business man who will sit down and figure out the result of this one per cent reduction can only say that the benefit will scarcely reach the great consumers of this country. The revenues from taxes have been very large during the past year, and I think the Minister of Finance could have wiped out the sales tax entirely.
During the course of this debate we have heard the argument from our free trade friends that a low tariff means lower taxes and a high tariff means higher taxes-an argument which cannot be backed up by the statement of the Minister of Finance. It has been proven that as we lower the tariff the volume increases, and it has been shown that during the past few years, in spite of a lowered tariff, the volume has increased to such an extent that the taxes from that source have increased. The budget announcements were received no doubt by some with a sigh of relief that the minister had ceased to tinker to any great extent with the tariff; by others it was received with disappointment, and a feeling of regret that he had not the courage to step out

The Budget-Mr. Barber
and give relief by way of protection designed to be helpful to the wage-earners and their employers which would stem the tide of imports from the United States. The minister made a very unnecessary announcement, something of which the country is quite aware, to the effect that his party stands for a low tariff. If the minister and the government continue to pursue the policy they have followed for the last few years they will soon be able to announce that grand old Liberal policy:
" tariff for revenue only." Their policy at the present time is to make their imposts revenue-yielding rather than helpful in the building up of Canadian industry.
The trade returns for 1927 show that we imported from the United States goods to the value of $707,000,000, in round figures, while the exports were valued at $474,000,000, leaving an unfavourable trade balance of $233,000,000. For the same period in 1928 our imports are valued at $825,000,000, our exports at $492,000,000, leaving an unfavourable trade balance of $333,000,000. The increase in unfavourable trade balance from 1927 to 1928 amounts to $100,000,000. The policy followed by this government is forcing us to become more dependent on foreign countries. When that point is reached with regard to any particular product we all know what happens. The people of Ontario know that only a few years ago they were forced to depend on the United States for their peaches, when there was a shortage in Ontario. They were forced to pay the highest price they had had to pay for years. The Americans dictated the terms.
The policy of this government has created what we might well term distress in certain branches of the agricultural industry. I refer particularly to the dairy, poultry, and fruit and vegetable industries. Dairying is one of Canada's major industries, amounting to $250,000,000, or equal to our great mining industry. The combined dairy and poultry industries represent a business of four or five hundred million dollars per year, or equal to the great wheat production of this country. A few years ago we boasted of the great future of our dairy industry, and the Department of Agriculture undertook to institute some sort of campaign to encourage winter dairying. The farmers took that up and spent large sums of money in fitting up their buildings and improving their herds, so that the supply of butter might be distributed more equally throughout the whole year. Just about the time they were in a position to place Canadian butter on the winter market, the Minister of Finance with 78594-59
one Stroke of his pen permitted butter to enter this country at one cent a pound duty. Butter fresh off the grass of New Zealand began to come into this country and compete with the product of the Canadian farmer. Thousands of pounds came in, and this increased to millions of pounds until to-day we find that over 21,000,000 pounds of foreign butter came into the Canadian market during the twelve months ending with January of this year. What does this 21,000,000 pounds represent? It represents the production of
100,000	dairy cows, and it means that the worth of those cows has been transferred to New Zealand. We find that the herds of New Zealand have increased by 50,000 cows, while our herds have been decreased to a much larger extent. I do not see how the government can pursue such a policy as this in regard to one of our staple industries.
There is another industry which is a very important one in British Columbia, and it has become a very large industry throughout Canada, namely, the poultry industry. The poultry men of this country are protected only to the extent of three cents, while the American poultry men enjoy a protection of eight cents. The import of eggs for the twelve months ending January of this year amounted to 979,433 dozen in shell, valued at $415,457. I assume this refers to case eggs from the United States. The import of frozen or canned eggs, mainly from China, n.o.p., amounted to 2,921,533 pounds valued at $658,490. The classification n.o.p. might mean "not awfully powerful," but I understand the real meaning is "not otherwise provided." The total value of the imports of eggs amounted to $1,073,947. It may be said that we have been exporting eggs to other countries, but I think the returns will show that the only exporting which did take place was to the United Kingdom, and the value of those exports was $306,708. The Vancouver firms undertook to place the British Columbia egg on the market of Great Britain. They sent shipments through to the old country and they lost on some of them. They went to the department in Victoria, to the provincial Minister of Agriculture, and they said: "We are undertaking to establish a trade in Great Britain; will you guarantee us against loss?" The department could not do that, and the result is that those exports that have been taking place during the past year have been more or less experimental. On the other hand, more than a million dollars' worth of an inferior quality of eggs came into this country last year to compete with the good Canadian egg. Eggs in my district dur-

The Budget-Mr. Barber

ing January were selling at twenty-two and twenty-five cents a dozen Many of the small producers had to go out of business; they could not afford to buy grain. And when I say they could not afford to buy grain, that brings up another question. I should like to point out to the government and our friends from the prairies that we are to-day paying more for grain in the Fraser valley than they are paying for the same grain in China or Japan. This is due simply to the domestic rate on grain, which is just double the export rate to Vancouver. While they pay twenty-one cents on export grain, we to-day are paying forty-two cents to Vancouver and then we pay the freight from there.
Last year British Columbia shipped two cars of eggs to the eastern market, and we have demonstrated that we can put on that market the very best quality of eggs in the best condition, far superior to any that may be imported, but we are barred from the eastern market by the policy of lion, gentlemen opposite who permit the free importation of United States case eggs and Chinese eggs leaving little or no opportunity whatever for our people to place British Columbia eggs on that market.
I come now to the fruit and vegetable industry. If we take into consideration the greatly increased consumption of these products, we wonder why our industry has not developed to a greater extent. The reason is quite plain. The policy of hon. gentlemen opposite has encouraged the replacing of our good Canadian product by that of a foreign country. We in British Columbia remember what happened last year when protests came from almost every fruit and vegetable association from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and when they prayed that the government give them some protection, at least during the season that our fruits and vegetables are ready for the market. A large deputation waited on the government and presented their case, but still nothing was done. The result was that last year was a disastrous one for the small fruit growers of British Columbia, and they were forced to sell at ridiculously low prices. The same conditions prevailed in other branches of the industry.
Hon. members may be surprised to learn that according to the returns we imported from the United States, last year $38,000,000 worth of fresh fruits and vegetables, and I challenge anyone to check over those returns and dispute the fact that at least $10,000,000 worth could and should have been grown in Canada. The government has not even the 
courage to step out and give these producers what they ask, namely, protection during the season that our fruit is read}' for the market. They have promised us relief in the budget; they say: We will not raise the tariff on any product, but we are going to do something to help lessen the cost of production. Therefore, under schedule A, item No. 448, they have lowered the duty on spraying machines, fruit or vegetable grading machines, and pruning shears. There is one article in particular to which I wish -to refer, and that is a special machine designed for sterilizing bulbs. This surely is not for the producers of bulbs in Canada, because on Vancouver island and on the mainland of British Columbia we grow just as fine bulbs as are grown in Holland. But we are up against this foreign competition, and now to save the importer of foreign bulbs from loss the government are going to put in a machine to sterilize those bulbs so that they will not be destroyed at the port of entry.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: That machine is to sterilize the car of the Minister of Agriculture.


Harry James Barber: the problem of highway building. This is a matter that has been left entirely to the provinces, and, coming from the great province of British Columbia, I regret that the federal government have not seen fit to grant relief in connection with some of that work. We have been constructing a great highway through the Rocky mountains, known as the Caribou road. We have spent some two million dollars on it, and it will take another two million dollars to complete it. We are not building it for the benefit of the people of British Columbia alone. We are building it for the benefit of the people of Canada, and 1 believe, sir, that provincial highways through all the provinces should be considered as Canadian highways. I hope that by next session the government will have had some light on this great question, and that they will take a leaf out of the book of our neighbour to the south and bring down a vote in support of highway building. The federal government of the United States have been contributing large sums of money to highways, because they believe that a good highway is one of the best assets any country can have. You can take the highway at Vancouver, British Columbia, and travel *clear through to Mexico, a paved road all the *way, and you can take the highway here and travel right through to Florida. It has been pointed out that it would be a good business investment.
There are two industries closely allied with good roads, that is, the automobile industry and the tourist industry. Good roads and better roads mean more cars and more cars. It means an increase in our automobile industry, and, under the policy of the government, there will be a greater revenue in customs tax because there will be all the more automobiles imported. From the standpoint of the tourist traffic, when we take into consideration the fact that there is one car for every five people in the United States, and that there are sixteen million families in the United States who own their own cars, longing to get out into a new country, it is not hard to realize the benefits that would accrue. Here we have the pulling power. Canada's scenery pulls them this year and next year that attraction will be even more powerful. We have the playgrounds of the maritimes and the beautiful and historic spots of the old provinces of Quebec and Ontario, the grain fields of the prairies and the Switzerland of the Pacific coast?


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


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, We must naturally infer from the budget which the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) delivered on the first day of the present month that the affairs of the Dominion are in a flourishing state. Thanks to the prosperous condition of our finances, the Canadian taxpayer will further benefit this year by a reduction in taxation amounting fo more than $25,000,000. The customs returns amount to $185,000,000, an increase of $28,000,000 over the fiscal year of 1927, apart from the increase of excise taxes and the revenue from the income tax, notwithstanding the 10 per cent reduction of last session.
During the last six years, the present government has decreased our national debt by more than $226,000,000. Our favourable trade balance amounts to nearly $155,000,000. This is why, I think, the Canadian people are bound to be proud of the administration. Notwithstanding an increase of $6,000,000 in the country's general expenditure, our government is in a position to apprise the people of Canada of a surplus of $97,000,000. Let me remind this honourable house that agriculture alone will be granted this year $1,189,055 more than it received last year. That, sir, is an act of justice on the part of the government in favour of our largest industry.
The farmer employs on the land 45 per cent of the Canadian labourers; almost half of the hand labour employed in industries. Have we ever seriously considered the consequences which might overtake our economic situation were agriculture to take one step backward or suffer a temporary check? Have we foreseen the disastrous consequences which would follow the desertion of the soil, the contempt for the farm and the disavowal of the patriotic virtues inherent in the calling and the person of our sturdy farmer? Will the happy folks of our countryside to-morrow, inherit the ideal good humour, energy and admirable perseverance of their predecessors?-the strength and prosperity of Canada in the past, and her glory to-day. Yes, so long as those at the helm of public affairs always bear in mind the true, constant and urgent needs of the producer and the consumer, and the welfare of all the citizens of Canada.
In the present debate, the hon. members for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and Fort William (Mr. Manion) have each in turn uttered their usual lamentations and exaggerated complaints. Indeed, the views of the most enlightened industrial and financial men,

The Budget-Mr. Lacombe
the statistics furnished by those who carry weight in the business world, suffice entirely to explode the bold statements of those honourable members. In fact, according to the annual statement of the Royal Bank of Canada, the contracts granted in connection with construction in this country during the first months of 1928 amount to $453,000,000, compared with $247,000,000 for the same period of the year 1924. The outlay for the building of bridges, wharfs, highways and streets increased from $5,000,000 to $100,000,000, during the last four years. This year the Canadian Pacific Railway Company intends to apply to its system of transportation by wateT and land the sum of $50,000,000. and the Canadian National Railways 'will expend $30,000,000.
With these facts before us and the statement of the hon. Minister of Finance, how will the hon. members of the opposition substantiate their charges? How will they contend, without exposing themselves to ridicule that bankruptcy is at our door when the financial situation of Canada reveals an era of prosperity which on the whole is reflected in every field of activity? Is the hon. member for Fort William justified in stating "Let us have a more virile Canadian policy than that advocated by the government"?-when the present virile and courageous administration generously devotes itself to the interests of the nation. Will my hon. friend still persist in his charges notwithstanding the progress accomplished during the last few years? The marvellous strides of our country loudly proclaim the truly national policy of the government.
I shall not tarry over the compliments paid by the hon. member for South Wellington to his ex-leader, Mr. Meighen. I may, however, point out that the hon. member might have raised to his venerated leader a monument more flattering to both of them, than the unbusinesslike piece of legislation to which he referred, and which already has been judged and condemned by the people of this country.
Now,, sir, in closing my remarks I cannot remain silent on the amendment of the hon. member for South Wellington. The object of the amendment was conceived in darkness and brought to light under the mantle of adequate protection.
I shall have the opportunity in the course of the present session to discuss our tariff policy. However, I have no fear in stating right now that the high protection which the hon. members of the opposition have been
using as a talisman for a number of years is not suited as a whole to the interests of this country where the various types of farming and industrial aims are so different. I agree that for certain natural products of a national character we should carry out an experiment of a seasonal tariff during the months of June, July, August and September. I have already advised such a step, and I do now advocate and shall not cease advocating the trial of such a tariff by the government. Our fruit and vegetables, in the interest of the producer, must have free access to our home markets. The consumer, during this period of overproduction, cannot indeed find fault with the high prices since he can find on his own markets fresh vegetables in plenty. Moreover, has the consumer ever taken into consideration that he must often make good to the middleman the transportation charges on foreign products, amounting to from $60 to $80 per car?
Thanks to laudable rivalry among our truck-gardeners and to intensive gardening, the consumer will benefit greatly by the aid given to the farming class. The surplus of hand labour will find work in the neighbouring rural districts of large cities and thereby help production. The grading of garden products, and the ever increasing improvement in the methods of gardening are great assets both to the consumer and producer. Farming needs markets. The government has created them and is ever ready to grant this great basic industry generous assistance. All earthly things are subject to improvement. However, if we consider for a moment the evil regime of the Tory party and peer into the present glorious prosperity, we have no hesitation in giving our verdict.
If, for a moment, we glance at the dairy industry's situation, we see that it is developing splendidly under the benevolent protection of the leaders of the nation. So much so that Mr. Frank Herns, secretary of the Western Ontario Dairyman's Association, recently declared that it never had been so prosperous. If we glance at the marvellous expansion of industry and trade, the increase of more than 3,000,000 acres of our land under cultivation during the year 1928 alone, is it possible to accept as reasonable the exaggerated criticism of the opposition? No, sir! On the contrary, I believe that all well-thinking citizens of Canada will without hesitation cast aside the selfish charges of our hon. friends of the opposition. I am confident that the present government will endeavour to carry on the
The Budget-Mr. Bothwell

administration of the country in the interest of all classes, instead of sacrificing one class to another, always bearing in mind that every individual, in whatever trade or occupation he may be engaged, is entitled to justice and generous assistance.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: The budget each year seems to bring many varied opinions from the different corners of the house. After the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) brought down his budget I was interested in noticing the press reports as to the opinion throughout the country regarding it, and it seemed to me that the budget was well received in all quarters of Canada I was somewhat surprised when last week the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) m his address in this house criticized that budget. He congratulated the Minister of Finance on the manner in which the budget had been presented, and also on the reduction which was being made in the debt of Canada; but he took occasion to criticize 'him with respect to many particulars in connection with it. I was rather interested in the quotations given by the hon. member for South Wellington from the public accounts. Reading from page 45 he stated that the Liberal government should take no credit for having surpluses because the party which he represents also, *while in power, had surpluses; and he quoted from the public accounts to show that while there was a surplus from year to year during several years of Liberal regime, there were also surpluses during several years of Conservative rule. If the hon. gentleman had turned to the very next page he would have been able to give the country information as to what such surpluses really amounted to. He did not tell us, for instance, when quoting the figures for the years 1917 to 1922, showing an increase from $41,000,000 to $S2,000,000, that these surpluses were gained at the expense of an increasing public debt in Canada from $81,000,000 to $674,000,000 per annum. The increases in the debt, taken from page 46 of the public accounts, for the years quoted by the hon. gentleman, from 1918 to 1922, are as follows:
1918	
$312,697,764	701919	
382,646,969	941920	
674,337,591	351921	
92.010,359	901922	
81,256,818	04
The hon. member might also have directed the attention of the house to the fact that since confederation there have been only thirteen years in which there have been no surpluses, and ten of those thirteen years 
were during the regime of the party for which he was speaking the other day. On the other hand, during the Liberal administration-quoting for the same years, from page 46 of the public accounts-we find that the Liberal government not only had surpluses but also reduced the public debt of Canada. In 1923 there was an increase of $31,641,067.01, and from that time there have been continual decreases in the debt. It might be interesting to put these figures on Hansard in order to compare them with those set out by the hon. member for South Wellington. The decreases in the debt have been:
1924	
$35,993,593	861925	
345,589	291926	
27.706,586	171927	
41,896,729	331928	
50,984.137	17
And according to the Minister of Finance the amount for the year ending March 31, 1929, will be $69,782,000. Since confederation there have been fourteen years in which there have been reductions in the debt of Canada, and of these fourteen years ten of them have been during Liberal administrations.


Mr. GEARY:: To complete the record, would the hon. gentleman explain how the public debt was added to during the years from 1917 to 1922, by expenses in connection with the war and railway administration?


Charles Edward Bothwell: The public knows that. During the years from 1914 to 1918, and possibly in the years following, we have had the expenses of war and the aftermath of war.


George Reginald Geary: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but this is a little circumstance which is generally omitted in statements made by hon. members opposite.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Listening to the debate I gather that the main criticisms are two: first, that there should be further reductions in taxation, and secondly that there should be a greater measure of protection of industry. With regard to the first-reductions in taxation-this has been dealt with by speakers who have preceded me, and it has also been discussed at some length by the Minister of Finance himself in his address to the house. Since this administration came into office there have been reductions in taxation in various forms; we have had reductions in the income tax, in the sales tax, in -the tariff, which is indirect taxation, in stamp taxes, postal taxes and so forth. It is not necessary to give the details of the reductions. It may be a fact that more money is being collected

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
from the people of Canada now than was the case during the former administration, but to me that only reflects the increased prosperity of the country. The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) explained something of the difference between the burden of taxation and the rate of taxation; if the country is in a more prosperous condition it will contribute more money to the government by way of revenue which might be taken as taxation, but such taxation will not affect the people so much as otherwise would be the case.
I am going to leave that phase of the situation there and consider for a few moments the arguments for increased protection. I am reminded of the session of 1926, when quite a number of new members entered this house; during that session we listened for days at a time to different debates and we heard the calamity talk from hon. gentlemen opposite. We newer members almost feared that we were going to bring about the ruination of Canada; we were almost smothered with statistics quoted by hon. members opposite and it looked as though we were facing absolute ruin. Since that time we have learned not to take too seriously remarks made by hon. gentlemen opposite; after three or four years we find that instead of facing ruin Canada is now in a better and more prosperous condition than ever has been the case. It might be interesting to some hon. members to note a page of the Financial Post, which is not particularly friendly to this government. I refer to the issue of March 8, page 7, which deals with Canadian business conditions and where the following headings will be noticed:
Building Values Setting Records in Current Year.
Dollar Business Sets Up New Mark.
Iron and Steel Producers Active.
Labour Situation Best in Decade, Report Reveals.
January Trade Returns Above Those Last Year.
January Imports of Rubber Reflect Increased Activity.
Then in the summary, under the heading "Business Still Moves Forward" we find the following:
Commodity prices:
Steady at present; may be lower.
Iron and steel:
January output largest for some years. Looks like good year for industry. Building:
First two months' total 50 per cent higher than same period year ago.
Foreign trade:
Good. January returns well above those of last year.
Employment:
Best on record at beginning of last month. Outlook exceedingly good.
Car loadings:
Larger for iveek of February 23 than in same week of 1928.
Stock market:
Displays good degree of strength. Company reports of favourable nature.
Credit:	_
Abundant for business. Banks withhold credit for stock speculation.
Agriculture:
Farmers in good financial position. Cheese
exports in good volume. Live stock sales satisfactory.
Trend:	.
The new budget is uninspiring. Farming, mining and fishing industries benefit by tariff changes. Public debt is lowered. Dollar volume of business again increases. Wholesale and retail trade satisfactory in volume.
That does not look very much like what was forecast during 1926 and 1927; instead of the blue ruin we thought we might be facing from what hon. gentlemen opposite said, to-day under this government we have the conditions I have placed before you.
Many references have been made to the possible increase of the United States tariff; we hope that these increases will not materialize and we do not believe they will to any great extent. We realize that the United States is a country with which we want to trade; it is the natural market for the goods we have to export and we would like to have access to that market as easily and for as long as possible. However, in the event of the forecasts made by some American newspapers coming true and the tariff being increased, what possible benefit would it be to the people of Canada to increase our tariff by way of retaliation? This matter was dealt with yesterday by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), and he gave several illustrations. If we are shut out of the United States market we will not help ourselves by increasing our tariff and paying more for the things we bring into Canada; we will have to look for other markets. This government have been endeavouring continually to enlarge our markets and have our goods exported to countries other than the United States, and we must continue that policy. I say it would do us no possible good to increase our tariffs against the United States.
Over 50 per cent of our total exports are made up of agricultural and animal products; according to the trade summary for the twelve months ending with January, 1929, I find that the total export trade of Canada for that period amounted to $1,362,128,965. Of that
The Budget-Mr. Bothwell

amount agricultural and vegetable product-s totalled $655,028,655 and animal products $162,369,317, so the total of these classes of exports is more than 50 per cent of all our exports, and of the agricultural products exported grain makes up a big proportion.


James Dew Chaplin: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he consider fish as being part of the animal products he mentions?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Ordinarily fish would
not be so considered, but even if I take the figures given by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) when he analysed the budget, still I find that agricultural and animal products make up over 50 per cent of our total exports.


James Dew Chaplin: Would the hon. member consider furs as an animal product?


Charles Edward Bothwell: No, but I do class
wheat, oats, cattle, beef, hogs and products of that sort as vegetable and animal products. We can exclude furs, fish and the other items mentioned by the acting leader of the opposition.


Mr. BRADY:: What part of that fifty per cent referred to would come from wheat alone?


Charles Edward Bothwell: I have not those figures.


James Charles Brady: I would like to know that.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I expect to continue
my speech to-morrow and I will try to have that information for the hon. member.
An increased tariff on vegetable and animal products would not benefit the producer at all. We will not gain anything by putting up a tariff wall against the United States. Our wheat has to meet the competition of the world; our animal products practically have to meet the competition of the world, and what possible benefit are we going to derive from any increase in the tariff?


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 14, 1929