1929-04-04

DEATH OF MARSHAL FOCH


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message:
Legation of the French Republic in Canada.
Ottawa, March 23, 1929. Dear Mr. Speaker,-
On my return to Ottawa, I was deeply moved to learn of the manifestations of condolence by the House of Commons to the memory of Marshal Foch.
Appreciating highly the words of admiration and gratitude uttered with respect to the great leader of our armies during the war, I wish to express to you and beg you to so express to the House of Commons the deep feelings of gratitude on behalf of my government.
Kindly accept, dear Mr. Speaker, the assurances of my highest esteem.
J. Knight.
Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux,
Speaker,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 84, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Totzke.
Bill No. 85, to incorporate The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.- Mr. Young (Saskatoon).

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING *(Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay in the table a copy of the convention between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the *sockeye salmon fishery in the Fraser river system, signed at Washington, March 27, 1929. I beg to move:
That 750 copies in English and 300 copies in French of the convention for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fishery in the Fraser river system signed at Washington, March 27, 1929, tabled this day, be printed forthwith; and that standing order *64 be suspended in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. KAISER:: 1.	How many automobiles were purchased or obtained by the several ministers of the government for their own use during the years 1927 and 1928, respectively?
2.	What is the name and respective price of each of the said cars?
3.	What are the names of the agent or dealer through which the said cars were purchased?


Mr. RINFRET:: The government has no knowledge of any automobiles being purchased or obtained by the several ministers for their own use, but the following automobiles have been purchased by various departments for official use:
1.	1927, 5; 1928, 3, total 8.
2.	Pierce Arrow at $8,400 (less allowance of $3,000 for did oar), Royal Auto Sales. Sbutz at $6,250 (less $2,100 for old car), Royal Auto Sales. Willys-Knight at $4,500, The Carleton Motor Sales, Ltd. Cadillac sedan at $4,975, Emerson Motors Limited. Pierce Arrow limousine at $3,840 (plus old car), Royal Auto Sales. McLaughlin-Buick at $3,200 (less $750 for old car), The Pink and Blackburn Company, Ltd. Pierce Arrow limousine at $5,400 (less $2,200 for old car), Royal Auto Sales. Cadillac sedan at $5,200, Dundas Motor Sales Limited, Toronto, Ont.


PENITENTIARY INMATES UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	How many prisoners, male and female respectively, under eighteen years of age are confined at the present time in the penitentiaries of Canada?
2.	What are the nationalities of these by numbers and not by name of inmate?
3.	How many were sentenced by, (a) magistrates; (b) judges?
4.	How many non-citizens of Canada are confined in penitentiaries of Canada?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Males, 46; females, none.
2.	Canadian, 37; American, 4; Italian, 1; Newfoundlanders, 1; Scottish, 1; Norwegian, 2.
3.	24 by Magistrates; 22 by Judges.
4.	611.

Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FREE PASSES TO CLERGY'MEN
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	How many clergymen ride on free passes on tile Canadian National Railways?
2.	To what churches or denominations do they belong?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Sixty-five.
2.	Thirty-four of these sixty-five clergymen are of Protestant faith, and thirty-one of Roman Catholic.


GOVERNMENT VESSELS-VISITORS
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Are officials or officers in charge of vessels owned or operated by the Department of Public Works or any other department of the government service, allowed to invite visitors or friends to take trips on such vessels?
2.	If so, who may be invited and what is the charge per diem?
3.	If allowed, does the government or any department of the government assume any responsibility in case of accident?
4.	What invitations, if any, have been issued during the year 1928?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: National Revenue Department:
1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4. None.
Marine Department:
1.	No.
2.	The contract for feeding the crews permits a charge of $1.20 per diem for passengers.
3.	No.
4.	The department is not aware of any invitations having been issued.
Fisheries Department:
Officials of the department or officers in charge of vessels owned or operated by this department are not permitted to issue invitations to friends or visitors to take trips on such vessels.
National Defence Department, Naval Service :
1.	Only with the consent of the department.
2.	Persons approved by the department, at the charge of the officer inviting such persons.
3.	No.
4.	Admiral Sir Charles E. Kingsmill, late Director of the naval service, with the consent of the chief of the naval staff, on board H.M.C.S. Vancouver.
Militia Service:
1.	No. Civilians may be permitted to travel on regular duty trips in harbours, if in possession of a " pass " signed by the district supply and transport officer, or by his representative.
2.	Nil. As in (1) above.
3.	Individuals travel at their own risk.
4.	Nil.
Public Works Department:
1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4. No information in the department.
Department of Railways and Canals:
Officials or officers in charge of vessels owned and. operated by the department are not allowed to invite visitors or friends to take trips on such vessels.


CIVIL SERVICE-MINIMUM SALARY
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the Department, of Labour fixed the
sum of $85 per month as the minimum amount necessary for the bare necessities of food, house rent, fuel and light for the average Canadian family ?	.
2.	If so, what additional amount is estimated as reasonable to provide for clothing, medical attendance, insurance, education and recreation or amusement?
3.	How many employees of the Customs Department, Post Office Department, Interior Department or Public Works Department in the cities of Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver receive $65 per month? How many receive between $65 and $75? And how many between $75 and $85 per month?
4.	Has the government received requests from organized bodies of the civil service to fix through the Civil Service Act a minimum salary of $100 per month for employees of the government?
5.	If so, ivhen will the government be prepared to make an official statement on the matter?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No. The weekly family budget published monthly in the Labour Gazette, February issue, page 237, shows the cost of certain staple foods, fuel and light and rent in January, 1929 ($21.55), as compared with the cost at certain previous dates. A footnote states that the budget is intended to show the changes in the cost of the items included, not to show the minimum cost for an average family; another footnote states that an allowance for the cost of clothing and sundries would increase the figures by about fifty per cent.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Customs department:

Questions
Ottawa
(Customs and Excise divisions).
(Income tax)	
Head office
(Customs anid Excise divisions) .
(Income tax)	
Montreal
(Customs and Excise divisions) .
(Income tax)	
Toronto
(Customs and Excise divisions).
(Income tax)	
Winnipeg
(Customs and Excise divisions).
(Income tax)	
V ancouver
(Customs and Excise divisions) . (Income tax)	
Note.-All of the abo stenographers, junior
Salary $65 per	Salary between	Salary betweemonth and	$65 and $75	$75 and $85under	per month	per month1	-	1113	1122	15	124	8	913	4	89	1	630	12	135	-	-5	7	53	515	4	15lower grades	such as junior	clerks, junk
typists, messengers, watchmen and labourers.
Post Office department:
Ottawa (Inside service)	
(Outside service)	
Montreal	
Toronto	
Winnipeg	
Vancouver	
Department of the Interior:
City Ottawa.. . Montreal.. Toronto.. Winnipeg. Vancouver,
Number	of employees	receiving
	Between $65	Between $75
	and $75	and $85
$65 a month.	a month	a month2	1	67nil	nil	nil1	nil	nil1	nil	8nil	nil	nilnil	nil	nilBetween $65	Between $75and $75	and $85$65 per month	per month	per month[DOT] 10	4	29none	none	nonenone	none	nonenone	none	nonenone	none	none10	4	29
Department of Public Works:
In the outside service of the Department of Public Works there are no employees in the cities mentioned who receive a salary with a maximum which is not greater than $85.00 per month, except one messenger at Ottawa who is receiving $65.00 per month with a maximum of $S5.0Q.
4.	Yes.
5.	No information.
f. G. h. m'donagh


Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Is E. Gr. H. MeDonagh, barrister, of Toronto, retained or employed by the Department of National Revenue or the Department of Justice?
2.	If so, on what terms and what remuneration does he receive?
3.	If paid by any department, is he allowed to collect fees from parties who are prospective defendants in an action by the department employing him?
78594-784	.


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Mr. MeDonagh has been retained by the Department of National Revenue, through the Department of Justice, in ten cases during the past five years.
2.	The terms are made by the Department of Justice. The sum of $280.40 has been paid to Mr. MeDonagh for services in the cases referred to, after the bills had been certified at the Department of Justice.
3.	Answered by the first sentence of No. 2.
Income Tax Division
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Prosecutions
$10 for each case not defended.
$20 for each case defended.
(b) Collections
10 per cent of amounts collected;
adjustable fee non-collectible accounts, usually $1 per case.
3.	No.
Questions


II. P. S. PAISLEY
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has H. F. S. Paisley, editor of the Sydney, Nova Scotia, Record, been appointed publicity agent for the Department of Marine and Fisheries?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, what is his salary and what are his duties?
3.	Was his appointment made by and through the Civil Service Commission?
4.	If not, under what authority was he appointed?
5.	Is he still continuing to act as editor of the Record ?


Mr. RINFRET (for Mr. Cardin):: 1.	Mr. Paisley, who was editor of the Sydney Record, was appointed director of publicity in the fisheries branch.
2.	His notification of appointment from the Civil Service Commission was dated January 23rd, 1929. He reported for duty on February 27th, 1929. S3,420 per annum. To gather and disseminate information regarding the production of fish, market conditions, etc.; to direct the collection and analysis of all fisheries statistics; to investigate transportation facilities for fish; to prepare and edit fisheries publicity material and related work.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	No.


CASE OP GEORGE STARK
Mr. NEILL:: 1. Has the attention of the government been called to the case of George Stark, who was sentenced to two years imprisonment and twenty lashes for an alleged robbery at a
ticket office of the Montreal Tramways in Montreal? He was convicted of having held up a tramway employee named Caisse, but the said Caisse has now been convicted of having been the principal in the robbery, and has been convicted of perjury at the trial of the said George Stark?
2.	Will the government take into consideration compensating this man for the unfortunate miscarriage of justice, under which he suffered?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1	and 2. The matter is not one which concerns this government. The administration of justice in the province is within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the provincial legislature.


DOMINION MAPS-FRENCH EDITION
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Are there any maps of the Dominion of Canada published in the French language?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government to have such maps printed and distributed ?
3.	When will such action be taken by the government ?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1. Yes.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


WINDSOR, ONT., CUSTOMS PORT
Mr. GOTT:: 1. What was the customs revenue for the port of Windsor, Ontario, each year since 1920?
2.	What was the total salaries paid customs officials at Windsor each year since 1920?


Mr. EULER:: 1.
Import Duty Excise Taxes Excise Duty *1920-21	 $2,936,993 21
1921-	22	
2,172,953	37	$ 873,476	07	$102,727	421922-	23	
3,292.942	39	1,687,741	48	138,032	131923-	24	
3,069,492	24	1,764,148	73	155,319	991924-	25	
2,496,791	00	1,104,902	56	69,936	651925-	26	
4,034,525	75	1,624,072	18	106,901	931926-	27	
2,828,222	63	1,903,360	46	99,761	941927-	28	
3,168,289	94	1,749,321	81	93,772	491928-	29 (11 Mos.). 3,761,037	54	2,178,094	56	105,293	90
'Excise revenue is not available for 1920-21 as the inland correspond to customs ports or outports.
Sundry collections $10,412 65 38,340 09 27,653 94 29,424 52 30,092 94 33.472 06 40,199 16 37,082 64 25,931 92
Total

revenue divisions did not
No. 2.
1920- 21	 $ 96,010 57
1921-	22	
108,549	211922-	23	
106,391	771923-	24	
98,231	951924-	25	
114,764	371925-	26	
127,264	781926-	27	
138,294	661927-	28	
155,843	011928-	29 (11 months)	
161,624	22


LEAMINGTON, ONT., CUSTOMS PORT
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What was the customs revenue for the port of Leamington, Ontario, each year since 1920?
2.	What was the total salaries paid customs officials at Leamington since 1920?


Mr. EULER:: See statement attached.

Questions
1.				Sundry	
Import Duty	Excise Taxes	Excise Duty Collections	Total1920-21	.. $ 89,799 24	$ 83 72	$ 89,882 961921-22	.. 89.592 43	$21,564 82	$12,704 29	532 34	124,393 881922-23	.. 143,337 97	32,891 36	14,096 23	499 92	190,825 481923-24	.. 166,350 69	36,190 50	14,852 68	500 00	217,893 871924-25	. . 139,722 30	23,717 68	10,704 77	174,144 751925-26	.. 115,843 58	24,224 83	11,394 96	4 80	151.468 171926-27	. . 175,305 18	26,645 29	12,692 99	5 00	214,693 461927-28	.. 243.421 83	19,810 66	15,147 75	30 00	278,410 241928-29 (11 Mos.) . ..	.. 229,204 97	14,144 02	15,967 36	164 10	259,480 45
'Excise revenue is not available for 1920-21 as the inland revenue divisions did not correspond to customs ports or outports.
2.1920-21	$ 1,692 00
1921-	22	
4,821	251922-	23	
4,755	001923-	24	
4,815	001924-	25	
4,110	001925-	26	
3,716	671926-	27	
4,320	001927-	28	
4,590	001928-	29 (11 months)	
4,235	00


POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr, GOTT:
1.	When was the post office at Leamington, Ontario, built?
2.	What was total cost of building?
3.	What revenue has it produced each year since construction?
4.	What amount was paid in salaries each year?
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	1909-1911.
2.	$30,837.50 (site and construction).
3	and 4. Post Office Department.
Revenue	Salary
1910		$ 5,470 10 $1,730 00
1911	
5,540	75	1,891	001912	
6,944	07	1,912	001913	
6,401	54	2,473	091914	
7.431	66	2,256	501915	
8,269	92	2,607	001916	
12,453	99	2,864	001917	
13,171	58	3,289	001918	
13.054	68	3,351	001919	
14,478	09	3,465	001920	
14,098	54	4,236	001921	
15,685	07	4,236	001922	
15,759	35	4,455	001923	
19,011	78	4.560	501924	
17,845	86	5,278	001925	
17,461	21	5.195	501926	
18,422	55	5,085	501997	
17,627	26	5.249	001928	
19,203	98	5,249	004.	Department of Public Works.1911- 1912	$ 376 461912-	1913	
450	001913-	1914	
450	001914-1915	450	001915-1916	450	OO1916-1917	450	001917-1918	466	661918-1919	549	961919-1920	969	961920-1921	1,249	981921-1922	1,129	001922-1923	1,287	OO1923-1924	1,095	001924-1925	1,095	001925-1926	1,259	571926-1927	1,080	001927-1928	1,116	001928-1929 (to March 1,1929).	990	00


WINDSOR, ONT., POST OFFICE
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	When was the post office at Windsor, Ontario, built?
2.	What was total cost of building?
3.	What revenue has it produced each year since construction?
4.	What amount was paid in salaries each year?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	1879-1880.
2,	$66,868.35 (site and construction).
3 and 4.
Post Office Department:
Year	Revenue	Salary1880.. ..	.. . .$ 5,535 18	Figures1881.. ..	.... 7,500 49	not1882.. ..	.... 8,027 65	avail-1883.. ..	.... 8,384 95	able1884.. ..	.... 9,059 52	$ 9,010 121885.. ..	.... 8,353 70	9,355 041886.. ..	.. .. 8,741 12	11,085 261887.. ..	.. .. 9,171 01	11,777 001888.. ..	.... 9,865 28	11,336 681889.. ..	.... 11,164 02	11,094 111890.. ..	.... 11,679 98	11,110 371891.. ..	.. .. 11,512 85	10,043 341892.. ..	.... 13,099 64	9,877 141893.. ..	.... 15,431 25	9,916 781894.. ..	.... 14,913 72	9,840 00
Questions

Post Office Department-Concluded
Year	Revenue	Salary1895	
14,037 71	10,231 S31896	
16,069 49	10,710 001897	
18,106	14	10,453	331898	
18,878	24	8,640	001899	
17,791	14	8,638	001900	
17,059	90	8,639	001901	
18,957	71	8,100	301902	
21,224	34	7,600	371903	
28,910	26	8,543	841904	
31,436	53	8,277	751905	
27,266	33	8,294	631906	
30,220	90	7,640	531907	
25,194	36	5,913	241908	
37,237	85	8,922	571909	
40,330	18	12,648	091910	
43,575	48	14,536	461911	
48,927	67	15,966	131912	
53,550	22	17,667	321913	
61,011	98	21,288	721914	
69,751	90	25,966	481915	
75,228	92	31,460	781916	
102,039	45	33,420	851917	
141,376	11	34,927	251918	
113,400	81	41,563	101919	
132,210	%	54,061	631920	
156,425	62	70,490	631921	
208,672	58	105,348	701922	
193,049	90	107,308	641923	
298,296	03	109,487	691924	
327,917	73	147,510	231925	
316,871	07	147,387	641926	
361,233	01	160,632	631927	
367,142	34	165,965	871928	
386,622	09	182,839	20
Public Works Department:
No. 4. No information previous to 18841885.
1884-	1885	
$1,000	081885-	1886	
1,033	411886-	1887	
1,000	031887-	1888	
1,015	101888-	1889	
1,000	001889-	1890	
1,000	001890-	1891	
1,000	00Year	Salary1891-1892	1,000 001892-1893	1,000 001893-1894.. ..	1,000 001894-1895	1,000 001895-1896	1,000 001896-1897	900 001897-1898	660 481898-1899	783 131899-1900	783 331900-1901	786 661901-1902	810 001902-1903	800 001903-1904	800 001904-1905	800 001905-1906	799 961906-1907	669 971907-1908	919 961908-1909	919 961909-1910	919 961910-1911	909 961911-1912	1,200 751912-1913	1,219 921913-1914	1,149 921914-1915	1,273 221915-1916	1,292 861916-1917	1,257 491917-1918	1,272 501918-1919	1,612 911919-1920	2,429 501920-1921	2,536 011921-1922	3,129 381922-1923	3,170 761923-1924	3,353 681924-1925	3,348 551925-1926	3.308 101926-1927	3.656 941927-1928	4.023 001928-1929 (To March 1,1929)	3,583 48


WALKERVILLE, ONT., CUSTOMS PORT
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What was the revenue for the port of Walkerville, Ontario, each year since 1920?
2.	What was the total salaries paid customs officials at Walkerville each year since 1920?


Mr. EULER:: 1.
*1920-21	
1921-	22	
1922-	23	
1923-	24	
1924-	25	
1925-	26	
1926-	27	
1927-	28	
1928-	29 (llMos.)
Import Duty $5,803,253 75 3,504.722 03 4,145,510 89 5,418.003 57 4,179.619 74 5.065.699 18 6.124.695 53 6.075.075 71 12.281,866 65
Excise Taxes

'Excise revenue is not available for 1920-21, correspond to customs ports or outports.
(Mr. Gott.]
Excise Duty
! 509,229 34 1.260.132 92 1.289.676 03 1.136.085 45 955.020 66 944.745 51 3.012.089 12 5,230,535 67 the inland
Sundry Collections $ 4.867 56 12,856 70 21.961 87 34,618 79 21,223 16 10.728 55 10,979 20 20,322 06 38,039 76
Total

19,986,693 68 revenue divisions did not

Questions
No. 2.
1920-	21	
$23,796	721921-	22	
43,899	571922-	23	
39,101	281923- 24..'	
55,742 261924-	25	
57,162	181925-	26	
62,160	021926-	27	
63,444	631927-	28	
82,312	981928-	29 (11 months)	
83,829	72
Import-Duty
1.
*1920-21	 $87,697 75
1921-	22	
17,965	701922-	23	
23,395	381923-	24	
20,288	891924-	25	
14,855	721925-	26	
34,757	551926-	27	
29,257	781927-	28	
44,072	911928-	29 (11 Mos.)	
41,437	60
*Excise revenue is not available for 1920-21,
to customs ports ami outports.
1920-21		.. ..$6,080.19
1921-22			 4,660.50
1922-23			4.5S5.58
1923-24			 4,700.00
1924-25			5,100.00
1925-26			 3,733.33
1926-27			 3,570.00
1927-28			 3,780.00
192S-29			 4,035.00
(11 mos.)


THOMAS H. BURNS
Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: 1.	How many days was Thomas H. Burns, of
the Department of National Revenue, Ottawa, absent from duty, and on what dates, in (a) fiscal year 1923-24;	(b) fiscal year 1924-25;
(e) fiscal year 1925-26; (d) fiscal year 1926-27; (e) fiscal year 1927-28; (f) fiscal year 1928-29?
2.	How many days sick leave did he have and on what dates during the same periods?
3.	How many days did he receive salary during the same periods?


AMHERSTBURG, ONT., CUSTOMS PORT
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What was the customs revenue for the port of Amherstburg, Ontario, each year since 1920?
2.	What was -the total salaries paid customs officials at Amherstburg since 1920?


William Daum Euler: Excise Taxes	Excise Duty	Sundry Collections	Total
			$87,697 75
$ 4.398 97 7,826 35 11,014 48 9,324 67 12,041 81 12,365 39 10.168 95 7.240 41	$110 00 58 00	$1,280 20 1.894 60 1.685 00 1,629 00 1,616 20	23,754 87 33,174 33 32,988 37
			25,809 39
			48.415 56
		1,646 80 1,619 00	43,269 97
			55.860 86
		2,314 90	50,992 91
the inland revenue divisions did not correspond
Absence re sick leave
Days
September 29th and *
30th'	 2
October 1st to 31st

 31
November 1st to 3rd..	3
Total	 36
1924-25.
Absence from duty.
Days
Dates: April 4, 5, 14, 15, 16...	5
June 9th to 11th		3
July 14th to 31st....	16
August 15th	 1
October 16th to 31st..	14
November 1st to 11th.	8
January 9th	 1
February 19th to 28th.	9
March 1st to 7th		6
Total	 63


William Daum Euler: 1 and 2.
Fiscal Year 1923-24.
Absence from duty.
Days
Dates: May 21st and 22nd

	2
July 16th to 31st....	14
August 1st to 4th....	4
September 29th and
30th	 2
October 1st to 31st

 31
November 1st to 3rd..	3
February 4th to 6th...	3
Total	 59
Absence re sick leave.
Days
August 15th	 1
February 19th	to	28th 9March 1st to	7th...	6Total	
16
1925-26.
Absence from duty.
Da;
Dates: June 18t.h to	30th

	11
July 13th to	31st...	17
August 1st	 1
Total	 29
Questions

Absence re sick leave.
Days
June 18th to 30th	 11
1926-27.
Absence from duty.	Days
Dates: April 7th to 16th		9
July 2nd and 3rd and
19th to 31st	 14
August 11th	 1
November 9th to 11th 3 December 8th and 28th 2
Total	 29
Absence re sick leave.
Days
December 8th and 28th 2
1927-28.
Absence from duty.	Days
Dates: April 1, 9 and 26th___	3
May 11th	 J
July 12th and 18th to
28 th	 11
November 5th	 1
December 1st (1) and
.	27th	 1J
February 27th to 29th.	3
Total	 20
1927-	28.
Absence re sick leave.	Days
December 1st (i) and 27th	 li
1928-	29.
Absence from duty.	Days
Dates: April 17th	 1
June 7th and 18th, 20th
to 30th	 12
July 1st to 31st	 25
August 1st to 31st____ 26
September 1st to 30th.. 24
November 2nd	 1
December 3rd to 8th..	6
Total	 95
Absence re sick leave.	Days
June 20th to 30th	 10
July 1st to 31st	 25
August 1st to 31st.... 26
September 1st to 30th. 24
Total	 85
3.	Received full pay in accordance with the regulations.
Re absences shown for fiscal year 1923-24:-
Prior to January 1st, 1924, each day, including Sundays and holidays was charged on sick leave owing to the fact that the regulations allowed sick leave by months; but the statutory leave was counted for working days only. This

accounts in the year 1923-24 for the item July 16th to 31st being computed as 14 days statutory leave, whereas the item October 1st to 31st is sick leave and computed as 31 days.


MILITARY HOSPITALS-PATIENTS AND STAFF
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: , T Ho w many patients are there in each of the following:
Christie Street Hospital,
St. Anne de Bellevue Hospital, and Westminster Hospital, London?
2.	How many medical doctors are employed at each of the above hospitals?
3.	How many individuals are on the staff of each of above hospitals?
4.	How many chaplains have appointments at each hospital?
5.	How many are on full time or part time basis at each hospital ?
6.	What are the denominations represented by chaplains and what is the salary and allowance of each chaplain?
7.	What is the total annual cost of each hospital?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Christie Street Hospital, 370; St. Anne de Bellevue Hospital, 398; Westminster, London, 480.
2.	Christie Street Hospital, 36; St. Anne de Bellevue, 13; Westminster, 14.
3.	Christie Street, 198; St. Anne de Bellevue, 193; Westminster, 202.
4.	Christie Street, 1; St. Anne de Bellevue, 2; Westminster, 3.
5.	Christie Street, 1 part time; St. Anne de Bellevue, 1 full time, 1 part time; Westminster, 3 part time.
6.	Christie Street, 1 Protestant, $1,800 per annum, (part time); St. Anne de Bellevue, 1 Roman Catholic, $1,800 per annum, plus board and quarters, (full time); Westminster,
1	Protestant, $1,200 par annum, (part time);
2 Protestant, each $600 per annum, (part time); 1 Catholic, $600 per annum, (part time).
7.	Christie Street,	1923-24,	$491,814.54;1924-	25,	$421,734.36;	1925-26,	$399,808.32;1926-	27, $376,470.32; 1927-28, $384,250.96; St.Anne's, 1923-24, $439,529.29;	1924-25, $417,136.97;	1925-26, $397,384.42;	1926-27, $382,460.62;	1927-28,	$379,076.93; Westminster,1923-24,	$383,547.61;	1924-25,	$378,250.85;1925-	26,	$373,977.62;	1926-27,	$369,518.70;1927-	28, $362,259.38.
auditor's general's REPORT-ITEM $208.40 Mr. FRASER:
1.	What are the details of the payment of $208.40, interest on over-due instalments, mentioned on page XI of the Auditor General's report of 1927-28, Vol. I, bottom of page?

Questions
2.	Why were these interest payments allowed to be in default?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	$206.10 Grant garage, Montreal; $2.30 Lavut building, Montreal.
2.	Because the due dates for the instalments in question fell at a time early in the year when parliament had granted only 1/6 of the supply act, and full payment was not made until a considerably later date.


CAMROSE, ALTA., CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. LUCAS:: 1.	In what year was a customs office opened in Camrose, Alberta?
2.	What has been the customs revenue at that point for each year since the opening of the said office?


Mr. EULER:: 1. 1st August, 1922.
2. 1922-23 (8 mos.)	
1 Q93-94 	Import Duty 	$ 7,135 32 	
10.834 20	Excise Taxes $ 8,346 21 19.300 81	Total $15,481 53 30,135 011994.^5	
9.526 05	12,192 03	21,718 091Q9n-9fi . . . 	
19.330 72	17,352 51	36,683 231Q9fi-27 	
30.081 60	20,484 38	50,565 98]q97_9K	
29,102 38	19,810 90	48,913 281928-29 (11 mos.)	
49.980 43	22.063 23	72,043 66


ALLOWANCE TO PENITENTIARY INMATES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What has been done or will be done by the government or the Department of Justice, (a) to carry out the terms of a resolution adopted by the house in 1927 to pay an allowance to dependents of inmates of Canada's penal institutions under federal control; (b) to adopt measures to meet the provinces re providing proper institutions with the provinces for those of 16. 17 and 18 years of age?
2.	Will anything be done by legislation this session to prevent those of 16, 17 years of age being sent to these federal prisons?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	(a) This matter is under consideration.
(b) The meaning of this question is not
understood. The government has, however, under consideration the making of provision at this session for the establishment of a special institution for the purpose of segregating young prisoners from hardened criminals.
2.	No.
1928. It did purchase live stock, machinery and other equipment for persons settled in Kings county under the 3,000 British family scheme, but all such purchases were made out of loans advanced by the Imperial government to assist settlers in becoming properly established. No expenditures whatever out of Canadian government funds were made in the purchase of such stock and equipment,


IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	What is the total amount expended by
Canada through the Imperial War Graves Commission, (a) to March 31, 1928; (b) estimated to March 31, 1929?	, ,
2.	What amount has been expended on war memorials during the same period?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	(a) $4,037,589.87; Ob) $4,611,369.87.
2.	By this department to March 31st, 1928; $1,225,150.75, for memorials of the Great war.


SETTLEMENT IN KINGS COUNTY
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
1.	Were any farms, machinery or stock purchased by the government or any department thereof for settlement purposes in Kings county, Prince Edward Island, during the year 1928?
2.	If so, what are the names of parties from whom purchased, the location, the settlers name, what machinery and stock was supplied to each settler, from whom purchased, and what was the price paid for each item?
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Department of Immigration and Colonization :
1 and 2. The department did not purchase any farms for settlement purposes in Kings county, Prince Edward Island, during the year


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Will the management of the national railways soon come to a decision in connection with a passenger station for said railways in the city of Quebec?	,
2.	If so, will said station be in keeping with the importance of Quebec and the government raihvays?
3.	What will be the total cost of the Canadian National Railways station at Toronto, including the approaches and all other expenditures in connection with said station?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The management of the Canadian National Railways reached a decision to make
Questions

use of the Palais station in the city of Quebec for all passenger trains; the Canadian National having a half interest in this property.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The cost, to the Canadian National, of the Toronto Terminals Railway station at Toronto, including the grade separation work done by the Toronto Terminals Railway, will be $11,808,085. The Canadian National Rail-waj's' share of the cost of grade separation and other works which are exclusively CNR will be $1,602,298.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-RECEIPTS,
Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1.	What is amount of money received by the
Department of National Revenue for Canada during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1928. for:	'
(1)	All customs duties and taxes provided by the Customs Act and tariff of Canada with amendments and by the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, and amending acts on, (a) imported spirits; (b) imported wines; (c) imported ale, beer, porter and stout.
(2)	All excise and sales taxes levied under the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act with amending acts and the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, with amending acts on, (a) Canadian potable spirits; (b) Canadian non-potable and denatured spirits; (e) Canadian wines; (d) Canadian ale, beer, porter and stout?
2.	What is amount of money received by the Department of National Revenue for Canduring the fiscal year ending March 31, 1928, for:
(1)	All customs duties and taxes provided by the Customs Act and tariff of Canada with amendments and by the Special War Revenue Act 1915 and amending acts on imported spirits, wines, ale, beer, porter and stout, which were exported from Canada.
(2)	All excise and sales taxes levied under the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act with amending acts and the Special War Revenue Act 1915 with amending acts on Canadian potable spirits, Canadian wines and Canadian ale, beer, porter and stout which were exported from Canada?


Mr. EULER:: 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-PUBLICATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How many men employed in the Department of Agriculture, publications and distribution branch, Daly building, are receiving a salary of twenty dollars ($20) per week, or less?
2.	What are their salaries and duties respectively?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Eleven at present, but the majority are only employed for a short period during the distribution of special publications.
2.	All these men are paid $17.10 per week. Their duties consist of filling and sealing envelopes ready for mailing, handling and opening packages of publications received from the printing bureau, and general labouring work. Occasionally they may be required to carry messages.


LOWER DETROIT RIVER CONTRACTS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Is it a fact that the Department of Marine and Fisheries refuses to acknowledge representations that have been made to them, after five years of sealed contracts for light and buoy service in the lower Detroit river; that they still refuse to put up same for tender in reletting the contract which expires April 1, 1929?
2.	Has the department received requests to have same let by tender?
3.	Has the department received communications re letting contract from any other than present contractor?
4.	Is it a fact that a communication regarding same, dated February 26th, was not answered by the department until March 13th and then only after another communication from the same party under date of March 10th had been received ?
5.	Has the government an offer from a reputable party, well equipped for the work, to perform the contract at less than the present contract price?

Questions
0.	Wliat is the present contract price?
7. What is the offer received by the government?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	The department is not aware of any communication on this subject dated February 26th. A communication dated February 27th was received and a further communication dated March 10th which were answered March 13th.
5.	An offer has been received from Captain McQueen and Son, Amherstburg.
6.	$9,375 per year.
7.	$7,900.


MULGRAVE-POINT TTJPPER CAR FERRY
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: 1.	What is the amount of capital invested in the car ferry at Mulgrave-Point Tupper service?
2.	What' is the cost of terminals at Mulgrave, and also those at Point Tupper?
3.	What is the annual cost of operating ferry service between Mulgrave and Point Tupper, including maintenance of pusher grade out of Mulgrave?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	$672,782.37.
2.	$513,848.30.
3.	$170,627.31.


MAJOR GUSTAVE LANCTOT
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: 1.	When was Major Gustave Lanctot first appointed to the archives branch, in what capacity and at what salary?
2.	What position does he now hold and at what salary?
3.	What would his salary be according to the civil service rating?
4.	When and by what amounts and for what reasons has his salary been augmented by special votes of parliament?
5.	What amounts have been paid to him each year since his appointment to cover travelling and other expenses to various countries visited?
6.	What countries were visited by him each year, for how long and for what purposes?
7.	Is he at present absent on a foreign mission? If so, where and for what purpose?
8.	Did he take with him scores of precious, (a) old documents, (b) engravings, (c) art records, and were these from the archives?
9.	What is the description and approximate value of each of the articles referred to in previous question?
10.	WThere and by whom were these precious articles crated for transportation, when and for wliat amount and by what company were they insured?
11.	Will Mr. Lanctot's salary and travelling expenses be paid by the government during his absence?
12.	Has any advance been made to him by the government to cover, (a) travelling expenses. (b) living allowances? If so, w'hat amount ?
13.	How long is Major Lanctot expected to be absent on this special mission and ivho is acting as chief French archivist during his absence?
14.	How many officials appointed by the government of Canada are employed at, (a) the Paris office of the Canadian archives, (b) the London office of the Canadian archives?
15.	If the officials referred to above are properly qualified, why has Major Lanctot been sent on his present mission?
16.	Will the Canadian government pay Major Lanctot's salary and also his travelling expenses and living allowance while he is representing the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Historical Association and the Canadian Authors' Association at various functions of a private character in Paris?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	October 15th, 1912. Student clerk. $480.
2.	Chief French archivist. $5,120.
3.	$3,720 to $4,420.
4.	April 1st, 1927. $700. Order in council P,C. 10/81, January 16th, 1928. Confirmed by parliament.
Two French employees, one drawing a salary of $4,000 and another a salary of $2,400 were retired from the public service, and their duties were transferred to the chief French archivist.
5.	1914-15, $95.70; 1916-17, $1,001.26; 192122; $936.07; 1922-23, $1,9S7; 1923-24, $1,890.45;
1926-27, $1,826.02; 1927-28, $1,929.35.
6.	Berkeley, California. March 24 to May 6, 1915. To copy documents relating to the north west, deposited in the university.
England and France. April 18th to September, 1916. Collecting war material.
England and France. July 29th to September 21st, 1921. In search of historical material.
Rio de Janeiro. August 19th to October 16th, 1922.
Delegate to International Congress of the History of America.
England and France. January 15th to May 4th, 1923. In search of historical material.
England and France. January 28th to April 15t.h, 1926. In search of historical material.
Paris. February 27th to May 16th, 1928. In connection with the early Franch colonial exhibition.
7.	Yes. Paris. Exhibition of historical material relating to the colonies of France during the French regime in Canada.
8.	Yes. Original documents, old engravings and prints. Most of them were from the archives, a few gathered from other institutions in Canada.
9.	Prints and engravings valued at $4,790. Manuscripts. It is difficult to estimate the value of old records. It can only be deter-
Questions

mined by the price obtained at a public sale of manuscript. The collection taken by the chief French archivist would probably realise at a public sale at least 89,025.
10.	They were packed in the archives in two special cases made by the Public Works department and were taken personally by Major Lanctot.
11.	Yes.
12.	Yes. 8500 to cover travelling expenses and living allowance.
13.	About ten weeks. His duties have been taken over by the Dominion archivist.
14.	Paris office. One official in charge of the work in Paris and seventeen other employees mainly copyists. London office. One official in charge, six copyists and one draftsman.
15.	Major Lanctot made the collection and a request was made for his services by the French committee in charge of the exposition.
16.	No information.


PRODUCTION OP DOMESTIC FUEL
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	Has any contract been entered into between the Minister of Mines or other department of the government and any person or corporation under the provisions of chapter 52, an act to encourage the production of domestic fuel from coal mined in Canada, and, if so, how many such contracts are now in force, with the name of each contractor?
2.	How many coke ovens are embraced in such contracts?
3.	What was the tonnage of coal mined in Canada and so used in such coke ovens?
4 What was the quantity of coke produced under such conditions in such coke ovens?
5.	What was the amount of bonus applied for and what amount has been paid under the provisions of this act up to December 31, 1928?
6.	What was the total tonnage of all coke produced in Canada between April 14, 1927 (date of passing of act), to December 31. 1928?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes. One contract has been entered into with the Nova Scotia Tramways and Power Company, Limited, of Halifax.
2.	The number of ovens covered by this contract amounts in all to eight.
3.	As the plant has only recently been completed no authoritative information is yet available.
4.	As the plant has only recently been completed no authoritative information is yet available.
5.	The bonus applied for is 4% of the total cost of the works. As final cost sheets are not yet available the amount of subsidy to be paid cannot be calculated until such time as
these are received. No amount was paid under the provisions of this act up to December 31, 1928.
6.	3,720,794 net tons. (Compiled from reports of Dominion Bureau of Statistics).


AMSEY BIGNEY
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Was one Amsey Bigney in the employ of the government, in the capacity of fish warden, during the seasons of 1926, 1927 and 1928?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to reappoint him for the year 1929?
3.	Is the government aware that the said Amsey Bigney has been convicted for violating the New- Brunswick liquor laws?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Not in 1926, but about two months in each of the years 1927 and 1928.
2.	No decision yet reached.
3.	The Department of Marine and Fisheries was not aware of such.


GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What is the total sum paid for rentals of government offices and buildings in the city of Ottawa, for each fiscal year since 1922-23 to 1927-28, inclusive?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1922-1923, $636,091.67; 1923-1924, $656,950.63; 1924-1925, $688,002.85; 1925-1926,' $672,632.09; 1926-1927, $678,856.25; 1927-1928, $720,608.79.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS SUPERVISION COMMITTEE
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What are the names of the ministers at present composing the government contracts supervision committee?
2.	On what date was an order in council passed appointing them?
3.	What is the amount of public purchases dealt with by this committee during each of the past five years by departments?
4. What is the amount of public purchases dealt with by the staff of the government contracts supervision committee during the past five years by departments?
5.	What is the status of L. H. Beer on this staff? Does he rank over or under Colonel LaFleche, and to what extent does Colonel LaFleche assume responsibility for the administration of the salvage work of the committee?


Mr. ROBB:: 1 and 2. By order in council of 8th August, 1924, the organization, formerly under the committee referred to, was placed under the direction and control of the Minister of Finance.

Questions
3 and 4.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police $ 195,285 87 $
Interior	 74,801	81
Soldiers Civil Re-Establishment (now Pensions and National
Health)	
153.309	03Post Office	
86,925	28National Defence	
3,278	53Railways and Canals	
2,819,612	74Public Works	
105,664	07Agriculture	
160,379	02Mines	
45,484	79Trade and Commerce	
26,660	03Indian Affairs	
55,551	62Chief Electoral Officer	
658	00Immigration and Colonization	447	50National Revenue	Marine and Fisheries	Soldiers Settlement Board.. ..	42.317	06Health	
13,656	161920-1927	1927-1928	1928-1929

152,719 31	128,588 50 110,200 42 101,211 14
513	94	11.712 24	4,960 09		
			632 23		
8.079	10	2,896 45	4,417 82	6,883	4543,794	83	49,943 65	34,669 00	37,717	9916,644	40	11.966 25	7.808 72	2.310	4832,549	46	33.758 76	18,368 77	127,968	441,426	12	4.500 84	19,702 70	11,701	85555 00	342	50	157 50	343	5012,811	95745 36	66,746	45	95,644 70	81,703 98	89,391	75
1925-1926 750 25 49,548 41

5.	Salvage officer under the direction of Colonel L. R. LaFleche.


DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR-SALARIES
Edward Joseph Garland: What was the total amount of salaries of the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year
Ottawa service. Outside Ottawa
Total	
1913-14 and the fiscal year 1927-28, (a) Ottawa service; (b) outside service, giving the number of persons employed in each instance?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1913-14	1927-28
816 $1,031,980 97 1,326 $2,609,493 36 709	811,162 63	858	1,389,300 36
1,525 $1,843,143 60 2,186 $3,998,793 72


BLIND PERSONS IN CANADA
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	How many blind persons are resident in Canada?
2.	How many males?
3.	How many females?
4.	How many of each sex are self-supporting?
5.	How many are entirely dependent on charity?
Mr. MALCOLM;
1.	4,430*.
2.	2,527*.
3.	1,903*.
4.	Information not available.
5.	Information not available.
*1921 Census figures.


NOTCH HILL, B.C. POST OFFICE
Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	What is the name of the person or persons having the contract to deliver His Majesty s mail from the Notch Hill post office, British Columbia, to Celista post office, British Columbia, along the Shuswap lake?
2.	What other post offices are served with mail besides Celista, British Columbia, under the same contract?
3.	How often is mail delivered to each post office?
4.	What is the length of term of this contract?
5.	When does this contract expire?
6.	At the expiration of said contract will public tenders be called for same?
7.	What is the cost, per year, to the government under present contract?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	0. L. Charlton.
2.	Eagle Bay; Magna Bay; Anglemont;
Sorrento.	t
3.	Magna Bay, semi-weekly; Celista, semiweekly; Sorrento, semi-weekly; Anglemont, semi-weekly April to November inclusive. Weekly December to March inclusive; Eagle Bay, semi-weekly April to November inclusive. Weekly December to March inclusive.
4.	Two years.
5.	31st December, 1930.
Questions

6.	Under act governing, if cost is reasonable and service has been satisfactorily performed, contract may be renewed.
7.	$1,050 per annum.


POSTMASTERS DISMISSED IN HALIFAX
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	How many postmasters have been dismissed in Halifax county since 1926?
2.	In how many instances have the location of post offices been changed?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	10.
2.	In each case the appointment of a new postmaster involved a change in the site of the office.



AGRICULTURAL INSTRUCTION ACT

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	What amount has been paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada to each of the provinces under the provisions of the Agricultural Instruction Act, chapter 5 of the statutes of 1913?
2.	When were such payments discontinued, and why?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HALIFAX HOTEL

Mr. QUINN (Halifax):: 1.	Were tenders called for the building of the Canadian National station and hotel at Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers and what were the respective amounts of each tender ?
3.	What firm was awarded the contract?
4.	Were sub-tenders called for plumbing, electric wiring, ventilation, sheet metal work, roofing and cut granite?
5.	If so, what firms tendered and what were the respective amounts of tenders?
6.	What were the names of the firms awarded the contracts?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Tenderers, as follows:	Anglin-Ncrcross
limited, Montreal; E. G. M. Cape & Company, Montreal; Foundation Maritime Limited, Halifax, N.S.; G. A. Fuller Company of Canada Limited, Montreal; Robertson & Janin Building Co. Ltd., Montreal; The James Shearer Co. Limited, Montreal; Dakin Construction Co. Limited, Montreal.
The management do not consider it to be in the interests of the Canadian National Railways, nor in the public interest, to publish the amounts of these tenders. They state that the work was given to the lowest tenderer in each case, which is the policy of the railway in that regard.
3.	Foundation Maritime Limited. (This firm was the lowest tenderer).
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) Plumbing, heating and ventilation: The Garth Company, Montreal; John Colford Limited, Montreal; L. E. Moulton & Co. Limited, Montreal; Hagen & Powers, Halifax and St. John, N.B.; Farquhar Bros. Limited, Halifax, N.S.; Thos. O'Connell, Montreal; James Ballantyne, Montreal.
(b)	Electric wiring:	Canadian Taverner
Company Ltd., Montreal; Canadian Comstock Company Ltd., Montreal.
(c)	Sheet metal work roofing and cut granite included in bulk tender of Foundation Maritime Limited.
6.	(a) The Garth Company (who was the lowest tenderer).
Ob) Canadian Taverner Company Limited (who was the lowest tenderer).
The same explanation as given in note in answer No. 2 applies as to these prices also.



LONG TERM FARM LOAN ACT

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What provinces of the Dominion have expressed their intention to make use of the Long Term Farm Loan Act?
2.	Is the staff of the Federal Farm Loan Board as yet organized?
3.	In view of the great need of the early administration of this act, when will the Federal Farm Loan Board begin to make loans?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec.
2.	Headquarters staff in Ottawa is organized and rapid progress is being made in four of the provinces.
3.	Forthwith, on the provinces having complied with requirements of the act.



IMPORTS OF HIDES

Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	What was the quantity, rate of duty and amount of duty collected on hides imported into Canada during the calendar year 1928?
2.	What was the value of leather and manufactures of leather imported into Canada during the calendar year 1928; also percentage of duty levied and total amount of duty collected on same?


William Daum Euler: Imports of Hides, Leather and Manufactures of Leather, Entered for Consumption in Canada, with Import Duties Collected and Rates of Duty Applied, during the
Calendar Year 1928
Classification Item
Calf skins and kips, raw, whether dry salted or pickled....
Cattle skins, raw, whether dry salted or pickled	
Sheep skins, raw, whether dry salted or pickled	
Other hides, skins and pelts, raw, n.o.p., whether dry salted
or pickled	
Belting leather of all kinds	
Leather, not further finished than tanned,-calf, kid, goat,
lamb, and sheep leather	
Leather not further finished than tanned, other, and skins.
n.o.p	
Glove leather, tanned or dressed, coloured or not, imported by glove manufacturers, for use exclusively in their own
fact ones in the manufacture of gloves	
Harness leather	
Japanned, patent or enamelled leather, and Morocco leather,
and leather in imitation of Morocco leather	
Skins for Morocco leather, tanned but not further manufactured	
Sole' leather	
Tanner's scrap leather	
Leather, dressed, waxed or glazed, or further finished than
tanned-Calf, dongola, goat, kid, lamb, and sheep	
Leather, dressed, waxed or glazed, or further finished than tanned-Cordovan, kangaroo, alligator, and all leather,
dressed, waxed or glazed, n.o.p	
Chamois skins	:	
Boots and shoes, pegged or wire fastened with unstitched
soles, close edged	
Boots, shoes and slippers with leather uppers, n.o.p., men's
(size 5* and up)	
Boots, shoes and slippers with leather uppers, n.o.p., women's
(size 2\ and up)	
Boots, shoes and slippers with leather uppers, n.o.p., children's (all other sizes)	
Harness and saddlery, including horse boots	
Leather belting	
*G loves of leather	
* Mitts and mittens of leather	
Gloves and mitts of leather	
All other manufactures of leather and raw hide, n.o.p	
Unit of quantity	Quantity	Value	Duty collected	Tariff item
		$	$ cts.	
Cwt.	66,95!;	2,203,760	599Cwt.	450,050	10,593,441	599Cwt.	40,707	1,119,512	599Cwt.	28,346	833,338	599s	461,488	60,885 05	605$	208,863	27,627 70	605$	265,450	35,342 14	605s	1,327,574	131,870 75	607s	20,217	2,996 38	604$	173,384	41,780 68	608$	2,062	270 80	605s	116,791	18,004 30	606$	$ 38,478	$ 5,768 95	605$	1,922,173	277,370 01	604s	1,624,342	228,272 23	604$	132,737	17,918 55	604Pair	32,358	49,591	12,184 65	611Pair	294,829	996,741	198,401 39	611aPair	435,334	1,478,252	428,835 50	611aPair	82,030	78,917	15,815 15	611as	260,059	60,406 97	612$	186,412	39,337 95	609s	683,083	171,850 28	627$	3,458	969 80	627as	288,555	78,593 22	627s	877,406	201,796 80	613
Leather gloves and mitts classified together up to April 1st.
Separately classified subsequent to that date.
Rates of duty
Prefer- ential	Inter- mediate	Treaty ratesFree. Free. Free.	Free. Free. Free.	Free. Free. Free.Free. 10 %	Free. 121%	Free. 12H010 %	121%	121-1010 %	121%	131-105 % 121%	15 %	15-1015 % 10 % 121% 10%	22* %	121% 15 % 121%	121-10121-10121%	15 %	15-10121% 121% 15 % 171%	15 % 15 % 221% 271%	1.5-10 15-10
271%	
171%		
		
171% 171% 15 % 221% 15 % 221% 15 %	271% 271% 20 % 30 % 25 % 30 % 221%	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
General
Free.
Free.
Free.
Free.
15 %
15 % 15 %
10 %
15 %
25 %
15 % 17*%
15%
15 %
15 % 15 %
25 %
*

Questions
Questions



BIENFAIT, SASK., BRIQUETTING PLANT

Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What is the total amount spent to date by the Department of Mines or any other department of the government in connection with briquetting Lignite or Bituminous coal at Bienfait?
2.	When did these experiments begin and how much was paid in each year on account thereof?
3.	What was the total quantity of briquetted fuel produced yearly during the course of the experiments?
4.	What was the cost of the equipment now being operated in connection with the enterprise?
5.	What are the terms and provisions of the arrangement under which the plan is now being operated, who are the present operators and what is their connection with the project by way of investment, lease or other commitments? [DOT]


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	#535,000-the amount granted by the government of Canada to the Lignite Utilization Board of Canada (created by order in council of August 22, 1918, P.C. 2064).
2.	According to the records of the Lignite Utilization Board operations commenced October 1, 1918, and expenditures were as follows:
October 1, 1918-March 31, 1920..# 41,679 37 April 1,	1920-March	31,	1921..	..	517,575	94April 1,	1921-March	31,	1922..	..	251,257	96April 1,	1922-March	31,	1923..	..	91,218	29April 1,	1923-March	31,	1924..	..	105,072	31April 1,	1924-March	31,	1925..	..	24,595	77April 1,	1925-March	31,	1926..	..	18,598	62April 1,	1926-March	31,	1927..	..	9,265	53April 1,	1927-March	31,	1928..	..	5,968	56
The above expenditure include grants to the Lignite Utilization Board from the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
3.	As the operations of the board did not pass the experimental stage, no record was kept of the production of briquetted fuel.
4.	No information. The plant has been in possession of Western Dominion Collieries, Limited, since September, 1927.
5.	The rights of the Lignite Utilization Board in the Bienfait plant were transferred to Western Dominion Collieries, Limited, absolutely, on tiheir having satisfied the board and the governments concerned that they were prepared to forthwith install equipment deemed satisfactory for the manufacture of lignite briquettes. A plant with 200 ton daily capacity has been erected and is now in operation.



LIQUOR LICENSES

Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: 1.	What new brewery or distillery licenses were granted in Ontario since January 1, 1928, to March 1, 1929?

2.	What brewery or distillery licenses wTere renew'ed in the province of Ontario since January 1, 1928, to March 1, 1929?
3.	Who obtained these licenses and where are their plants located?


Mr. EULER:: 1.
The Highland Scotch Distillers, Ltd., Hum-berstone, Ont.
Tecumseh Brewing Co., Limited, Tecumseh, Ont.
The Hofer Brewing Co., Limited, La Salle, Ont.
2.	Distillers
Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co., Belleville, Ont.
Consolidated Distillers, Ltd., Belleville, Ont.
J. E. Seagram & Sons, Limited, Waterloo, Ont.
Lindsay Distilleries, Limited, Lindsay, Ont.
Wiser's Distillery, Limited, Prescott, Ont.
Sarnia Wine & Cognac, Limited, Sarnia, Ont.
Gooderham & Worts, Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
The Highland Scotch Distillers, Ltd., Hum-berstone, Ont. .
Hiram Walker & Sons, Limited, Walkerville, Ont.
Brewers
Qu.inte Breweries, Limited, Belleville, Ont.
The Bixel Brewing & Malt Co. Ltd., Brantford, Ont.
Fort Frances Brewing Co. Ltd., Fort Frances, Ont.
The Kakabeka Falls Brewing Go., Fort William, Ont.
Rock Brewery, Limited, Preston, Ont.
Sleeman's Spring Bank Brewery, Ltd., Guelph, Ont.
Charles Schwan, Oarlsruhe, Ont.
HaJiliday Breweries, Limited, Guelph, Ont.
Formosa Spring Brewery, Ltd., Formosa, Ont.
The Hamilton Brewing Association, Ltd., Hamilton, Ont.
Grant's Spring Brewing Co. Ltd., Hamilton, Ont.
Kenora Brewing Co. Ltd., Kenora, Ont.
Lake Ontario Brewing Co. Ltd., Portsmouth, Ont.
The Kuntz Brewery, Limited, Waterloo, Ont.
Huether Brewing Co. Ltd., Kitchener, Ont.
John S. Labatt, London, Ont.
Carling Breweries, Limited, London, Ont.
Gold Belt Brewery, Ltd., Timmins, Ont.
The Capital Brewing Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont
The Brading Breweries, Ltd., Ottawa, Ont.
Peterborough Brewing Co. Ltd., Peterborough, Ont.
The Port Arthur Beverage Co. Ltd., Port Arthur, Ont.

Questions
Sarnia Brewing Co. Ltd., Sarnia, Ont.
Soo Falls Brewing Co. Ltd., Sault St. Marie, Ont.
Felix Devlin, Estate, Stratford, Ont.
Sudbury Brewing & Malting Co. Ltd., Sudbury, Ont.
Taylor & Bate, St. Catharines, Ont.
The Dominion Brewery Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
The Cosgrave Export Brewery Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
Canada Bud Breweries, Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
The Reinhardt Brewery Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
O'Keefe's Beverages, Limited, Toronto, Ont
The Copeland Brewing Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
The Cronmiller & White Brewing Co. Ltd., Welland, Ont.
Riverside Brewery Co., Riverside, Ont.
The WalkerviLle Brewery, Ltd., Walkerville, Ont.
British American Brewing Co. Ltd., Windsor, Ont.
Tecumseh Brewing Co. Ltd., Tecumseh, Ont.
The Hofer Brewing Co. Ltd., La Salle, Ont
3.	Answered by No. 2.



DISTILLERIES IN CANADA

Mr. TUMMON:: 1.	What, was the total amount of licenses or fees paid for the calendar year 1928 by the distilleries of Canada for the privilege of operating?
2.	What was the total amount of licenses or fees paid for the calendar year 1928 by the breweries of Canada for the privilege of operating?
3.	What was the total amount of licenses or fees paid for the calendar year 1928 by the wineries of Canada for the privilege of operating ?
4.	What was the total amount received for permits for home-brewing for the calendar year of 1928?
5.	What amount of excise was received by the Dominion, from breweries, distilleries and wineries for the calendar year of 1928?
6.	What was the total amount of sales tax received from the sale of spirits, malt and malt liquors, and wines for the calendar year of 1928?
7.	What was the total amount received in customs duties from the importation of alcohol, spirits and beer and wines for the calendar year of 1928?
8.	What was the total amount of excise received on account of tobacco, cigars and cigarettes for the calendar year of 1928?
9.	What was the total amount of sales tax received on account of tobacco, cigars and cigarettes for the calendar year of 1928?


William Daum Euler: Calendar year 1928
1.	Licenses or fees collected from distilleries, $6,375.00.
2.	Licenses or fees collected from breweries, $4,450.00.
3.	Licenses or fees collected from wine manufacturers, $50.00.
4.	No fees chargeable for home-brewing permits.
5.	Excise duty collected from distilleries, $12,088,704.69; Excise duty collected from breweries, $2,298,464.22; Excise taxes collected on domestic beer, gallonage, $7,715,017.24; Excise taxes collected on wines, gallonage, $175,690.62.
6 and 9. Figures are not available in this department of sales tax revenues as applied to separate commodities.
7.	Customs duties collected on imports of alcohol, spirits, beer and wines: Beer, $103,809.38; spirituous liquors, $23,914,571.60; wines, $1,672,666.82; Industrial alcohol, $1,472.80.
8.	Excise duty collected on cigars, $568,280.41; Excise duty collected on manufactured tobacco, $4,406,348.28; Excise duty collected on cigarettes, $26,630,724.32; Excise taxes collected on cigars, $322,361.88; Excise duty collected on foreign raw leaf tobacco used in tobacco and cigar manufactures, $7,151,981.60.



POWER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. DESLAURIERS :: How many electrical horse-power were exported to the United States by the various provinces of Canada during the years 1926, 1927 and 1928?


Mr. MALCOLM:: Provinces	1926 H.P. Years	1927 HP. Years	1928 H.P. Years
P.E.I							.
N.S	-	-	N.B	. 1,281.8	1,485.9	1,833.8Que	. 54,240.8	59,817.0	60,702.8Ont	. 171,887.3	188,175.0	178,637.7Man	_ ...	Sask	Alta. . . .	-	B.C	. 2,878.6	320.8	251.8



TONNAGE PASSING THROUGH CANALS

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What tonnage passes through the following canals: Sault Ste. Marie, Welland, Sou-langes and Lachine?
2.	How many bushels of wheat were shipped by railway from Fort William to Montreal, during the years 1927 and 1928?
3.	How many bushels of said wheat came from, (a) the United States; (b) from Canada?
4.	What were the railway returns for the shipment of said United States and Canadian wheat?
Questions


My. RINFRET:: 1.
Freight Tonnage Sault Ste. Marie- Canadian lock .. .. United States lock ..
Total	
1927	1928
tons	tons
1,470,551	2.007,137
81,882,489 84,985,117
83,353,040 86,992,254
Welland	 7,247,459
Lachine	 7,790,560
Soulanges	Not available
St. Lawrence canals-
Way freight		1,050,297
Through	freight. ..	6,862,655
7,439,617
8,277,252
7,542,825
Total	 7,912,952
2.	Amount received at harbour commissioners elevators Montreal from Fort William were as follows:
Calendar year 1926-118,599.
Calendar year 1927- 16,625.
Calendar year 1928-Not available.
3.	(a) The United States, none; Ob) Canada, see No. 2.
4.	Not available.



FRANK DUNLOP

Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	What position, if any, does Frank Dunlop, of New Campbellton. Victoria county, Nova Scotia, hold in the Government service?
2.	If employed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, does be hold any other position in the Government?
3.	Who recommended him?
4.	What salary does he receive?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Storm signal agent (part time) at New Campbellton, N.S.
2.	Not under the marine branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
3.	F. L. Kelly, ex-M.P., North Sydney, N.S.
4.	$75 per annum.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES-DIRECTOR OF PUBLICITY

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has a director of publicity in the Fisheries department been appointed?
2.	If so, what salary does he receive per annum ?
3.	Was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission?
4.	Was the position advertised? If so, how?
5.	What are the names of the persons applying for said position?
EMr. Deslauriers.]
6.	Has the person appointed any practical or theoretical knowledge of the fisheries?
7.	Has he an assistant?	_
8.	What remuneration per year does his
assistant receive?	,
9.	What other expenses are connected with this position?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$3,420 per annum.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Yes; (b) The position was advertised
in the Canada Gazette, and by poster sent to the following on December 4th, to be displayed until the 27th:	Members of federal parliament; postmasters at offices where the population exceeds one thousand; universities; libraries; secretaries of the Canadian Legion; employment offices throughout the Dominion; individuals who have requested the commission to notify them of vacant positions in publicity work; Business Newspapers' Association of Canada, Toronto; Association of Canadian Advertisers, Toronto; Canadian Association of Advertising, Toronto; The Canadian Daily Newspapers' Association, Toronto; The Canadian Fisheries Association, Montreal, Prince Rupert and Toronto; Canadian Weekly Newspapers' Association, Renfrew. (The fisheries branch also sent notices to other societies, fisheries and press, and to The Canadian Fisherman).
5.	Applications were received from the following:	Louis Berube, Montreal, P.Q.; H.
M. Boyd, Ottawa; W. J. Callaghan, Ottawa; J. H. Conlon, Halifax, N.S.; H. W. Eades, Vancouver, B.C.; A. E. Fortington, Ottawa; E. C. Gannon, Montreal, P.Q.; F. W. H. Giolma, Victoria, B.C.; S. R. N. Hodgins, Macdonald College, P.Q.; T. H. C. House, Chicago, 111., U.S.A.; T. C. Lapp, Toronto, Ont.; W. H. Lloyd, Kitchener, Ont.; H. C. MacCallum, Calgary, Alta.; W. N. Mills, Springhill, N.S.; G. C. Monture, Ottawa; H. F. S. Paisley, Sydney, N.S.; Lloyd Roberts, McKellar, Ottawa; H. A. Underwood, Ottawa; G. G. Yates, Montreal, P.Q.
Letters of inquiry but no particulars, were received from:	M. Goldenberg, Montreal,
P.Q.; C. W. Seaboyer, Lunenburg, N.S.
6.	The advertisement specified, among other things, that the candidate must have, " at least five years of experience in journalism and a wide knowledge of the fishing industry and of the fisheries of Canada." It did not call for practical experience as a fisherman. Mr. Paisley was the only candidate who had five years of experience in journalism and who had also a knowledge of fisheries. Through his editorial work on New Brunswick and Nova Scotia newspapers he has

Questions
gained a knowledge of fisheries problems, especially in the maritime provinces, and he has also had experience in public speaking.
7.	An employee of the department is acting as an assistant.
8.	His salary is $3,720.
9.	Office and travelling expenses as may be found necessary.



ARTHUR MCDONALD

Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	What position, if any, does Arthur McDonald, of Sydney, Nova Scotia, hold with the government?
2.	What was the date of his appointment?
3.	What salary does he receive?	.


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Arthur McDonald, Sydney, appointed commissioner to investigate partisanship charges against government employees.
2.	21st February 1927.
3.	Not on salary basis but paid $20 per day's work plus travelling and living expenses.



INGRAHAM COREY

Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	What position, if any, does Ingraham Corey, of New Campbeliton, Victoria county, Nova Scotia, hold with the government?
2.	Who recommended him?
3.	What salary does he receive?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No information.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



NEW CAMPBELLTON, N.S., WHARF

Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	What amount of money has been spent on the government wharf in the district of New Campbeliton, Victoria county, Nova Scotia, during the years 1923-1928, inclusive?
2.	Was the work done by contract or days' pay?
3.	If by contract, who was the contractor?
4.	What was the amount of his tender?
5.	If by day labour, who was the foreman?
6.	What rate of wages was paid the foreman?
7.	What rate of wages was paid to labourers?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	1922-1923, $4S1.92; 1927-1928, $1,392.45.- Total, $1,874.37.
2.	Day labour.
3	and 4. Answered by number 2.
5.	1922-1923, Rod C. McLean. 1927-1928, D. J. Dunlop.
6.	$4 per day.
7.	$2.50 per day.



IMPORTS OF WOOL AND WOOLLEN TOPS

Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	What quantity of wool and woollen tops was imported into Canada in the calendar year 1928, and what was the rate of duty and amount of duty collected on same?
2.	What was the value, rate of duty and amount of duty collected on imports of manufactured woollen goods during the calendar year 1928?


William Daum Euler: 

GABARUS, N.S., BREAKWATER

Mr. MACDONALD (Riohmond-Cape Breton West):: 1.	Row much money was expended in 1928 on the breakwater at Gabarus, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia?
2.	What portion of this amount was for timber, logs, iron, nails, etc?
3.	What portion of this amount covered cost of labour?
4.	What disposition was made of material left over?
5.	Was the amount expended sufficient to complete the necessary work?
6.	Were any additional amounts requested to complete the necessary work?
7.	Is the breakwater at Gabarus now in a satisfactory state of repair?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	$803.80.
2.	S507.80.
3.	S296.
4.	1,050 lineal feet of round logs and some sawn timber was taken to Fourchu and used in beach protection work.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.
7.	Yes.



BOVINE TUBERCULAR TEST IN NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many cattle, in the province of Nova Scotia, which were subjected to the bovine tubercular test, were declared clear of any infection?
2.	How many cattle so declared free of infection were afterwards found, when slaughtered for human food, to be tubercular to a very marked degree?
3.	Will the Department of Agriculture or the federal government reimburse purchasers of cattle which were declared by veterinaries free from tubercular and found to be infected when slaughtered, to the full extent of the amount paid by said purchasers?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	During the initial test for tuberculosis of cattle in the Nova Scotia restricted area, 185,896 animals passed a clean test. There was, therefore, no evidence of tuberculosis in these cattle. Some animals may, however, have been too recently infected to react, and occasionally also very badly infected cattle or cattle that have recently been injected with tuberculin may fail to react to the tuberculin test. The percentage of such cases is however very small, and the tuberculin test is recognized by all competent authorities as by far the most efficient means of detecting this disease in cattle.
2.	Nine cases have been reported to the Health of Animals branch of cattle, which did not react to the tuberculin test during the test
of cattle in the Nova Scotia restricted area, being found to be tuberculous when slaughtered for human food.
3.	No. If, however, cattle which fail to react due to causes set forth above in a restricted area are slaughtered under the supervision of a veterinary inspector, and are found to be tuberculous, compensation may be paid at the regular rates.



DAYSPRING, N.S., MUNICIPAL FARM

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Were certain cattle at the municipal farm at Dayspring subjected to the bovine tuberculin test?
2.	How many cattle of said herd were declared by the veterinary as reactors?
3.	What was given as reason by said veterinary for declaring said cattle reactors?
4.	Were said cattle slaughtered and where?
5.	How- many veterinaries were present at said slaughtering and whom did they represent?
6.	What were the opinions of said veterinaries?
7.	Did any of said veterinaries take away parts of carcasses for laboratorial examination, and, if so, who?
8.	What were the results of said examinations?
9.	Will full compensation be paid the municipality of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, because of 6aid examination of parts of cattle?
10.	If not, why not?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Three cattle.
3.	They reacted to the tuberculin test conducted by him.
4.	These reactors were slaughtered on the owner's premises.
5.	Two veterinary inspectors, representing the Health of Animals branch, were present when these reactors were slaughtered.
6.	Answered by No. 10.
7.	The hyperemic glands and portions of spleen from the reactors were taken by veterinary inspectors J. W. Frank and R. B. Catt and forwarded to the Animal Diseases Research Institute, Hull, for examination.
Specimens were handed to Mr. Romkey, the warden of the Poor Farm, for transmission to Dalhousie university for examination.
8.	Microscopical examinations of the specimens submitted to the Health of Animals branch laboratory were negative. Small animal inoculations were also made, the results of which are not yet concluded. Microscopical examinations of specimens sent to Dalhousie university were also negative, according to information received.
9.	No.
10.	The Animal Contagious Diseases Act and regulations established thereunder provide that
Questions as Orders for Returns

cattle that react to the tuberculin test will be considered tuberculous. The compensation awarded for such reactors to the tuberculin test is two-thirds of the value placed on the animals by the veterinary inspector conducting the test. The value that can be placed on animals that react to the tuberculin test is limited by the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How many permanent civil servants of the male sex employed in full time occupations, are in receipt of a salary of less than $100 per month ?
2.	How many of these are with dependents?
3.	How many of these are without dependents?
4.	How many temporary civil servants of the male sex, employed in full time occupations, are in receipt of a salary of less than $100 per month ?
5.	How many of these are with dependents?
6.	How many of these are without dependents?
7.	What would be the cost to the country if the salaries of these civil servants enumerated in questions one and four, above, were increased to the sum of $100 per month?


RURAL MAIL ROUTES
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: 1.	When and where was the first rural mail route established in Canada?
2.	How many rural mail routes have been established in each of the provinces in each year since the inauguration of the system?
3.	How many post offices have been closed in each province in each year in consequence of the establishing of rural mail delivery?
4.	How many new post offices have been established in each province during each year from 1911 to the end of 1928, and how many (a) postmasters; (b) other officials have been appointed to carry on such extra service?


PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	How many departments of the government carry on the function of printing, exclusive of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery?
2.	What are the names and salaries of the officials of the staff referred to in question number one?
3.	What is the approximate original cost of the installation of machinery and equipment used in each department for purposes referred to in question one?
4.	What are the amounts paid to outside printing offices not under government service during the year 1926-27 and 1927-28?
5.	What are the names of the firms referred to in question number four?


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: 1.	What was the cost to the treasury of the Department of Justice for the fiscal years. 192627 and 1927-28?
2.	What are the names and respective salaries
in each department of:	(a) departmental
solicitors; (b) departmental assistant solicitors; (c) stenographers and other clerical assistance, for the fiscal years 1926-27 and 1927-28, for the solicitors mentioned in A and B?
3.	What are the names and amounts of salaries, fees or payments, made for legal advice or other legal service rendered by members of the legal profession, other than the items included in one and two above, for the fiscal years 1926-27 and 1927-28?



THE I'M ALONE INCIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Has the Prime Minister any statement to give to the house with respect to the I'm Alone incident which has been attracting so much attention in the press?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The incident to which my hon. friend refers has been the subject of correspondence between the government of the United States and our government during the past week and is being made a matter of formal representation on the part of our government to the United States government at the present time. I have no further statement to make at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the correspondence be brought down at an early date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In due course.



PENSION PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Edward Ross: Will the government lay on the table a copy of order in council P.C. 8481 dated January 16, 1928?


Charles A. Stewart: What is it about?


Arthur Edward Ross: It is in regard to the payment of pensions to soldiers already pensioned.



MEDICAL RELIEF FOR INDIANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles A. Stewart: The hon. member for North
Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) directed a question to the government with respect to medical relief for Indians in northern Ontario, and on my behalf he was promised an answer.

The Budget-Mr. Colnam
The matter was brought to our attention some time ago and we have been in communication with the doctor who visited the band in question. I will content myself by reading to the house his telegram. In reply to our inquiry he wires from Cochrane, after visiting the band:
Newspaper reports of condition greatly exaggerated. Saw few children at post. Only one child very ill. Father decided to keep child home and have advised treatment and given medicine. Conditions are not urgent and as rivers are not open there are very few Indians at post.



VISIT TO WASHINGTON OF MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm). American press despatches published in the Canadian journals state that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been visiting Washington and calling on the President and other officials down there. Has the minister a statement to make to the house and to the people of Canada regarding the possibilities of trade agreement negotiations or negotiations of any other nature undertaken during his stay in the American capital.


James Malcolm: I can assure my
hon. friend that I enjoyed the pleasure of a stay of two days in Washington, making personal visits and extending the usual courtesies.
I called on the president out of courtesy but not for any official purpose.



BRITISH COLUMBIA PENITENTIARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Now that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is back with us, I would ask him the question which I put to the Pi'ime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) some weeks ago, and that is as to the delay in the appointment of a warden and deputy warden for the British Columbia penitentiary. These offices have been vacant now for almost a year and the matter is beginning to create comment, particularly in view of the fact that the present incumbent, the acting warden, is residing in an hotel in Vancouver and not at the penitentiary.


Ernest Lapointe: The Civil Service Commission has
been asked to fill the position.


William Garland McQuarrie: When were they
asked?


Ernest Lapointe: A few weeks ago. However, I will refresh my memory and let my hon. friend know.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 22, consideration of the motion of Hon. J, A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Hugh Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
Mr. I. D. COTNAM (North Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, I should not care to enter this debate this afternoon but for one particular reason. I feel I owe it as a duty to the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this parliament to lay before this house what I believe to be the views of the people who reside in that constituency. In the first days of March we had delivered to us the usual budget speech by the -Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). That speech contained nothing remarkable; as a matter of fact, I think it contained less than any other budget speech which the minister has delivered in this house since I have had the honour of being a representative in parliament.
Last year in speaking on the budget I stated that it was milkless, meatless, breadless and butterless; the Prime Minister, in speaking on a certain amendement in this house, stated it was a milk and water concoction, but I should say this is even worse, because there is no milk in it. On March 7 the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), then acting leader of the opposition, delivered a speech in reply to'the budget, and I think everyone will agree that he made a most remarkable address which as yet has not been answered by any minister of the crown or any member of this house sitting opposite. Several cabinet ministers have attempted to Teply, but I would say that so far they have not answered the speech made that, day by the hon. member.
The Minister of Finance tells us that this year he intends to take out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada the enormous total of $454,942,000, and he tells us that this is $25,000,000 more than he extracted last year. Apparently he makes that statement with a great deal of satisfaction. Then he tells us
The Budget-Mr. Cotnam

that the customs revenues of Canada for the last fiscal year will amount to $185,000,000, an increase of $28,000,000 over the customs revenues collected during the previous year. That statement comes with very poor grace from a party which, when in opposition, year after year and over the length and breadth of Canada shouted that the tariff of this country was a tax imposed upon the people and that they, if returned to power, would reduce the customs tariff and not collect such an enormous tax from the Canadian people. Then the minister goes on to say that our ordinary expenditures this year are estimated at $355,200,000; capital expenditures are estimated at $24,150,000, so therefore the total expenditures for the coming year will be approximately $385,160,000, or an increase of $22,332,000 over the previous year. Yet in the face of that statement the Minister of Finance and the members of the government try to convince the country that they are actually diminishing the taxation imposed upon the Canadian people. By what process of political alchemy can this government tell us in one breath that they are collecting from the people of Canada $25,000,000 more than they collected in the previous year, and in the next breath tell us they are going to spend almost $23,000,000 more than was spent last year, at the same time claiming that they are reducing taxation? I think that matter was very well dealt with by the hon. member for South Wellington when he showed that while the government are reducing taxes which they imposed because of their extravagances during their entire regime, the total taxation collected from the people of Canada is higher than ever before.
Under the Conservative administration, for the five years from 1918 to 1923, the amount of taxes collected was as follows:
1918		 $260,778,953
1919		 312,946,747
1920		 349,746,335
1921		 436,292,185
1922		 382,271,571
The amount of taxes collected under the Liberal administration for a similar period was as follows:
1925		 $346,834,479
1926		 380,745,506
1927		 398,695,776
1928		(about) 422,000,000
1929		 454,942,000
So, according to these figures, in the five-year period the Liberal administration collected from the taxpayers of Canada $255,000,000 more than was collected by their predecessors during a similar period of years, notwithstanding the fact that the war was

over and they were not confronted with the war expenditures which had to be made by the previous administration. It must be remembered that these taxes, which have been removed to a certain extent by the present administration, were imposed by this government because of their own extravagances, and now that they are reducing the taxes little by little they tell the people they are reducing taxation. The fact remains that the Liberal administration have collected in taxes more than was collected by the Conservative administration, and in spite of that fact the net debt of Canada has been reduced by only $90,000,000.


Mr. RALSTON:: Where does my hon. friend get the five years of Conservative administration which he has used for comparison?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I gave the years; 1918
to 1923.


James Layton Ralston: And my hon. friend calls that Conservative administration?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Yes. Yet in the face of
these figures the Minister of Finance and the government tell us that they are economizing. We would like them to tell us just exactly where that economizing has been done. The Auditor General's report does not show that economy; the estimates do not show it, and I do not think there is a member of the government who can stand up in his place today and give the house one single instance where the government have practised the economy they have preached. It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to tell the people to work and be thrifty, so long as his government can collect from them the taxes with which to carry on the extravagances they are practising to-day. The Minister of Finance says:
.	.	.	. the administration will refuse to
support any extravagance in the spending of the taxpayers' money. To this policy we again solicit the support of hon. members in order that at the end of another year it may again be found that, continuing to live within the public income ....
On January IS, 1926, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and in the course of his remarks said:
May I call attention to the fact, that, the total disbursements for the year prior to the present government coming into power amounted to $418,620,000, and for the year just passed amounted to $339,902,725. I am sure the reduction in the actual cost of carrying on the affairs of this country is a matter of great satisfaction to hon. gentlemen in every quarter of this house. That means a reduction practically from $51 to $37 per head of the population of Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Colnam
Since the hon. gentleman spoke on that occasion he has become a member of this government; and hon. members rejoice that the expenses of the government have risen from $339,000,000 to $391,000,000 per annum. This expenditure has been saddled upon the tax payers. This additional impost is equal to $5.36 per head, which means an extra contribution of $26 or $27 to be made by the average family living in this country. This expenditure has to be made to meet the extravagance of the government which is in power to-day.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) says that he has reduced taxation. He has reduced the tax on telegrams and transportation; the people who are wealthy enough to occupy compartment or sleeping berths have been given a 10 per cent reduction. But how about the sales tax? This tax affects the great mass of the people of Canada, and it is a burden upon the working people. This government upon coming into office, raised the tax from 3 per cent to 6 per cent. The sales tax could have been removed long ago had the government practised the economy which they are talking about at the present time. Twenty million dollars is remitted by the reduction of 1 per cent in the sales tax, but had the government practised economy that tax would have disappeared at least two years ago when an amendment to the budget speech was moved by the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie). The government was asked to remove the whole tax, but I suppose the Minister of Finance is holding back that 2 per cent and next year he can hurl out the news that there has been a 50 per cent reduction in the sales tax. Just before the next general election he will be able to tell what he is doing for the poor people in the way of remitting taxes.
The government still manage to retain the excise tax on matches. This article is of prime necessity in every household throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion, but the government still retain that tax which more than any other affects the poor. When the government were in opposition they were always preaching that they were the friends of the poor; in office they have become the friends of the rich and wealthy plutocrats and the big organizations to the detriment of the poor people of this country. They talk about the prosperity of Canada, and we are all delighted with the degree of prosperity there is at the present time. It has been rather interesting to sit on this side of the house and listen to some of the hon. gentlemen opposite! especially to some members of the government-to listen to the Minister
of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) bringing forth the specious argument that the people of Canada are prosperous to-day. One of the arguments used by the minister is the stock argument which has been advanced by every member sitting on the Liberal side of the house. They all go to the bank reports, the reports of the big moneyed interests, the big trusts, the big mergers and the big combines and endeavour to show from the annual statements of those corporations that the people of Canada are wealthy to-day. Unfortunately that picture of general prosperity is not a true picture of what is actually taking place. Every one knows that the farmers are not as prosperous as they should be at the present time, and everyone knows that the wage earners have not been enjoying that general prosperity which is supposed to be abroad throughout the Dominion. So far as the farmers and the wage earners are concerned, that general prosperity is always just around the corner and a little bit away from them. It is a difficult thing for the average individual to understand why the government does not go to the working man and find out whether or not he is prosperous; why they do not go to the -farmer and cite his case to show that the farmers are actually prosperous. The former leader of the Liberal party did not pursue the same method in trying to show whether or not the people were prosperous. The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that if the people were prosperous it was not necessary to cite statistics; that when the man in the street, the average working man, put his hand in his pocket and when the average housewife went to her pantry or larder they knew by what they found there whether or not they were prosperous.
Under this administration the farmer has never had a square deal. When our American cousins enacted the Fordney tariff, which was aimed against the farmers of this country, this government, in place of giving protection to the Canadian farmer, took that blow lying down. They were absolutely spineless; they never attempted to retaliate in any way or to protect the interests of our farmers. Every one knows that the American duty against Canadian farm products going into the United States is two or three times the Canadian duty against American farm products coming into this country. This government has allowed that situation to exist during its whole tenure of office. That is absolutely unfair to the Canadian farmer and has reacted against his best interests.
Not content with that, this government made a treaty with Australia and by order in council allowed that treaty to be effective
The Budget-Mr. Cotnam

as far as New Zealand was concerned. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stampeded the country in 1921 when he accused the Conservative party of governing by order in council, but I venture to say that this government has passed more orders in council, than any other government we have ever had. Before that treaty came into force this country was importing butter to the extent of only 197,000 pounds per annum, and we had an exportable surplus of 24,000,000 pounds. But since that treaty came into force millions of pounds of butter have been coming in to compete with Canadian butter, although the Canadian farmer has to produce his butter during the winter months under the most adverse conditions. He has to house his stock and feed them during that time of the year; yet the New Zealand farmer, without having to construct outbuildings, without being put to the expense which the Canadian farmer has to meet, was practically given right of way and permitted to come in and steal the Canadian butter market from the Canadian farmer. The following table shows the importations of butter from New Zealand since this treaty came into force:
Year	Pounds
1926		 3.193.382
1927		 8.714.985
1928		 16,124,641
It is estimated that during the year 1929 the New Zealand dairying interests will sell in Canada in the neighbourhood of 30,000,000 pounds of butter to the detriment of the Canadian farmer. Is it any wonder that our farmers feel exasperated and humiliated owing to the manner in which the government has acted toward them? Is it any wonder that the Canadian farmer is depressed and feels that it is becoming increasingly difficult for him to carry on his operations?
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking in the house the other day, said that this milk was not now being used in just the same way; that it was being put up in different forms and sold as condensed milk, milk powder and so forth. But he neglected to state that whereas in 1926 there were produced in Canada 13,407,000,000 pounds of milk, in 1927 the production had dropped to about 13,000,000,000 pounds. That is, the actual milk production had decreased by almost 500,000.000 pounds in that year. He also forget to mention that at the same time the dairy herds in the Dominion had decreased by 101,000; that the number of swine-and the swine industry is the complement of the dairy industry-had decreased by almost 200,000, while the dairy herds in New Zealand had increased by 50,000 and their swine herds
	*
by probably 30,000 or 40,000, showing that the business which should legitimately have come to the mixed farming industry in Canada was being transferred, owing to the policy of the government, to the farmers of New Zealand, and they were obtaining the profits. I often wonder whether the government is working in behalf of the best interests of our own farmers and working people or for the farmers who dwell in lands other than our own.
Prior to entering into the New Zealand arrangement we were exporting pork, bacon, hides, lard, cheese, butter, milk and so forth, to the value of $88,000,000 per annum, and this money was coming into the pockets of the Canadian farmers. Last year our total exports of those products amounted to only $47,000,000. In other words, since the New Zealand arrangement came into force the farmers of this country lost $40,000,000 in connection with by-products of the dairy industry.
Everyone knows what has happened to the woollen industry of this country. According to all the information that is available we should have one of the greatest sheep industries of the world. It is estimated that we should be able in western Canada to support flecks of sheep amounting to about 25,000,000, but at the present time in the three western provinces there are only a couple of hundred thousand sheep. In eastern Canada the situation is somewhat similar; many farmers are supporting only one per cent of the number of sheep which they should have. This is due to the fact that owing to the tariff policy of the government the Canadian farmers have become so disgusted that they are no longer trying to maintain their sheep industry as they did in years gone by. Everyone knows that after the government tampered with the tariff, woollen industry after woollen industry was closed down. I have under my hand a list of the woollen industries that were closed down almost directly after the government tampered with the tariff on woollen goods. The list is as follows:
Name of Mill	Date closed
Canadian Western Wollen Mills,
Vancouver	 1926
Renfrew Woollen Mills, Renfrew.. 1927 Gulf Textiles Limited, Isle Verte,
Quebec	 1924
Amherst Woollen Mills, Amherst,
N.S	 1923
Ernestown Woollen Mills, Odessa,
Ontario	 1927
Hawthorne Mills, Limited, Carleton
Place, Ontario		1927
Pembroke Woollen Company, Pembroke, Ontario	 1925

The Budget-Mr. Cotnam
Let me say that 'the Pembroke Woollen Mills were operated and controlled by a former supporter of this administration and that owing to the policy of the government, that mill is in process of being dismantled at the present time.
Name of Mill	Dated closed
Harris and Company, Rockwood,
Ontario	 1925
Boyd, Caldwell and Company, Appleton, Ontario	 1925
Boyd, Caldwell and Company, Lanark,
Ontario	 1925
Randle Brothers, Meaford, Ontario. 1924
There is a list of about fifty of them, but I am not going to read any more. Is it any wonder, in view of these facts, that the farmers of this country have become disgusted with the sheep raising industry which should be one of their great assets?
What has the government done in this budget or, for that matter, since it came into power, for the wage earners of the Dominion? Last year our imports from and exports to the United States were as follows:
Imports	 $825,000,000
Exports	 492,500,000
Most of our exports to the United States were raw products, products of the mines, forests and so forth, whereas in the neighbourhood of 8400,000,000 worth, or practically one-half of our imports from the United States were made up of articles manufactured in that country from raw products which they had imparted from the Dominion of Canada. Furthermore, most of those manufactured articles were such that, under a government which had ait heart the true interests of the Canadian workmen and Canadian people generally, they would have been manufactured in this Dominion, in this way increasing the wages for our workingmen and at the same time helping our farmers by creating markets for them.
Let me refer now to the agricultural implement industry. Agriculture, as everyone admits, is really the basic industry of the Dominion. The present government tinkered with the tariff on agricultural implements, promising the farmers that they were going io decrease the price. As a matter of fact, as has been conclusively shown, the cost of agricultural implements in this country is just a little higher to-day than it was before the government tinkered with the tariff. What has happened in the meantime? Our importations of agricultural implements are as follows:
Date	Amount
1925		 $ 6,494,986
1926		 13,000,000
1927		 18,000,000
1928		 29,000.000
1929	(estimated)	 40,000,000
Had a proper tariff policy been adopted, every one of these agricultural implements should have been manufactured in Canada providing additional work for the Canadian workingman, instead of which many of out workmen have been obliged to sell their homes, leave the Dominion and go to the United States to get the jobs denied them at home because the government has failed to act in their best interests.
The situation is similar in regard to the woollen industry. We are importing to-day $24,000,000 worth of woollen goods while our Canadian mills are operating at only one-half of their capacity and are providing only 30 per cent of the requirements of this country. The government are allowing $24,000,000 worth of woollen goods to come into Canada to the detriment of the Canadian workingman and the sheep industry. This government by a slight change in the tariff could provide that probably one-half of the total amount of woollen goods at present imported would be manufactured in this country, giving work for our workingmen and increased markets for our farmers.	<	.
The present administration during this session refused any additional grant towards the construction of a transcontinental highway, and in support of their refusal they brought forward some rather peculiar arguments. Some members went so far as to say that such a highway would cost 8200,000,000. I do not know where they got that estimate;
I do not know if there ever has been an estimate given of the actual cost of construction of a trans-Canada highway. The fact remains, however, that there is no single piece of work that might be undertaken in Canada ito-day that would redound more to the best interests of all the people of this Dominion than the construction of a motor highway across Canada. It would bring the people of eastern and western Canada closer together, and that is what we need in this Dominion. It would bring our young men and our young women in eastern Canada into contact with their fellow-citizens in western Canada, and by making the people of the east familiar with that western land would perhaps tend to prevent the exodus of our young people to the United States. Everyone knows that highway construction throughout the history of the world has always preceded the material advancement of any country.
I think it was the Prime Minister who in an earlier debate this session, when he was trying to show that the New Zealand treaty had not reacted against the farmers of this country, made the statement that the American tourists coming into Canada were drinking so much milk that we were not able to
The Budget-Mr. Cotnarn

make as much butter as before. If that is the case, the construction of a national highway across this country might offset to some extent the bad effects of the New Zealand treaty because, according to the Prime Minister's argument, the more tourists that come to this country the more milk will be consumed, although personally I have never been given to understand that the tourists come to this country to drink milk.
The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) was very much afraid that the construction of a transcontinental highway might interfere with the success of the Canadian National railways. I have a statement here by Sir Henry Thornton, the president of the road, who, speaking at a meeting of the Good Roads Association in Toronto a short time ago, said that he wished that next year we would have two millions of automobiles' in Canada instead of one million, because it would be conducive to increasing railway business in this country. He went on to explain that the automobile was the complement of the railway. So the argument of the Minister of Railways does not hold good.
It is not so very long ago that this government, which to-day is afraid to spend money for the construction of a transcontinental highway for the linking up of the peoples of the Dominion, that we might get to know the country in which we live a little better, was prepared, as they announced in the speech from the throne in 1925, to enter into the so-called Petersen contract. I wonder if the members of the government remember that Petersen contract. They were prepared to launch on that expenditure for the purpose of breaking what they said was a shipping combine in the north Atlantic which was breaking the backs of the producers in this country by causing high ocean freight rates, and in that way increasing the cost of living. But the Conservative party in this house exposed the fallacy of that whole argument, and the result was that the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the government of that day has since had the honour of being left at home in his constituency to cogitate on the fickleness of Dame Fortune.
This government is not prepared to do anything for technical education in this country. It is prepared to spend millions and millions of dollars where the expenditure is not called for, but when it comes to expending anything on technical education for the benefit of those who are the least favoured in this country, the government is not prepared to spend the taxpayer's money.
I wonder if this government, which is always talking economy, ever s*ops to consider

the cost of the personnel of the cabinet itself. I think the greatest extravagance in this country at the present time is its own government. The seventeen members of the government are the biggest extravagance which we have in this country at this time. There was a time not so very long ago when this government did not have so many supporters in this house as it has now, and they brought down a speech from the throne in which they said1 that in order to cut down expenditures they were going to reduce the number of departments, but now, instead of reducing the number of departments, they are going to give us more and more departments, with extra cabinet ministers, and extra cabinet pay. It takes seventeen cabinet ministers to govern this country now, and in a short time we shall have eighteen, for a people of 9,500.000, while the United States, with 120,000,000 people, can be governed through seven cabinet ministers.
Then we have our embassy at Washington. Last year we bought a palatial residence for the Hon. Vincent Massey in Washington at a cost to the taxpayers of this country of $500,000. Whether we need an embassy down there or not is another question, but I would like to make a few observations on what it is costing us to keep the Hon. Vincent Massey down in Washington. According to the Auditor General's report this year, under the heading of Salaries and Wages, the Hon. Vincent Massey gets this title:
Envoy extraordinary-
I do not know whether there is anything extraordinary about the Hon. Vincent Massey.
1	never saw it anyway:
-and minister plenipotentiary, Hon. Vincent Massey, $12,000, house representation allowance,
2	months at $18,000, 10 months at $10,000 allowance for automobile, $2,000.
Then there is a list of first secretaries, commercial secretaries, chauffeurs, and so forth, with salaries ranging all the way from five to six thousand dollars apiece, and then at the bottom of the account we see this item:
Newspapers and publications, $893.22; postage. $319: rent of offices, $900; rent of rooms at The Mayflower for Hon. V. Massey-
I suppose the Hon. Vincent Massey thought he had come over in the Mayflower and was one of the original four hundred:
-April 1 to June 1; $2,541.69.
That money comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers in this Dominion. That is what we are paying for keeping the Hon. Vincent Massey in Washington, and what we would like to know is what we are getting anyway through having Mr. Massey down there.

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy
The government could not spend any money for building a transcontinental highway; they could not spend any money on technical education to help the sons of the poor man, but when it comes to beautifying the city of Ottawa, they can pull down buildings at a cost of over 83,000,000 in order that you can get a bird's eye view of a little corner of the parliament buildings from the eastern end of the grounds.
Then we have our magnificent tariff board, costing this country 8200,000 a year. If the Prime Minister would give the boys a bag of marbles and tell them to go out and play with them and have a good time, they would accomplish just about as much of useful work as this tariff board has done.
Then we have Mr. Newton Wesley Rowell, another extravagance of this government. He travelled across this country with the Customs Inquiry Commission, and he received in fees in a short time, less than a year, $-14,060. That looks a good sum to the farmers and workingmen, many of whom are not drawing down more than 82 or 82.25 per day. I notice that the Labour department of this government tells us that the average living wage at the present time should be in the neighbourhood of 885 per month. I want to tell the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) and the government that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Canada who are subsisting on less than 860 a month. I could take the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister into homes and show them workingmen who are keeping their families and trying to pay their way, and are getting only 82 a day.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed this debate with a good deal of care and have read a number of speeches delivered during its course that it was not my privilege to hear. I have also read over several times the budget speech and the budget proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), but I am not satisfied that he has proposed any substantial remedy for dealing with the problems confronting Canada to-day. Notwithstanding the fact that we have a somewhat relative prosperity, we have still a good many problems to deal with. On the tariff we have very largely a stand-pat policy, the same policy that we have had ever since the introduction of the National Policy.
It seems to me the government decided that because there was likely to be a good surplus this year it would get them by regardless of what criticism might be levelled at them.
The budget surplus announced by the Minister of Finance is largely the result of world conditions, as well as the good crop or two that we have had in western Canada, and of course some other factors; it is not particularly the result of any government policy as far as I can see. In the course of his budget speech the minister, after reviewing certain conditions, is reported at page 594 of Hansard as follows:
These, we believe, are factors which, coupled with good crops, have materially assisted in the expansion of our basic industries.
I think we ought to lay special emphasis on that word "coupled'' in relation to his budget proposals. His " coupled with good crops" argument reminds me of the story of the Irishman who entered a tailor's shop with a button and asked to have a pair of pants sewed on to it. I believe that, looking at the budget surplus, the government are fortifying themselves against any criticism by repeating to themselves that passage of Scripture, " I know that my Redeemer liveth." But, after all, if the-.e is to be any change of tariff policy it should be made in times of surpluses. The other day the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) pointed out that the time to make cuts in the tariff, if they were to be made at all in line with the proclaimed policy of the Liberal party, must be when we had surpluses. I think we had a somewhat similar thought expressed by the Prime Minister in days gone by. I remember when he was in Edmonton in 1924, after reviewing the difficulties he had had as Prime Minister, due to the fact that he was practically leading a minority party in the house, he is reported as stating-and I am quoting this from the Edmonton Bulletin of October 11, 1924:
When asked to form a cabinet he was very diffident concerning the task, as it meant he would have to carry on, not as a government strongly supported, but really as a minority government depending on the support of one of the other parties in the house. Mr. King expressed his appreciation of the loyalty and support accorded to him by the Progressive members of the House of Commons.
That was one difficulty. The other stressed was the difficulty of Dominion finance, due to the fact that the Conservative government which preceded him had been very extravagant and had added tremendously to the national debt. Then we have this passage in the Edmonton Bulletin's report:
When criticizing the present Liberal government, Mr. King asked his audience to bear in mind the difficulties that had to be faced, and he pointed out that if a Liberal government
The Budget-Mr. Kennedy

had been in power it would have been an easy matter for his administration to have lived up to the promises that were made when he appealed to the country in the last general election.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a budget surplus is not a guarantee of real democratic prosperity throughout the country. We have been told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) that the car loadings and so on of the railways are an indication of prosperous conditions throughout the country. With regard to budget surpluses, I would point out that for a number of years after the war, when the French government had tremendous difficulty in balancing its budget, it was generally stated that France was not suffering from unemployment to anything like the same extent that Great Britain, Canada and the United States were suffering. This advantage enjoyed by France was attributable, I believe, to the fact that she had not deflated her currency. As to railway carloadings being a criterion of the people's prosperity, I would point out that sixty pounds of wheat moving from any point in western Canada to Fort William or Port Arthur or Vancouver brings the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific the same revenue regardless of whether it is No. 1 northern or No. 6 northern, or even if it is feed. I know cases where farmers are up against a freight rate of 16 cents a bushel on their grain moving to Fort William or Port Arthur or Vancouver. Their initial pool payment was 11 cents a bushel, yet the threshing bill alone was 13 cents a bushel. I give this illustration to show that buoyant railway earnings cannot be taken as indicating more than 50 per cent of general prosperity throughout the Dominion. I think we shall find this year that the crop in western Canada last year was not all it was reported to be before it was actually harvested. It is possible that it will pay its way, but it will not lead to the development that followed the crop of 1927. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce also pointed out that the extra carload earnings meant an increase in railway employment; but railway statistics over a period of years do not show that to be the case.
It has been stated generally that when we have a tremendous increase in wheat production we are bound to have an increase in the prosperity of the farmers. I have before me the November, 1928, issue of Current History. It contains an article entitled The Farm Problem Made Clear, and what I am about to quote from this article in my judgment bears out some of the reasons for increased acreage and increased volume of wheat and other production in western Canada:

Low prices frequently force the farmer toward increased production in order to meet inflexibly hjgh prices, as was pointed out by Dr. E. G. Nourse of the Institute of Economics when he said in his paper before the American Farm Economic Association: "With prices per unit low and fixed obligations high, the utmost effort must be expended toward securing a large output." That is why low and unprofitable prices do not always result in decreased acreage.
So while I am willing to admit that we have a certain amount of relative prosperity, at the same time we have problems in abundance so far as the common people and the farmers of Canada are concerned.
For years one of the remedies proposed by (he Liberal party has been the cutting down of the tariff. A few years ago the question of rural credits engaged our attention, and we hope that notwithstanding the very long time it has taken to put the Rural Credits Act into operation, it will be made effective in the near future. But I say again that the Liberal party has made definite pledges to this country. In 1919 it made pledges which have never been repudiated and which have never been thoroughly acted upon. Here is a resolution presented to the National Liberal convention in session in Ottawa August 5, 6 and 7, 1919. It was presented, according to the report, by:
Hon. W- E. Knowles (former member for Moose Jaw in the federal parliament, now of the Saskatchewan government).
Mr. Knowles said:
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I will not detain you more than a very few minutes. This resolution is a straight, honest-to-Uod Liberal resolution; in it we join issue with the privileged classes and those who try to raise our revenues by the indirect method, and out of the poor people.
The rest of his speech is hardly fit to be read in the House of Commons, but if anyone wants to read i't privately he will find it at page 164 of the report. However, the resolution itself reads:
Whereas, the national safety demands that the serious financial position of the country should be known and appreciated in order that steps may be taken to cope with the same, and
W'hereas, on the 31st March last, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, the net public debt was $1,584,000,000, or, roughly, $220 for every man, woman and child in the Dominion, involving an annual interest charge of about $115,000,000, and thus imposing an annual burden for interest on debt alone of $15 per head of the population, and
Whereas, the estimated expenditure of the Dominion government for the present fiscal year is over $800,000,000, or, roughly, $100 per head of the population, and
Whereas, the estimated revenue is only $280,000,000, thus creating an estimated deficit of

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy
over $500,000,000-a sum equivalent to $62.50 per head of the population-which sum the finance minister proposes to obtain by borrowing. and
Whereas, national disaster will overtake this country should the present method of financing the country's affairs be continued, and
Whereas, both Great Britain and the United States at present raise more than 80 per cent of their revenue by direct taxation while Canada raises not more than 20 per cent,
Be, and it is hereby resolved:
(1)	That the serious nature of the country's financial situation calls for the profoundest consideration of all patriotic citizens, and the exercise of the severest economy by the government;
(2)	That increase of revenue must be sought from an equitable and effective imposition and collection of graduated taxes, on business profits and income applicable to all incomes above reasonable exemptions;
And yet, in the face of that declaration, in the last two years we have cut about 20 per cent of personal incomes, about 11 per cent of corporation incomes, and we have reduced the tariff less than 1 per cent in all the years the Liberals have been in power since 1921. I submit that there is one of two things the Liberal party can do:	They can repudiate
this resolution or implement it, and I think they ought to do either one or the other.
Now last year I made in this house a statement which has been misrepresented and I wish to refer to it again. I wish to refer to an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette in reference to that statement, and I shall also deal with the reference made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his budget speech last year to the statement in question. Let me say, when reference is made to this question of a deal, that I used that word deal, and I use it again. I wish to be clear on that point, because the suggestion has been made by some that it should not be used. The statement I made, which will be found at page 955 of Hansard of March 2, 1928, reads:
The parties on that side of the house are trading too much on the fact that we cannot get together with the Conservatives. Let me tell them that, if this sort of thing continues, they will find they are suffering from a delusion. It is not a very big step for the people of the west, and particularly the people of Alberta, to say that if we cannot get tariff reductions in a general way-and it looks as if that were the case-the only thing for us to do is to go and make the very best possible deal with the protectionists and see what they can do for us.
That sentence is clear, as clear as it can be-it referred to the people of the west as saying " make the very best possible deal." And what use has 'been made of the statement? Here in what the Montreal Gazette says. But before reading this article I may observe that I used an illustration of farmers in the west who 78594-80
are interested in dairying and who simply threw aside, for the time being, any desire they had for free trade in an effort to get protection for their own industry. And that was what was in my mind when I made that statement -that the action of the Liberal government was driving certain farmers to take that attitude of making a deal with the protectionists in order to get, if not equality with other protectionists, the most they could out of it. There is nothing dearer. The Montreal Gazette, on March 5, 1928, says:
Mr. Kennedy's Warning
Mr. D. M. Kennedy, who sits in the House of Commons for Peace River and represents the United Farmers of Alberta, has made a contribution to the budget debate which may or may not be regarded as elevating the tone of that discussion. He is reported to have expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the government is fulfilling its pledges to the people. It is not very difficult, of course, to find instances of failure in this regard, since the government and its'followers, in appealing for the people's votes, exemplified an attitude of all tilings to all men, and proclaimed a variety of policies on tariff matters according to the understood requirements and sentiments of different sections of the community. No government could carry out all these policies, and it was- inevitable that some of the campaign chickens should come home, sooner, or later, to roost in conspicuous places. The government itself has made an ingenious effort to defer the embarrassments attendant upon the homecoming of its political poultry, but Mr. Kennedy, for one, is dissatisfied with the result; wherefore he warns the Prime Minister and his associates that disciplinary measures may be taken.
Mr. Kennedy's protest possesses a certain special interest. He sat for Peace River in the last brief parliament, after the seat had been taken from the Conservative candidate by fraud. Mr. Kennedy had nothing to do with the work of Mr. "Baldy" Robb and the others, nor was it intended that he should be the beneficiary of their activities. But he occupied the seat, and when a petition was presented in behalf of the Conservative candidate, Mr. Collins, the government resisted its acceptance and it was not accepted. Mr. Kennedy stayed, justifying his action on the ground that he had, somewhere or other, lost more votes than had been taken from Mr. Collins. The importance of this episode was revealed in one of the hectic divisions of the session when the government was saved by one vote, including Mr. Kennedy's.
There never was such a division in that session, and I wrote to the editor of the Gazette asking him to inform me to what division he referred. I have not yet received any reply. But notwithstanding the fact of that lie, the Prime Minister uses this article, which is a libel on the Liberal party as well as a misrepresentation of my own attitude, in order to take a slap at me in the budget debate of last year. I will read his statement later. However, the only instance I know of

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy

where there was a really hectic division and where one vote changed the parties in the house, was the division in which I voted against the government and put them out. That was the one division, and I say that the article in the Gazette-whether I was right or wrong in voting as I did does not matter in the meantime-is a lie or misrepresentation. The article goes on:
In these circumstances may be found some reason why the member for Peace River-Mr. Kennedy was reelected at the next election-
Which is another misrepresentation, because I was opposed by both Liberals and Conservatives in that election.
-should speak to the government in plain terms, if he so desires, and he so desired on Friday last. He complained that he and his friends were suffering the disadvantages of both free trade and protection,-
I still claim that.
-while the manufacturers were receiving the benefits of both. He denied that the purpose of the U.F.A. is to bludgeon the government, though an attempt has been made to keep the Liberal party true to its pledges. Indicating the Liberals and Progressives. Mr. Kennedy is reported to have said as follows:
Then the quotation which I have already read appears in full. The article goes on:
Whether the member for Peace River used the word "deal" or the rvord "bargain"-reports of his remarks differ in this respect-is not very material, the sense being the same.
I had complained of misrepresentation, and I want the Prime Minister to hear this. The Gazette misrepresented the facts, and the Prime Minister, to make a case against me, last year cut a sentence right in two; and in his remarks, before cutting that sentence in two, he utterly misrepresented my statement. I quote from Hansard of March 13, 1928, at page 1299, wLare the Prime Minister is reported to Lave said:
He made a statement in this house the other evening to the effect that the most effective way a class group could act might be to see *what bargain it could make with a party whose known principles were wholly opposed to its own.
What were his words? He said .... "the only thing for us to do is to go and make the very best possible deal with the protectionists and see what they can do for us."
That is the quotation from the sentence:
It is not a very big step for the people of the west, and particularly the people of Alberta, to say that if we cannot get tariff reductions in a general way-and it looks as if that were the case-the only thing for us to do is to go and make the very best possible deal with the protectionists

That is a complete misrepresentation of that sentence. What I had in mind, and the illustration I used, was that the dairy farmers

of the west, because of their dissatisfaction with the action of the government in connection -with the Australian treaty, actually took that course; they stated that they were anxious to wipe out the Australian treaty purely on a protectionist basis. There is no question of that, but the Prime Minister made the statement that I said the only thing for a "class group" to do was to turn right around and make a deal with the protectionists.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the statement to which my hon. friend is referring a statement made by myself in the House of Commons?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: AVhy did not
my hon. friend correct the statement at the time, if it was not right? I was merely quoting what he said.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is all very well to ask why I did not get up and correct a statement of that kind when I did not have the actual words before me. In the one case the sentences were all together and in the other case they were cut in two. As a private member of this house I want to say that I have a right to more courteous treatment than that from the Prime Minister. I do not care how hard the Prime Minister or anyone else on any side of the house attacks me with regard to principles or in argument, but I absolutely refuse to have my sentences carved in two, with a half used here and the other half somewhere else in order to make me say something I did not say at all. That is what was done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It looks as
though my hon. friend were seeking to make a martyr of himself. What he has read to the house now simply corroborates what I said at the time I spoke. I took his words as they appeared in Hansard; I repeated them in the house when the hon. member was present and all he says now is that he could not have been expected to have known then what he had previously said.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The argument advanced by the Prime Minister is a first class illustration of the type of argument used in a particular case. Two men were arguing about theology; one man told the other that by his way of arguing suicide could be justified by the Bible. To support that argument he quoted two sentences: "Judas hanged himself" and "Go thou and do likewise". I will stand by the sentence on the [DOT]possibility of co-

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy
operation with the Conservatives any way it may be taken, but not when the first part is taken without the second part or the second part without the first.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared to have my hon. friend stand by the whole sentence; that is all.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why did not the Prime Minister quote it all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I quoted what was essential.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, the Prime Minister quoted the part which misrepresented me; that is my claim. Just while we are on this question we may as well settle it; I said I would stand by that statement.
Is it possible for this group to cooperate with the Conservatives? Last year I placed on Hansard figures which showed that there was a difference of only about one per cent in the tariff policies of the two parties, on an average, and that difference is just about the same to-day. I do not know whether or not the Prime Minister wishes to dispute that statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Really I do not know what my hon. friend is after.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would say he is after the Prime Minister.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Very well; here is the
statement I made last year, which will be found at page 201 of Hansard:
During the last election I was informed that some of my Liberal friends were very much peeved at me because I said that there was scarcely any difference between the Liberal and the Conservative tariff policies. I want to repeat that to-day, and so that there may be no misunderstanding, I should like to put on Hansard a statement covering all the years the Conservatives were in power from 1888 to 1897 and from 1913 to 1922. I have given the Conservatives credit in each case for one year after they went out. In the statement I have given the figures regarding the Liberals from 1898 to 1912 and from 1922 to 1926. In both cases I show the average tariff collections against all dutiable imports and against all imports dutiable and free, and taking the whole period during which both parties were in power respectively I find that there is a difference of just .8 per cent in favour of the Liberals. If you take all the years the Conservatives were in power you will find that the collections on dutiable imports averaged 27.4 per cent while in the case of the Liberals, during the whole time they were in power, the collections averaged 26.6 per cent, or a difference of .8 per cent. Taking the figures covering all imports we find, in the case of the Conservatives, an average of 17.2 per cent and in the case of the Liberals, 16.4 per cent.
78594-80*
Then followed the complete statement. I do not think I will read it, but I have worked out the averages on this basis, which I will give the house. During the years the Conservatives were in power their average as against all dutiable imports was 27.4 per cent, while the average of the Liberals was 26.5 per cent; the Conservative average against all imports was 17.2 per cent and the Liberal average 16.4 per cent, or a difference of about one per cent in the applied policy. This is not the so-called " known " but the " applied " policy. At that time I invited criticism of that statement, because I wanted to hear what the other side said about it, but so far as I could see the only answer was this Statement handed in by the Prime Minister in which he gave a table showing the reductions in the customs duties on instruments of production in the basic industries of agriculture, mining, lumbering and fishing. Anyone who will look at the pages of Hansard containing that statement will be struck with the relatively large reductions which were made in 1924 and 1926, but were those strictly Liberal budgets or were they the result of Liberal administration? In 1923, in a by-elecition at Kent, New Brunswick, the Liberals lost one seat to the Conservatives and faced the House of Commons in 1924 with one less than- a majority. During that year large reductions were made in the duties on agricultural implements. Then in 1926 we had about one hundred Liberals of a total membership of the house of 245, that was another year when large reductions were made, and I do not think either of these budgets in reality could be called Liberal budgets.
Then let us consider the statement made by the Prime Minister at Edmonton on October 11, 1924 as follows:
When criticizing the present Liberal government Hr. King asked his audience to bear in mind the difficulties that had to be faced, and he pointed out that if a Liberal government had been in power it would have been an easy matter for his administration to have lived up to the promises that were made when he appealed to the country in the last general election.
The argument advanced was that there was not a sufficient majority to carry out these policies, but the point is that the years during which real advances were made in accordance with that policy as laid down by the Liberal convention of 1919 were the years when the Liberal party were in a minority in this house. What has happened since the government came back with a majority, with the help of our Liberal-Progressive friends, who must accept some responsibility? There has been a distinct move away from direct taxation through the
The Budget-Mr. Kennedy

cuts in the income tax, while there has been practically no cut in the customs tariff even this year. That fact stands out so distinctly that it is impossible to examine the budget, having regard to the conditions existing in the House of Commons, without realizing that with a majority of the members of the house belonging to the Liberal party we cannot get away from the old protectionist policy introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald. When I use that argument some of my Liberal friends say to me, "What about the British preference?" The Conservative party should have the same credit for carrying on the British preference after it was introduced as the Liberal party gets for carrying on the old national policy of the Conservatives.
Can we cooperate with the Conservatives? This question of low tariff and free trade is not an idol to worship, any more than is the question of protection. I am not particularly interested in declared or known policies; I want applied policies. Whatever the Conservative policies have been in the past, I am willing to accept the statements which have been made these last two years. If they mean anything at all there is more real equality in the applied policy as defined by the Conservatives than there is in the policy of lowering the tariff less than 1 per cent on an average, and letting it go at that.


James Alexander Robb: I suppose the hon. member has arrived at that percentage by considering the large importations of alcoholic liquor from the United Kingdom.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has that got to do with it?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Any average you may take is subject to qualification. It is a wonder we did not have some of it last year, and that is why I made that statement in my speech on the address. No reference however was made to it. In a matter of this kind you have to deal with averages, because you are dealing with the whole policy. We are dealing with averages when we consider the income tax and in connection with the Conservative policy; that is the only basis of comparison which can be made.
The following statement, which appears on page 3785 of Hansard of 1925, and which was amplified last year by the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) was made by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in the form of an amendment:
That a tariff commission should be appointed representative of the three great classes of Canadian industry, agriculture, manufacturing

and labour, and be entrusted with the duty of studying Canadian tariff problems, in their every bearing and of making from time to time such recommendations to the government as it deems in the general public interest with the reasons therefor, and with power also, where it finds unfair advantage is being taken of protective duties, of making recommendations to be given effect by the government for removing or reducing tariff schedules or imposing special excise taxes upon product in respect of which such advantage is taken, and that its reports, findings, recommendations and reasons therefor be given to the public.
As I understand the Liberal policy it is about 1 per cent below that of the Conservative, but the manufacturer can take any advantage he likes of the protection given, whether it be 20 per cent, 25 per cent, or 30 per cent. I do not know whether the Conservatives will carry out their declared policy, but they will have to come across with it if I can make them because I believe it would be a good thing to have one parity in this house if it did nothing else but keep the one or the other of the major parties to the promises which they may make during election time. If the Conservative party can apply their policy, even though it is 1, 2, 3 or 4 per cent higher than the present tariff, it will be nearer to equality in tariff matters, so far as all the people of this country are concerned, than the policy which has been in effect for the last seven years.
The member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) made a statement last year, and I assume that he was speaking for has party or otherwise my argument does not amount to anything. This statement appears on page 620 of Hansard of 1928, and in part is as follows:
4.	The stabilization in Canada of the costs of living and the costs of implements of production on such comparatively low bases as will enable our people, in producing and selling our surplus of national products abroad, to compete advantageously with the products of foreign countries in our common markets abroad.
5.	The reduction of the customs tariff or the imposition of higher excise taxes, whenever and wherever necessary, to prevent the immoral use or abuse of the existing tariff, or any unfair advantage being taken of the tariff, as for example by those who would resort to profiteering by exacting unduly high prices for their products from domestic consumers, under the protecting elements of the existing tariff.
I think it was the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) who said in Toronto two years ago that the Conservative policy was not a policy of high or low tariff, but a tariff to develop Canada. I submit that a tariff which is used only to protect the market for the home manufacturer, if you have an organization which will prevent ad-

The Budget-Mr. Neill
vantage being taken of the 'home consumer, comes nearer to equality so far as the consumer is concerned, and nearer to being fair than a tariff which is just 1 per cent under the Conservative tariff for the last forty years, and under which the beneficiary is allowed to take any advantage he desires.
On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we can cooperate with the Conservatives when that policy is applied, as against the policy we have had during the last seven years. During the last elections I told my constituents that so far as I was concerned I had no intention of worrying about Liberal or Conservative parties, but I intended to deal with matters on their merits, and I have tried to follow that policy for the last seven years.


Ernest Lapointe: Was the hon. member aware, when he made that statement, that the Conservatives were blaming this government for not raising the tariff, and they moved an amendment to that effect?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Speeches have been made on both sides of the house, and if we were to take the statements made over there regarding reductions and compare them with the statements made over here advocating raising the tariff, they would just about counterbalance. What I am interested in is the actual application of the policies.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely you could not cooperate in asking that the tariff be raised?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If you can prevent the fellow who gets the raise in tariff from taking advantage of it, that is a different thing entirely. As I have stated, it would come nearer to equality so far as the oeople of the country are concerned than anything which has been done by the Liberal party, in spite of all its pledges to protect the consumer.
As the balance of my remarks would bear on the amendment and the main motion, and because I have come to a point-*


Ernest Lapointe: A crucial point.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: -where I can close my remarks, I will do so as my time has nearly expired.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to discuss the budget which has been discussed almost to the limit of sufficiency, but I only desire to take up the time allotted to me in drawing attention to a resolution which I placed on the order paper about six weeks ago, but which will not be reached owing to the action of the government in appropriating the private members' days for the rest of the session. My resolution was as follows:
Whereas the affairs of the Manufacturers Finance Corporation were placed in the hands of a liquidator last year;
And whereas a balance sheet was issued only a very short time before the liquidation, showing a very prosperous and satisfactory condition of the finances of the company;
And whereas the interim liquidator has issued a report showing an apparent deficit of over $3,000,000.	,	. .
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that the select standing committee on banking and commerce be instructed to investigate the said matter and to report if any means could be adopted for the better protection of the interests of the public.
I am unable to discuss that as a resolution and I have withdrawn it from the order paper in order that I may be able to discuss it now. Under some technicality of the rules I find that I can introduce a motion during the routine proceedings at the beginning of the daily session that this matter be referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce. As that motion would not be debatable I am taking advantage of the opportunity to explain it now in the hope that hon. members will remember my remarks and support the resolution without any explanation being offered at the time it is introduced. That is the only way in which I can bring it before the committee on banking and commerce. I do not want merely to talk about it; I want to see some action taken in connection with it.
It is not necessary for me to go into the details of this unsavoury mess. It is sufficient, I should think, to make out only a prima facie case for its submission to the committee, and for them to take such action as they may deem wise. The facts as known to us all, as established by the press, will be sufficient justification. This company was formed for the very laudable and legitimate purpose of discounting commercial paper in connection with chattels such as motor cars, pianos, other musical instruments, and so forth. It was specially mentioned in their propaganda to sell their stock, how thoroughly secure the investors were. They were protected by no less than four or five separate provisions. First of all they had the lien on chattel itself, let us say a motor car or piano; secondly, they had the note of the purchaser who was supposed to have paid a substantial sum on it; then they had the note of the garageman who had sold him the car, and further back than that they had the note of the manufacturer. If that was not sufficient
The Budget-Mr. Neill

to guarantee the safety of the investment, there was a still greater protection. The whole risk was afterwards insured, the premium being, I think, about one-half of one per cent, by a very stable, strong English insurance company, whose assets were quoted at great length. So, if it was possible to conceive of an investment that was absolutely safe, surely that was the one.
What happened? In the summer it went bankrupt a year ago. About this time or perhaps a little later, they had an annual meeting and they issued a balance sheet. I am sorry I have not a copy of it before me, but it was quoted in the press at the time. That balance sheet was falsified and must have been deliberately falsified, because it represented the company to be in a prosperous and splendid condition. I think one optimistic shareholder said at the time that its condition compared favourably with that of one of the well known banks. At that very moment the company was bankrupt, not bankrupt in the legal sense, but insolvent, inasmuch as it was unable to pay its debts. The liquidator, a man of some note in the financial world and cautious as all liquidators are, announced a probable deficit of $3,000,000 in a comparatively small company of that character.
As recently as less than a year ago a high pressure salesmanship campaign was put on not only in this city, but even in this house, to sell the stock of this company which was then absolutely insolvent. I myself almost fell a victim to it; at any rate I became an object of itheir attention, but the saving Providence which watches over children, fools and drunkards prevented me from going the whole length of investing in it. Many other people, however, were bitten. It was astonishing to me, after I put the notice on the order paper, to find how widespread the losses were all over Canada and amongst every class of people, from the rich down to the poorest. I have received a number of letters and telephone calls in connection with the matter. A man whom I do not know stopped me in the street one day and bid me Godspeed in bringing the matter up. I understand he had been stuck for some $4,500. This is a typical example from Montreal evidently written by someone who was more familiar with French than with English:
We. the undersigned, submit humbly to your consideration:
1st. We have placed our economies in the Manufacturers Finance Corporation Limited, on urgent solicitations from their agents here in Montreal. They were assuring us that the company was doing good business and was prosperous.

2nd. A few months after we had their shares they failed.
We ask earnestly that the said company be ordered by a court or by the government of Canada to pay back the money we put in their hands, etc.
Unfortunately I had to write and tell him that that was quite impossible; that all we could do was to try to prevent a recurrence of the same thing. I have under my hand a postcard sent me anonymously from .Van-con ver, and this is a typical illustration of their literature. It is headed in big red headlines: "How Much Do You Save?" and it goes on:
Your future-possibly, too, the welfare and happiness of your loved ones

Note the pathetic appeal!
-depends on your ability to save and make profitable use of 3rour savings. Resolve, this very day, to save systematically, be it ever so little. You'll be surprised how rapidly your savings accumulate and you will bless the day you resolved to start. We have revised an unusual method-
Thank goodness it was unusual!

which will help you save systematically and earn six per cent on your savings. Our booklet "The Way to Independence" tells you all about it. It contains such useful information that is well worth reading. We will gladly send yoif a copy on request. Just fill in your name and address below and mail to us. You will be under no obligation whatever.
Then follows the name of the Manufacturers Finance Corporation Limited, a beautiful little picture of the book called "The Way to Independence," and a place for the name of the prospective sucker and his address. The man who sent me this evidently is somewhat cynical because he has put some interjections into it. This is the way he thinks it ought to read:


Mr. HEAPS:: Did he think the hon. member was a prospect?


Alan Webster Neill: This was sent out in Vancouver to secure prospects. The man thinks it should read not "How much do you Save?" but "How much did you save for McDonald Brothers?" Then he says that instead of saying "You will bless the day you resolved to start," it should read "You will bless the day you resolved to start putting these .men in gaol." He says he thinks the beautiful little pamphlet headed "The Way to Independence" would better be called "How to get Rich Quick and how to Keep out of Gaol." He says that instead of "The Way to Independence" it should be "The Way to Three Million Dollars." In the space reserved for the name of the victim he inserts the name "Messrs. McDonald Brothers" and in the

The Budget-Mr. Neill
space for the address he puts "care of Senate, and out on bail somewhere." He also writes on the card:
Actually sold stock when they, the company, were not solvent.
Hr. Neill, all power to your bringing this matter up in the house. Stay right with it.
I will not go into it further. It compares on a smaller scale with the Home Bank disaster or more properly, perhaps, with what happened in connection with the Great West Permanent Loan Corporation. Hon. members will readily remember the audacity with which the Alexanders defended their position some years ago in the committee. I think they were later convicted on 160 counts of criminality in connection with the case, and they are now in gaol serving a three-year sentence. In less than three years they will be out with the money they robbed their victims of, but their victims will have to go without their money for the rest of their lives, and perhaps their lives will be in danger from lack of the money which would enable them to regain their health.
The main object in getting this before the committee is to endeavour to have some safeguard suggested for the future. I have not much hope that they can do anything for the victims of this particular piece of rascality. No doubt the criminal and civil courts will be available to do anything they can to collect the money from those from whom it should be obtained. I am looking rather to the future. It is a well known fact that we cannot by act of parliament make men wise any more than by act of parliament we can make them virtuous. I do not have much hope that we can do anything for people who are so credulous as to buy Brooklyn bridge or a street oar from a total stranger, although I believe that both these things have happened in the last two years. Nor have I much sympathy with that other class which falls so readily a victim to so-called confidence men, because if you examine into these get-rich-quick schemes you will find that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they are based on the suggestion of cheating somebody else'. As has been well said by Charles Dickens, there is a credulity of the knave as well as of the honest man, and the man who examines with the greatest shrewdness a business proposition put up as a sound business investment will very often fall for a suggestion of making easy money illegally, for instance, by tapping a wire and getting the results of a horse race, and then betting on it, before the public know the result. People will fall for that who could not be induced to make an unsound investment. I have not much sympathy with that class of people. But the victims in this case were good, sound business people, some rich, some poor, and people who had no reason to suspect that there was anything wrong with this company. After all, we must take these things at their face value to some extent, or we should never invest at all. Many years ago I saw a world-famous cartoon in Punch. It occupied two pages. On one page was a picture showing a highwayman holding up a regular stage coach. He was on horse back, and with his pistol he was ordering the passengers to stand and deliver. That picture was called " Highway robbery in 1782." On the other page was a picture entitled ''Highway robbery in 1882," and it showed a richly upholstered office, in which a fat, oily, unctuous man, labelled " President," was reading out a balance sheet to a shabbily dressed widow with two children hanging on to her skirts. The widow was vainly trying to understand what the man was reading out. As I say, this picture was called " Highway robbery in 1882." Of the two robbers, I really prefer the man with the pistol because at least he took the chance of getting shot, and the still greater chance of ultimately being hanged, but the man who commits the robbery in the manager's or president's room, and can afford to engage lawyers to show him how to do it without bringing himself within the shadow of the law, is not held up to scorn at all, but very likely gets a seat in the House of Lords, in the old country, or a seat in the Senate, in Canada.
It is the ordinary business people and the poor investor that I wish to protect. A thing of this kind is very hard to detect, especially as in this case and in that of the Alexanders the real criminals were those occupying executive positions. I have good reason to believe that some of the directors of this company were inclined to be a little doubtful and sought to make inquiries, but it was easy to deceive them because the men to whom they had to apply for information were those who were guilty of the fraud, and naturally they knew how to cover up their tracks. It is a thoroughly bad thing when a company like this goes to smash because it discredits investment and prevents capital from being available to develop what might be bona fide, although new, industries.
There are two points which I suggest the committee might take into consideration. One would be that no executive officer, no manager or president occupying an executive position and drawing a salary from the company, should be allowed to lend money to himself. That is what wrecked the Alex-
The Budget[DOT]-Mr. Neill

ander outfit; they lent money to each other. I lend the company's money to you on bogus security, and you lend the company's money to me on bogus security. In the case of this other concern, when an examination is made I think it will be found that the trouble was that there was a subsidiary company entirely under the control of one of the principal executive officers; it was really his private company with which nearly all the business was done, and it was done in a way which must inevitably have led to the results which followed. Had he been prohibited by law from lending money to himself directly or indirectly, perhaps it would not have happened.
The other feature which I suggest the committee might consider is this, that promoters of this character, or of any character, should be forbidden to advertise or to feature in their prospectus the names of a member or ex-members of the cabinet or of the House of Commons or Senate of Canada. There is only one reason why their names are put on, and that is to induce people to invest who otherwise would not. People have a great admiration for a certain member of parliament or senator. They know he occupies a high position, and they feel that if he has investigated the company and invested his own money in it, it is good enough for them. Even if the company succeeds, as it sometimes does, at least this practice cheapens our position, and if the company is not successful, which is more than likely to be the case because our names are not needed unless the company's success is at least doubtful-you never see the name of a member of parliament or senator used to boost the shares of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Imperial Oil or International Nickel, because they do not need our names; it is only companies whose success is doubtful that wish to have our names-if the company fails, our action is wholly bad because we allowed our names to be used as an inducement to people, who are less informed on finance than we are supposed to be, to invest their money.
There is also this suspicion. It is inevitably felt that either we got a block of shares at a very low rate or a commisison for the use of our names. Very often the opposite is the fact. Very often the member of parliament or senator loses all the money he puts in, just like the man in the street, but the suggestion is there, and it creates a very unjust suspicion against us all. It is very hard in such circumstances to get the man in the street to believe that we are as innocent as we perhaps really may be, whereas if our 
names were not allowed to be used, that could not happen.
I only ask that this should go to the committee, and that the committee should look into it and see if it is not possible to devise some safeguards, perhaps something quite remote from anything I have suggested, to check swindles of this character. I hope the house will remember the explanation which I have given now when the motion comes up, as it will, in a few days, and that the house will vote for it to go to the committee without debate, because the motion will not be debatable. I shall draw it widely, so that the committee will have full scope to do as much or as little as it sees fit, and when the motion comes up I shall only ask that it be referred to the committee on banking and commerce.


Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: Mr. Speaker, I fear the time has
long gone by when an ordinary member of the house can hope to contribute anything of very much value to the budget debate. Still I regard it as a duty to my constittients to say something on this budget inasmuch as the industry in which I am particularly interested has received no assistance under it.
With regard to the budget itself there is very little to be said. I think it is pretty generally recognized that it is possibly the most innocuous piece of political literature that ever passed for a budget in this parliament. Just why the last speaker (Mr. Neill) saw fit to confine his remarks to a bankrupt concern in dealing with this budget, I do not know; possibly it was the result of an association of ideas. This budget cannot be satisfactory either to the protectionists to the left of the Minister of Finance or to the free traders to his right, but evidently they have both accepted it, possibly because both protectionist and free trader could feel that if he did not get anything, the man sitting at the other end of the chamber did not get anything either. But innocuous as it is, the budget met with the usual chorus of congratulations, both from the supporters of the government in this house and from the Liberal press throughout the country. There is a peculiar feature about this acclaim-the almost identical strain in which all the speeches are couched, and the almost identical phrases employed by the Liberal editors. Two themes run through all the congratulations: First, the great prosperity of the country; second, the great Liberal surplus.
With regard to this vaunted prosperity, there is a considerable difference of opinion.

The Budget-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton)
There is a difference of opinion even among the Liberals themselves. All the supporters of the government whom I have heard acclaiming this prosperity utterly fail to point out exactly where it is to be found. In dealing with this question we find the same old principle of criticism to-day that prevailed yesterday and that I suppose will continue forever; that is, the criticism varies according to the province. The Liberal opposition in Ontario and the Liberal opposition in Nova Scotia deny that there is any prosperity. In Nova Scotia we have a Conservative government-a good government, a government that has been in power for three years and in that time has done more than the preceding Grit governments did in thirty years to develop the resources of the province and to undo the evils created by their predecessors in office. While the Rhodes government claims some little credit for whatever prosperity may exist in the province, the Liberals of Nova Scotia deny that there is any such prosperity. To illustrate the point I am making, I propose to quote two editorials from the leading Grit newspaper in Nova Scotia, the Halifax Morning Chronicle. The first editorial is from the issue of Saturday, March 2, 1929-the day after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) delivered his budget speech. It is couched in the usual laudatory terms and indicates clearly that is was written before the speech was ever delivered. It is made up of the usual political generalities that every person must employ when getting the obituary ready before the corpse is cold. This is the editorial:
The sixth budget presented to the House of Commons by the present Minister of Finance was like those which preceded it, a distinctly Liberal budget. It was also a typical Robb budget-in the substance of its contents, in its concise and luminous presentation of facts, in the clear and comprehensive analysis of the national balance sheet, and the evidence it bore of prudent administration and sound financing. Mr. Robb is rivalling the reputation established by his great predecessor in office, Hon. W. S. Fielding, in his management of the public purse to produce recurring surpluses from year to year.
The Minister of Finance in his lucid and businesslike survey of the year's operations was able to tell a glowing story of the rising tide of prosperity, of employment at a high level, of industries busily producing products for home consumption, and for foreign markets, of expanding trade with the world, of buoyant revenues, of a balanced budget, of a large surplus, of continued reduction in the national debt, of a decrease in the annual interest charges, and the prospect of sustained and enterprising development of the great resources of the Dominion which warranted optimism and confidence for the future of the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is the stuff.


Finlay MacDonald: Yes, it must be very gratifying indeed to the Minister of Finance. But that editorial bears all the earmarks of having been prepared long before the minister introduced his budget. A few days later, on Tuesday, March 19, 1929, the same paper contained an editorial on the question of prosperity claimed by the Rhodes government. The provincial government took credit to itself for having contributed a little towards creating prosperity in Nova Scotia, and the Morning Chronicle promptly took the government to task in these words:
The attention of the legislature has been drawn to economic conditions in Nova Scotia as they to-day exist. It has been pointed out that the much-talked-of prosperity, in so far as this province is concerned, is confined mainly to those centres where there has been large spending of public moneys, or where certain subventions have been granted to certain industries. In other words it has been stimulated by artificial means.
There is no tendency anywhere to discount these aids, but it is another matter altogether on the strength of these to assert that those engaged in the basic industries and dependent entirely on their own efforts for success are at the' flood-tide of prosperity. The country knows this is simply not true. One member stated that fifty per cent of the farms were going behind, twenty-five per cent were standing still, while the remaining twenty-five per cent were making progress because of their better location.
Now I ask seriously, is this country prosperous? Is this statement about the rising tide of prosperity justified? I have listened with interest while hon. members on the opposite side have quoted statistics to show our steady growth of imports and exports; I have listened carefully while they quoted the glowing annual statements of our chartered banks and other financial institutions; I have also noted the impressive figures they presented to the house dealing with car loadings and railway earnings. All this is probably true. The imports and exports may be at a figure hitherto never reached; the bank clearings may be above all previous records; car loadings and all other evidences may be there. And yet I venture to say that seven or eight out of every ten men in this country are poorer today than they were twelve months ago. I will illustrate that by an actual happening in my own county. We have there the leading industry in eastern Canada. The Dominion Iron and Steel Company, formed some thirty odd years ago through the assistance of the Liberal government here, has fallen upon evil days on account of the actions of the present government. Up to 1921 and 1922 this industry was able to get along. Since that time this government has been stripping it item by
1262	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton)
item of the protection necessary for its maintenance, leaving it open to the competition of our neighbours, with the result that it went into liquidation three years ago. The liquidator at once took steps to employ the most efficient help he could get and eliminated all unnecessary expenses, so that last year this concern operated to 97 per cent of its capacity. Consider this for a moment. That concern was providing employment; it was going for all it was worth, turning out more products than ever before and thus contributing to the railways, to the earnings of the banks, to the exports and imports of the country, and to every one of those indexes quoted by members supporting the government, to show the prosperity of the country. Yet the men employed in that industry, 3,000 strong, are poorer to-day than they were a year ago. Ask these men how the mortgages on their homes stand; ask them whether they have succeeded in paying off those mortgages. Are they able to live better than they did before, to feed and clothe their families any better? The answer is, no. Thirty-three cents an hour is the amount paid for ordinary labour in that concern.
Now, you will never have and never can have prosperity in this country until the great body of the people are prosperous; and the test suggested by my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) this afternoon, in which he quoted from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, is after all the real test of prosperity in Canada. Go among the great middle class, the labouring class, the mercantile class and the professional class, and ask them whether they are prosperous, and seven or eight out of ten will tell you they are not. A few are making money; a few are growing wealthy. But apply the acid test to actual conditions and you will find that the statistical house of cards falls to the ground. So much with regard to prosperity.
The other chord which these eulogists strike is the question of surplus. The Minister of Finance has taken out of the pockets of the people $69,000,000 more than is required to carry on the government of the country. Is any credit due him for that? Not unless he can put his finger on some policy, some piece of legislation and show that it has contributed to the surplus. Let him show that he has contributed thereto by saving, by economising. If he cannot do so he is entitled to about the same credit as is due the tollkeeper at the end of a bridge who takes credit for the traffic that passes over the bridge. With regard to the surplus test, the real point is this: Two things can be done. Either you can take a 
portion of the surplus to pay off the debt, reducing the interest two or three millions a year, or you can take that $69,000,000 and use it for the development of the resources of the country, creating new wealth greater by many times than the three millions you will save in interest.
I am glad to see my hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) here. I listened with a great deal of interest to his address the other day and I wish to congratulate him upon it. Two or three things 'he said I must take exception to, but he will not mind that. He referred first of all to the visit of our leader (Mr. Bennett) to the maritime provinces; so did the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). The hon. member also referred to the gypsum question and to agricultural implements. Now, with regard to the visit of our leader to the maritime provinces, let me say this. During some thirty odd years I have been more or less associated with receptions of different kinds to various leaders of all political parties, Liberals and Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. With receptions to all political leaders in this country in the last twenty-five years I have had something to do, whether opposed to them politically or not, and I can say this, that no leader of any party, Liberal or Conservative, ever made a more profound impression upon the people of the maritime provinces than did the leader of the opposition in his visit last year. He came to his own; he spoke to his own; they understood what he was saying, and he was offering them something they understood. And from a party standpoint we have been more than pleased with his visit there.
With regard to the question of gypsum, to which my hon. friend referred, there is, as the house is no doubt aware, a very large gypsum industry in the town of "Windsor. They ship all the gypsum in a raw state, but I should be very much surprised if the people of Windsor would not very much prefer- to have that gypsum converted into the finished article if (here were a market for it. The hon. member knows, however, as I know, that there is not a large market in Canada for the finished gypsum; that market is pretty well covered now. Consequently the raw material must be shipped out, and to that there is absolutely no objection on the part of this party. And none was uttered by the leader of the opposition.
I come now to the third point, I must say it struck me at the time as an exceptionally strong argument. The hon. member was dealing then with the duty on agricultural implements and he cited various implements-harrows, manure spreaders and other implements,

The Budget-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton)
farm wagons and so forth. He pointed out the difference between the duty in 1921 and in .'928, and said:
I have figures covering a long list of agricultural implements and comparing the prices of January, 1924, with the prices after the reduction in duty, showing that the reduction actually was reflected in the price of the commodity on which the duty was reduced.
I must say that that statement struck me as an exceptionally strong argument if it were well founded in fact, so strong that I wanted to satisfy myself about it. I did not go to any bureau of statistics-I have heard so many statistics given in this house since I have been here; I have seen member after member get up and make columns of statistics do a skirt dance in order to prove a certain point; so in order to satisfy myself I went to the people who sell these things and got from them thedr price lists for 1921, 1924 and 1928. I took the items given by my hon. Iriend, together with some others which he did not include, and according to these price lists the prices were as follows:
1921	1924	1928Spring tooth harrows.? 14	50	$ 15	25	$ 15	50Disc harrows	
45	00	51	50	50	50Manure spreaders..	..	187	00	216	00	180	00Farm wagons, trucks..	65	50	64	50	59	00Cream separators..	..	93	50	88	00	92	00Hay presses	
229	00	263	00	272	00Hay rakes	
47	00	51	50	50	50Ploughs	
23	00	22	25	21	50Reapers	
135	50	145	00	138	00Mowers	
83	00	90	50	87	00
It will be noticed from this list that many of these articles cost more in 1928 than they lid in 1921, with a few exceptions. Some articles are a little lower, but there is an ippreciable reduction in the price of only one machine; that is the manure spreader. In 1921 that machine sold for 8187, in 1924 for $216 and in 1928 for $180.


Mr. ILSLEY:: What month did my hon. friend take in 1924?


Finlay MacDonald: I took the price list for the whole year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does my hon. friend know that the price lists were changed shortly after the beginning of the year as the result of the reduction in duty? That was my argument. Unless my hon. friend's list for 1924 is based on the January prices of that year his figures are not of value.


Finlay MacDonald: 
James Layton Ralston: Is the hon. member aware that the minister has publicly denied having made that statement?


Finlay MacDonald: As
far as I know he has never denied it in the house, but if he has done so I am prepared to accept his denial. I thought at the time that it was a very foolish statement for any politician to make, particularly a politician having ambitions for further political preferment and requiring the assistance of the maritime provinces to carry theip out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not forget the statement which the Minister of Finance made last year.


Finlay MacDonald: We
will come to him in a moment. There is another gentleman representing a western province, the Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart). He was the author of the coke legislation which was supposed to confer such benefits on the coal industry in the east. He is the gentleman who, after attending some banquet in London, generously threw open the coal market of Canada and invited them to send their coal over here. Those two gentlemen in the cabinet, colleagues of the Minister of National Defence, Could be depended upon to oppose any effort to have that recommendation implemented. And last but not least, the genial and gentlemanly Minister of Finance, whose opinion of the maritimes was crystallized in the epithet, "whiners", could be counted upon as being opposed to this measure. We in Nova Scotia realize quite well the opposition the Minister of National Defence would have met with in trying to have this recommendation implemented, but did he attempt it? He did' not. We have the statement of the Minister of National Defence, which appears at pages 1032 and 1033 of Hansard. He devoted three columns of Hansard in an attempt to defend the government's want of action in connection with the steel industry.

My time will not permit me to read his statement, but I will digest it and put my statement on record and leave it to the opinion of this house whether or not I am doing him an injustice.
From the -beginning to the end of his defence of the government's want of action in this connection, the Minister of National Defence did not make one relevant remark. His first statement was that the interests of steel and coal in the maritime provinces were almost inseparable and were absolutely interwoven. It is true that they are allied industries, tied up together pretty well, but they are not interwoven.


James Layton Ralston: Does the hon. member
know that both the coal and steel industries, that is, the receiver and the company, are applying for the same relief? The coal industry is asking that a bonus be paid on coal, and the steel industry is asking that a bonus be paid on steel. Does the hon. member suggest that they are not bound up together?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The fact that they are
asking for the same relief does not mean anything.


Finlay MacDonald: I will deal with that. The minister's statement continues:
-At the present time the coal industry in Nova Scotia is operated by a company under the control of those who own the bonds, and the steel industry is in the hands of and being operated by a receiver.
They are two separate organizations at the present time. Even though his statement be true, what would that have to do with the government implementing this recommendation?


James Layton Ralston: Does the hon. member
know that the coal industry has applied to the tariff board for that?
Mr.	MacDONALD	(Gape	Breton):	The
tariff board has absolutely nothing to do with it.


James Layton Ralston: The coal industry has so indicated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were sent there.


James Layton Ralston: It appears in their brief.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr.	GEARY: Take your	medicine.Mr.	MacDONALD	(Cape	Breton):	Thebonus	question is not	before	the tariff board.
I do not care if three or four companies have put it in their briefs; it should never have been there.

The Budget-Mr. Evans


James Layton Ralston: When the hon. member
is running a coal company he will have the opportunity of taking it out.


Finlay MacDonald: That
is quite uncalled for, because I am trying to make a serious argument by saying that the bonus would remove a discrimination against our company as compared with other companies in Canada. If the tariff board were honest and sincere they would have said immediately this matter was brought before them; "We will not consider that at all; that has already been ruled upon by a tribunal having equal jurisdiction and power with us."


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member's time has elapsed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An extension was given
to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm).


Mr. QUINN:: They do not want to hear it.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps the hon. member has been interrupted to such an extent that he might be given a little more time.


John Frederick Johnston: The Speaker
has not the power to extend the hon. gentleman's time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member can
finish it on the main motion.


John Frederick Johnston: If the house is unanimously agreed to give the hon. member more time he may proceed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I object to any extension of the forty minute rule. If we are going to extend it, let us do away with it altogether.
Mr-. MaoDONALD (Cape Breton): I aip-perciaite the courtesy of the Miinister of Finance, but I must accept the ruling of Your Honour.


Mr. EVANS:: Mr. Speaker, will you call
it six o'clock?


Charles A. Stewart: If we are going to complete this debate we should continue.


John Evans: Each year the budget is looked upon as a barometer of the economic welfare of the Dominion. I think we can congratulate ourselves on the buoyancy of our revenue. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is to be congratulated on the way expenditure has been met by income, leaving a surplus of nearly $70,000,000 to apply towards the reduction of the national debt. But when we compare this with the net debt of the Dominion and the year's total estimated revenue of $454,-
942,000, and when' we take into account the fact that much is made in the budget speech of the tremendous prosperity of the country, it leaves the ordinary man staggering with amazement at the awful extravagance and carefree attitude displayed by Canadians a3 a people with a debt of nearly $2,300,000,000. Supposing the fiscal year 1928-29 had been a very poor year in trade, one can quite conceive that instead of the boasted optimism, something akin to gloom would have prevailed.
While the revenues of the fiscal year in a measure justify the boast of prosperity for which all governments take credit when they can, we should now at the end of this year' analyse the statement of the Minister of Finance, particularly regarding the boasted prosperity. All classes have not shared in the prosperity boasted of, and while urban industries along with those in the carrying trade of the Dominion have been able to show surplus earnings, this has been largely due to the heavy crop of wheat and other cereals from which the farmer was left no better off than he was before. While this condition has been brought about very largely by the low quality of the wheat crop owing to the heavy frosts in August, agriculture is not and cannot be on a permanent basis until it is freed from the burden imposed upon it for the sake of urban industries, particularly in Quebec and Ontario. To speak frankly, the boasted prosperity of the budget is not the prosperity of a commonwealth, but the concentration of wealth by the capitalistic class who constantly seek increasing power from parliament to filch a large part of the worker's earnings 'by purchase penalties on what he eats and wears. These penalties are imposed and collected without, in many cases, any regard for equity as between the classes, or for businesslike procedure or even for the furnishing of revenue for the administration of affairs.
There is a boast, too, that customs revenues have increased this year by $28,000,000. This to a country of 9,000,000 people should be a shame and not a boast, as it is mostly due to tariff levies on the necessaries of life. We collected this year through tariffs the sum of $185,000,000, or about $21 from every person, or more than $100 from every family. This is a tax that the poor pay as well as the rich. But let us remember that this is the average. The workingman with a family perhaps larget than the average pays the same per capita or accepts a lower standard of living. Thu situation is even worse than it seems to be by this calculation, because the class who
The Budget-Mr. Evans

can best pay the revenue is able to pass on the tariff charges to the worker or to the agriculturist. Only $58,500,000, an infinitesimal amount compared with the boasted prosperity, was collected from income which is based on dividends from capital invested in urban industries and the profits of bankers, loan companies and others who thrive on other people's adversities. There was collected, one might say, from the worker's necessities of life $127,500,000 more than was collected from the incomes of the rich. These figures should have 'been reversed.
The organized farmers of the Dominion have long sought free entry of all the necessities of life. They have also sought reciprocal trade relationships with the United States because this, to a large extent, would create permanency in agriculture and this would in turn tend toward a steadiness of trade and agriculture and a more continuous market at home for manufactured goods. The feeling in this house now seems to be to increase the general tariff for fear the United States would increase theirs. Such action is not and cannot possibly be of assistance in keeping the Canadian market for the Canadian manufacturer, but it gives Canadian manufacturers an advantage in meeting United States manufacturers in markets abroad by enabling them to dump Canadian goods at the expense of the Canadian consumer. That is, they will -charge the Canadian consumer a price that will ensure them a profit over the whole of their output whether sold at home or abroad. That is what tariffs are for, and that is how they have worked out in practice in this country in the past. But the United States may put up their tariff wall as high as the heavens, it will not make manufacturing any dearer or any more difficult on this side of the line; all it will do is increase the cost of manufacturing in the United States and make their export trade more difficult than it now is, unless their manufacturers will, as ours have always done, put the burden on the home consumer and dump their goods in foreign countries. The higher a -tariff wall is in any country, the harder it is for that country to carry on an export trade, because the cost of production is invariably raised thereby, despite all the pious protests of some of our manufacturers that they do not take advantage of their tariff in setting home prices. In any protected country where labour is well organized, high wages is a feature of protection, but wages never keep pace with the price-fixing power of the protected manufacturer and distributor. I should like to give an instance or two to show how it is done.

Our Canadian millers have a duty of 50 cents per barrel on flour. This is just about sufficient to give them a monopoly of the Canadian -market. I have in my hand the bulletin of agricultural statistics, published every month by the government.
At six -o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Evans: Before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was endeavouring to show how full advantage is taken or the tariff and how unjust an advantage is taken when a monopoly can be created by means of it. I was dealing with flour. It enjoys a protection of 50 cents a barrel, and this is just about enough to give to the Canadian millers a monopoly in their home market. For the month of December last the average price of flour, Manitoba patent, in Liverpool was 83.10}; in Winnipeg, $3.99}; or 89 cents cheaper in Liverpool than in Winnipeg. In this comparison I have taken the grade known as Manitoba patent, which is the second -highest priced flour sold in Great Britain; sometimes it is the highest. No. 3 northern wheat-the highest priced Canadian wheat, quoted in Liverpool for the month-was SI.46 a bushel; the average price in Winnipeg was $1.08$; or a difference in favour of the Canadian miller of 37} cents per bushel. Allowing 2} bushels to the sack of flour-and it will take a little more than that-the Canadian miller has an advantage of 84 cents on wheat and 89 cents on flour; he is therefore reaping an unjust profit of $1.73 per hundred pounds. '
But this is not all. It does not matter in what city, town or village in western Canada the farmer markets his wheat, he always sells it on the basis of the freight rate from his home town to Fort William. But let me cite facts. Many times I have dumped my wheat into the hopper of one of the big mills at Saskatoon, and after agreeing on the grade I have had to accept Fort William prices, less the freight rate. Then quite often I have loaded up a six months', and sometimes a twelve months' supply of flour before moving out of the mill. After paying freight on my wheat all the way from Saskatoon to Fort William, I have had to turn around and pay freight on my purchase of flour all the way from Fort William back to Saskatoon. From Saskatoon to Fort William is nine hundred miles. Paying freight both ways, one way on the wheat and the other way on the flour,

The Budget-Mr. Evans
I thereby pay the miller's freight rate on his export flour for at least eighteen hundred miles. This is one of the unjust and undue advantages taken under the tariff.
But let me put the Canadian miller to another test. I find for the month of December last, flour in Minneapolis was $1.21 per barrel cheaper than in Winnipeg. I am told that I should not take one month alone to fix the averages between the two cities. So I take the last seven months of 1928, and this is what I find: In June the price was 39 cents per barrel cheaper in Minneapolis than in Winnipeg; in July, 79 cents; in August, $1.11; in September, 96 cents; in October, $1.68; in November, SI.37; in December, $1.21. This surely goes to show the unjust advantage taken by the Canadian miller of the tariff as it stands to-day. It goes to show also the unbusinesslike and unscientific manner in which our tariff is made up.
But this whole budget, like its predecessor, tends to concentrate the wealth of the country in the hands of those who are already wealthy. Take a case in point. The budget provides that leather for the manufacture of gloves, mitts, and so on, is to be subject to a drawback of one-third of the duty paid, which is 15 per cent under the general tariff; whereas gloves and mitts carry respectively under the three schedules duties of 22J per cent, 30 per cent and 35 per cent. What shall we say of the callousness of the protectionist and of the government that will put leather practically on the free list, but will penalize the workingman by imposing a tariff duty of over one-third the value of the goods he buys manufactured from that raw material? This incident well illustrates the injustice of the tariff as it stands. And what shall we say in this case to the Liberal government who would impair the revenue by placing this raw material on the free list and at the same time robbing the workingman of one-third of his earnings, as on a pair of mitts?
Sir Richard Cartwright once said in this House of Commons that red parlour methods were followed in the fixing of tariffs and that Sir John A. Macdonald would often call the manufacturers together, as he did once at Hamilton, and assess them for the privileges they obtained under the tariff system. Now how much did the government assess the beneficiary in this case, for campaign funds or otherwise, who gets 33J per cent on his raw material while the working man has to pay a 35 per cent duty on his gloves? Is this what my Conservative friend? call a national policy? Is this what the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) calls red-blooded Canadianism? Is this what the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) calls a virile, independent Canadianism? And is this, let me ask also, what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) calls a fair tariff, as he did at Etters Beach last summer-" neither too high nor too low?"


Mr. McGIBBON:: What do you call it?


John Evans: I call it absolute robbery.
Now the United Farmers of Saskatchewan have repeatedly asked the Minister of Finance for the right to have the tariff advisory board conduct an investigation into the effect of the tariff upon agricultural implements and the ability of that industry to bear the unjust burden placed upon it. The hon. gentleman has not seen his way yet to comply with that request. He says that the tariff advisory board has not had time to advise, especially in cases where whole tariff schedules are concerned. Well, the tariff advisory board has just become a part of the Liberal electoral machine. Protectionists in this house are forever dwelling on the fact that many of our people go to the United States to seek a living. They would do well to turn their attention to the cause, which is the high cost of living. In the case of flour the cost to the manufacturer in Canada is less than in any other part of the world, but flour in the wheat fields to-day is dearer than in any other part of the world, even after it has been transported 5,500 miles. I submit that a fiscal policy that allows such abuses is a serious reflection on the intelligence of our people. It also has a serious moral effect on this whole country. Is it right or is it wrong? The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) the other day, speaking on the budget, said that he would deal very summarily indeed with anyone who took advantage of the tariff to fix his prices. I have in my hand the report of the proceedings of the third annual convention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce held at Quebec last June, and C. H. Carlisle is reported to have said:
No manufacturer who bases his prices on the tariff is fair either to his own particular company, or to that particular branch of industry, or to the Canadian people.
What shall we say to such statements? I have my doubts as to the sincerity of any man who will advocate a tariff for the sake of pricefixing and then say that he refuses to take advantage of it. To me it is simply unmitigated cant'. Mr. Carlisle says it is not fair to the Canadian people; yet his company enjoys protection to the value of one-third in duty on the finished article, which is added to the prices of all rubber goods coming from his
The Budget-Mr. Evans

factory. He admits taking advantage of the duty to fix prices in Canada at least 7 per cent higher than they are in the United States, which country, according to our protectionist friends, is the very acme of high prices and protection. Mr. Carlisle enjoys free raw material for an article which when finished draws a duty of 35 per cent under the general tariff, and I find here in a manifesto issued by the research department of the United Farmers of Canada that the duty on rubber goods is absolutely so high as to be almost prohibitive, only 129,016 worth being imported. But for every dollar that went into the Dominion treasury in that case $156 went into the pockets of Mr. Carlisle and his company.
I have here a list of industries in Canada of which I will mention nine: Agricultural implements; automobiles; carriages and wagons; boots and shoes; harness and saddlery; rubber footwear; fruit and vegetable canneries; cotton goods, and woollen goods. Now I find that because of the duty we pay $22,581,000 more than the whole of the wages paid in all these nine industries. This surely ought to set the Minister of Finance thinking whether his budget this year is in any way a fair one to place before the country. On carriages and wagons, only $62,774 was imported, but the cost to the consumer was nearly $1,000,000 more. These are only a few incidents that go to show the absolute unfairness of the tariff system as it stands.
A machine which has come into use in western Canada in the last two summers and known as the harvester, commonly called the combine, has been paying a duty of 10 per cent. It is a harvester pure and simple, and the duty on harvesters is, I believe, 6 per cent. I hope the government will see that the proper classification is given this implement. When speaking on the budget last year I said that the tariff was advocated on the ground that it would provide employment for our working men and furnish revenue for administrative purposes. I cited the case of the fanning mills, and I have here a sworn statement from a friend in Regina regarding the statement I made last year that Chatham fanning mills are made in the United States. In this case they are imported free from the United States but the duty is added to the price paid by the farmer. The statement is as follows:	[DOT]
Canada
Province of Saskatchewan To Wit:
In the matter of a certain shipment of fanning mills into Canada, and 
In the matter of a statement made by me to John Evans, M.P., which said statement was referred to by the said John Evans in the House of Commons during the session of 1928.
I,	Archibald McEellan, of the city of Regina, in the province of Saskatchewan, hotelkeeper, do solemnly declare:
1.	That in or about the month of September, A.D. 1919, I v.'as crossing on the ferry boat from. Detroit, Michigan to Windsor, Ontario.
2.	That on the day on which I was crossing four drays each containing twelve Chatham fanning mills, being deposited six on each side of each load, or a total of forty-eight fanning mills were driven on to the boat near where I was standing ait Detroit, Michigan, at about two o'clock in the afternoon.
3.	That I was very much interested in the fanning mills as I formerly lived near Kempt-ville, Ontario and was a farmer, and had on many occasions visited my brother near Petrolia, Ontario, and was well acquainted with the Chatham fanning mill having used same on different occasions.
4.	That I had on former occasions visited the factory at Chatham, Ontario, and 'was of the opinion that these fanning mills were manufactured in Canada.
5.	That I therefore took particular notice of these fanning mills as they were deposited in the centre of the boat near the passenger run way and I had my hand on one of the fanning mills and examined it closely and as far as I could see the fanning mill was complete in every detail, and had printed on it the words: "Chatham Fanning Mill."
6.	That I examined the mills very closely on account of my interest in the matter and as I was examining them I noticed an old gentleman standing near the fanning mills. I spoke to him and advised him that I had always understood that these fanning mills were built in Canada. He replied to me as follows: "O, no, not for a number of years, because an American firm bought them and they are built now in Detroit." I then asked the said gentleman if they paid any duty on bringing them across. He advised that they paid no duty and I asked him why not. He stated that the article was an unfinished product. I was very much surprised as I inspected the fanning mill's thoroughly and from my examination thought that they were complete in every detail. I then asked him in what respect the fanning mill was not complete. He smiled at me and said "There is a zinc screen which they punch in Canada. They bring the raw material over and punch it in Canada." I suppose the cost would be about eight cents.
7.	That when we purchased the Chatham fanning mills in the early days it was costing from $38 to $40 but I understand that at the time when I held the said conversation that they had increased considerably in price.
8.	That I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of The Canada Evidence Act.
Declared before me at the city of Regina, in the province of Saskatchewan, this 19th day of June, A.D. 1928.
(Sgd.) Archibald McLellan.
(Sgd.) Jas. F. Bryant.
A notary public in and for the province of
Saskatchewan.
(Seal)

The Budget-Mr. Rennie
What shall we say to this system which allows a practice of this kind? I repeat that our protectionist tariff system as it stands today is absolutely dishonourable and dishonest with respect to the working man and the farmer. A higher tariff is advocated in order to provide work for our people, when our supposed manufacturers can go across to the United States and have thes^ machines built there and brought into the country free of duty, while the amount of the duty is included in the price paid by the farmers purchasing them.
There are many companies in Canada today which do not need tariff protection at all. I have in my hand a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of November 24 last, stating that Dominion Cottons are to split their shares again and that they are running to 90 per cent of their capacity. They have the power of price-fixing in connection with all their goods as it is, but our friends in the House of Commons are daily advocating a higher protective duty on those articles of clothing needed by our working people. I mention this fact because this company made very high profits, particularly during the war.
The Minister of Finance told us that the tariff advisory board had not had time in which to advise the government. According to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) the tariff advisory board also has a number of advisers, so it seems that these advisers to the tariff board have not advised the board to advise the Minister of Finance to advise the government to put some of these articles on the free list. This is the question I want to ask: Did the tariff advisory board advise the Minister of Finance to place plate glass on the free list for the sake of manufacturers, when used in their factories only, while the finished article carries a duty of 27 per cent and 30 per cent? Mr. Speaker, the entire budget this year was concocted with the manufacturers at the elbow of the minister.


Edward Joseph Garland: A? usual.


John Evans: As usual, as my hon. friend Bays. In view of what we know of the tariff system and how it is maintained, it is only logical to conclude that the tariff advisory board is just a link between the manufacturers and the party managers; no doubt the personnel of the board will be changed if there is a change of government. This will be a little more expeditious than the reform of the senate, which the Prime Minister at a picnic in Saskatchewan last summer said was proceeding at a very satisfactory pace indeed.
When the hon. member for South Wellington was speaking he advocated a higher tariff against the United States and declared that this action should be taken in the interests of the manufacturers even if it did prevent the farmers of Canada from finding a market for about 5100,000,000 worth of grain and cattle. The hon. member gave a long list of farm products with a total value of between $95,000,000 and $100,000,000, which would be affected, and said it would be only a temporary embarrassment. Evidently it did not, matter to him that thousands of ranchers and farmers would be put out of business. He said we had nothing to fear in this respect; he urged drastic action on the part of the government and said if this government would not act some other government would do so. According to his suggestion, Canada should be hermetically sealed against outside competition for the sake of a class which has relied on the tariff for dividends because of its own incompetence, placing the burden of the tariff on the class which is able to meet outside competition. Because we oppose their greedy desires in this respect this hon. gentleman dubs us hard-shelled, thick-skinned free traders. The only thing of concern to the class for which he speaks is the privilege of fleecing all the consumers of Canada, and he moves an amendment which is nothing but a baited trap to catch unwary agriculturists. He condemns the Australian treaty-as far as that goes I do myself-but he forgets that that treaty was entered into to provide an advantage for the class for whom he speaks; the class who, he says, cannot exist except they become more and more the wards of this nation; the class for whose benefit the consumers of Canada paid $550,000,000 last year because of the $185,000,000 collected for revenue. The hon. gentleman said that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) could settle the question of unemployment with half a dozen strokes of his pen.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. mem ber's time has elapsed.


Mr. G. S. RENNIE (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the budget and also on the tariff changes which have been brought down, referring especially to the way they affect the city of Hamilton, which I have the honour to represent. A friend of mine asked me the other day just what I thought of the budget, and I told him there was very little in it. He agreed with me and told me that he had come to the conclusion that you could not budge-it; that as it was a government measure

The Budget-Mr, Bennie

the opposition would be unable to move it. In my opinion it is a simple budget, so simple a child could play with it and not be harmed, because there is nothing in it to explode; nothing in it to tell the people of Canada what the government is going to do. It is like the speech from the throne, which I understand is prepared by the government; but this one was very simple and had practically nothing in it. What was omitted from the budget had as great a significance to Canadians as what was included. Its omissions at once promise a continuance of the conditions which have driven away to a foreign country more than half a million Canadians within the last five years. From this point of view particularly, and for a reason which I shall elaborate upon later, I ask the indulgence of the house while I make some comments on the budget brought down1 by the Minister of Finance.
I desire to deal with the tariff, not so much with regard to its relation to capital as to its relation to labour and agriculture. It is not sufficient to say that this industry or that industry employs more hands to-day than it did ten years ago. It is not even sufficient to measure the expansion in ordinary terms of growth. We are living in a time when ordinary measures of expansion are futile. We are living in a country which has been invested by bounteous Providence with riches not duplicated in the history of the world. But once we are so administering our affairs that we are driving our sons and daughters to foreign lands where they have the opportunity for the expression of the talents of which we are so proud. It is not the foreign market alone which has been put m jeopardy-that would be lost first, of course but the home market also is invaded; and nothing is more certain than that preeminence in the home market is the ideal which should be aimed at. The only country which fills me with apprehension so far as this question is concerned, is that country in which labour is better paid than in our own and where the standard of living is higher as well-I refer to the United States. Our working people have gone to that country and have found employment in every place where manufacturing is going on. These Canadian artisans are adding to the power and wealth of a foreign nation, while people in this country ate suffering through lack of employment. I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not in his seat, because I intended to direct my remarks to him. Has he not been surrounded and pestered on the way to his daily duties by artisans who cry out, We are not beggars, we only want an oppor-[Mr. Rennie 1
tunity of helping to support ourselves and our families in the country in which we were bora? " This is also the case in Montreal and Quebec; in fact it is a condition, which exists in every part of Canada. Manufactories will always be found in the United States where men will be required to work; and our men are there instead of here in their own country. No jiafcion can exist which has agriculture alone as an industry; there must be a mixture of industries to bring out the national mind and the national strength and form a national character.
Hon. members opposite sneer at the statement that thousands of our people have left this country to seek, employment in the United States. Why has the government of the province of Quebec been taking steps, including the establishing of agencies, to induce these people to come back and resettle in their own province? If their people had not left the country, that government would not be trying to bring them back. Let any man visit the manufacturers in the United States and he will find the Canadian artisan toiling there and doing well, whereas if Canada had a judicious system of taxation they would be working here and doing very well in their own country.
Not only has this country been made a slaughter market by being overwhelmed by the sweepings of the United States, but at times it has been made a sacrifice market by ruinous proposals to suppress certain trades. We all can remember what the salt manufacturers of the United States did when the salt industry first started in Goderich. The salt manufacturers of Syracuse sent in their salesmen with instructions to undersell Canadian salt on the home market and thus crush this infant industry. The shoe trade was dealt with in the same manner by the leather manufacturers of the United Statesj and twenty-one shoe factories have been closed up in the province of Quebec alone.
In a young country like this, manufacturers are obliged to depend upon credit for the capital they have not themselves, and when such tactics are pursued by the United States manufacturers the Canadian manufacturer cannot escape defeat. He is unable to sell his wares in order to meet his banking arrangements and he becomes insolvent, the factory is closed, his employees are discharged and go to the United States. This is occurring continuously, and once confidence is lost it is not easily restored. The American manufacturers have the great backing of capital behind them, and are thus enabled to obtain an advantage

I cannot emphasize my convictions more cl/early than by quoting from an address delivered in these historic chambers fifty-one years ago by that great Canadian, Sir John A. Macdonald. He said:
The welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a national policy, which, by a judicious read-justiment of the tariff, will benefit and foster the agricultural, the mining, the manufacturing and other interests of the Dominion. Such a policy will retain in Canada thousands of our fellow-countrymen, now obliged to go in search of the employment denied them at home; will restore prosperity to our struggling industries, will prevent Canada from being made a sacrifice market, will encourage and develop an active interprovincial trade.
That I believe to be the great creed of Canadianism as propounded by Sir John A. Macdonald. His text and his conclusions of March 7, 1S7S, are as vital to-day to the wellbeing of Canada as they were then. The vision of that greatest of all Canadians may still guide us, and to excellent purpose.
I represent East Hamilton in this house, and for abundant reasons I consider it a great honour to represent that ambitious city. Hamilton since its birth has been the "Birmingham of Canada", still is the " Birmingham of Canada" and will continue to be the "Birmingham of Canada" so tong as its workmen can be paid a, just wage for their labour. For the information of the house I wish to mention a few facts regarding Hamilton, before showing how the budget and the tariff will affect that city.
Hamilton has a population of 154,000, with a tributary population of 400,000. I asked some questions in the house in regard to the revenues' that were received by the government from the city of Hamilton and I got the following reply:
Fiscal Year 1927-28
Revenue received from post office $	570,158 86
Revenue received from collection
of federal income	tax	
3,944,635	37Revenue from sales	tax	
3,490,593	70Revenue from collection of income tax from corporations. .	2,669,272 46
Total revenue from customs
collections	
4,194,037	31Total revenue from	excise tax.. 3,477,199	62Total	$18,345,817 32
The bank clearings amount to over $300,000,000. The people of the city of Hamilton are an industrious class, the majority of then toiling with their hands. By reason of its position at the head of lake Ontario it is a large distributing centre. It has good shipping facilities by rail, water and motor transport. Cheap electric power is supplied by two companies, one of which is the Dominion Power 78594-811
The Budget-Mr. Rennie
Transmission Company which gets its power from De Cew falls. This company was the pioneer company in electric power in the Dominion of Canada and deserves great credit for its pioneer work as well as the work it is doing at the present time, in connection not only with electric development, but also with transportation, having over fifty miles of street railway, with radial lines running to Brantford, Oakville and Beamsville. Hamilton is also supplied with electric power by the Hydro, of which the province of Ontario should be justly proud. These two companies supply power at cheap cost to many manufacturers in the ambitious city of Hamilton, and they also supply light for the city.
Besides the transportation provided by the Dominion Power and Transmision Company the city of Hamilton receives excellent railway transportation service from the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway, which is the connecting railway with the Canadian Pacific railway, the Michigan Central and the New York Central. It is also served by the Canadian National Railways, and everyone knows the importance of this connection. Sir Henry Thornton, realizing the importance of the tonnage and transportation, has deemed it advisable, and properly so, to recommend the building of a new station, to which the city, on the basis of revenue earned, was entitled long ago.
I have stated that Hamilton is a small Birmingham, having 512 industries which give employment to 35,000 of its population, the production value being more than $135,000,000. I will not take up the time of the house in reading over the list. United States capital is invested in manufacturing in Hamilton more than in any other city of Canada, [DOT]the amount being over $66,000,000, employing 12,000 working people and paying wages amounting to $16,500,000. The production amounts to $61,000,000.
Hamilton is proud that it has the largest agricultural works in the Dominion of Canada, the largest fence works, the largest works for manufacturing washing machines and wringers in the empire, the largest plough works, one of the largest tire plants, the largest saw works, and very large textile factories which require protection. This subject was fully dealt with last year by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). It has large cotton manufacturers who recently had a strike amongst their employees. For what reason? Because they did not have proper protection so that they dould pay their employees a decent wage. This was dealt with recently by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. The Budget-Mr. Rennie

Bell). There are also in the city of Hamilton the Canadian Westinghouse, possibly the largest blast furnaces in Canada, and the Steel Company of Canada who also operate a large coke and gas plant. A most up-to-date coke plant is operated by the Hamilton By-products Coke Ovens. These new coke ovens are assuredly up to date because they have been the special study of experts who have been sent by this government to study their methods of making coke and gas. Not only do they supply good coke at a reasonable price but they also supply gas for fuel.
I had the pleasure, at the first session of this parliament, of introducing 'to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) a deputation from the city of Hamilton, including the mayor of the city, members of the board of control and others, and those interested in the gas and coke plant. They wished to inform the minister that if the government would do some dredging in Hamilton harbour, they would build a dock for the use of the company to get their coal in by water and 'that the company would allow any boats to use the dock. This dock is almost completed, and consequently the company have kept faith with the government that did the dredging. The Minister of Public Works recognized that Hamilton harbour is one that must receive attention in order that the great industries located in the city may get their supplies in by water. Consequently, after he received the delegation that I had the honour to introduce, he deemed it advisable, and properly so, to bring down in the estimates last year an appropriation to provide proper facilities for Hamilton harbour so that boats can get to the docks which have been built by large plants on the harbour front. The minister, after meeting the delegation from Hamilton representing the city and the By-products Coke Ovens, had the government lend1 to the Hamilton harbour commission a considerable amount of money to build a warehouse and dock. Consequently the Minister of Public Works, and the government who aoted upon his advice, must recognize that the manufacturing interests in Hamilton must not be neglected.
If the 512 industries in the city of Hamilton are to pay their employees a proper wage, so that they may have not only a full dinner pail but a wage that will enable them to live properly and decently, we must have a proper tariff which will afford protection for our skilled labour and prevent it from going to the United States.
Our raw materials are going to the United States to be manufactured and on their return

a duty is paid on -them. This is not right. If the raw material were kept in this country, the money paid for labour would all go into the pockets of our Canadian people. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) will tell us that in many cases there is a drawback. That is true, but the chief drawback is that the government allows our Canadian resources to go to the United States when they should remain in Canada and the wages go into the pockets of the Canadian people.
In the absence of the Prime Minister, I would ask the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) if either he or the Prime Minister has ever studied what it costs to rear a family. If he has not, then even though he is a bachelor, I would urge him to make a study of the cost of bringing up a family in this country.


Mr. POULIOT:: Why not ask the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett)?


George Septimus Rennie: The cost to the father and mother is enormous, and then there is -the further expense for education. What happens after the boys and girls are educated and have to seek employment, whether at manual labour, school teaching, nursing, or in some profession? They find that under existing circumstances in Canada they cannot make a living here; consequently -they drift to the United Sta-tes. That is not right. If we had a proper tariff and proper protection for the industries of this country, our young people would be able to earn a living here and would stay at home, but as it is, they have to leave just at the time when theilr fathers and mothers are getting up in years and most require financial help, as well as the companionship of their own children; in their old age they are left alone. Moreover, I do not see that the government has done anything definite in the matter of granting them an old age pension.
Now I turn to the great agricultural industry, which also requires protection. The city of Hamilton lies in a great fruit-growing belt, the greatest in the province of Ontario, extending from Hamilton to Niagara Falls, a distance of fifty miles, and towards Brantford, Toronto, Guelph, Si-mcoe and other places. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, are the farmers in this great agricultural district making good profits from their hard work? I say no; it is all they can do to exist, and many of them are in debt. Why? Because fruits and vegetables are allowed by this government to be dumped into all the provinces of .this Dominion. This is

The Budget-Mr. Bancroft
not fair, and so I say that the farmers require protection as well as the labouring class ,and that protection should be afforded1 them through a reasonable tariff.
I do not see that the hon. Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King, Kootenay), is doing anything directly to further the interests of the maimed returned soldiers. We all know who won the war; we have been told it often enough. I quite realize that it is a very difficult matter for a ipension board to determine that any particular disability a returned soldier is suffering from was caused by the war, but take it from me, if a man has been gassed, and later on develops asthma, bronchitis or tuberculosis, it is my opinion as a doctor that if he wias previously normal the war was the cause of his disability. Even if it is not mentioned on his medical history sheet, that is no reason, to my mind, why he should not be granted a pension and receive hospital care. It is my opinion that the pension board draw the line a little too fine. They should be a little more liberal. It would not cost the taxpayers of this country five cents per year to make these poor maimed soldiers happy by giving them the hospital treatment and care they require for the rest of the days they have to live. After the war was over, our returned soldiers wanted to get to their own homes as soon as possible, and when taken before the medical boards and asked if they had any disability, invariably they said, "No", as they were afraid of being detained in hospital. The consequence is that a number of disabled soldiers have never had their disabilities entered on a medical history sheet. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I think the pension board should be more liberal in their findings.
The government is destroying a great many very expensive buildings in the heart of the city of Ottawa. For what purpose? To beautify the city of Ottawa in front of the parliament buildings. This supposed beautification *that is taking place is costing millions of dollars. Before indulging in all this extravagance I think the returned soldiers should, first be looked after, for had it not been for the soldiers who held the gap at Ypres, the right hon1. the Prime Minister, the hon Minister of Public Works, and other hon. ministers in the government who are encouraging these expenditures would have had to study the German language a long time ago. I mean this: I am not saying it as a joke.
I understand that a commission has been appointed for the purpose of reporting as to the tariff this country requires. Most likely
they will hold up their report, like other highly paid so-called servants of the government, until after there is a general election, and unless some proper provision is made for adjusting the tariff in this country before another general election takes place, this report will fall into the hands of the present opposition, which after the next election will be the government of Canada.
I agree with my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) that the discussion of the budget should be held over and other business of the house gone on with until the President of the United States, Mr. Hoover, has considered the tariff situation in that country, and one of my chief reasons for agreeing with my hon. friend was furnished by a depsa>toh from Washington in that great family journal, the Hamilton Spectator, headed "Increase in Tariff Warmly Criticised. Organ of Wall Street Fears Loss of Trade. Canada's Goodwill would be Wholly Lost to United States." I shall not take the time of the house to read the whole despatch, but anyone who is interested can read it in the Hamilton Spectator of Saturday, March 9th last. According to this article it appears that the United States are very earnestly considering what kind of tariff they shall impose against Canada, and they are doing this advisedly, because they do not want to lose the raw materials which they are now getting from this country. They have always treated us as friends, and they are trying to treat us as friends now. For what reason? In their own interests.


Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested in the very able speech delivered during this debate by the hon. member for Yegreville (Mr. Luehkovich). He is the first Canadian of Ukrainian descent to sit in this parliament and he and his people are to be congratulated upon that .fact. There are many Canadians of Ukrainian birth or extraction in my constituency, and I had hoped that this speech would contain some message to them of what Canada, through its government, is doing to make them proud of their new home. My hon. friend has a great opportunity, because probably his speeches are translate and printed in the Ukrainian papers. It is regrettable that my hon. friend did not present a true picture of what is being done by the present government. He ihtimated that the tariff reductions made by the Liberal party-were confined to soft soap, false teeth and cocoanuts, whereas he could have told them of the list of tariff reductions, which are matters of record, to be found in Hansard of March 13, 1928, beginning at page

The Budget-Mr. Banerojt
1360. This list, which covers 19 pages of Hansard, shows the reductions made between 1922 and 1928. This is the greatest list of reductions that can be shown for any similar period since confederation. He could have told them that, this government inaugurated old age pensions, which have been of immeasurable benefit to many of his peopie. He could have told them that because some of his people had been placed on poor land when arriving here as immigrants this government amended the Homestead Act so as to allow them to take up a second homestead. He could have told them that this government brought down an amendment to the Naturalization Act, which would have removed much of the difficulty and expense which his people now encounter when seeking naturalization. He could have given many enlightening facts to his people in that portion of his speech which he devoted to nursery rhymes and bedtime stories.
I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to deal for a few minutes with the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) which lays down the Conservative policy on the tariff. This amendment appears on page 758 of Hansard of March 7, 192), as follows:
This house regrets that the financial proposals of the government make no provision for reasonably safeguarding and protecting the interests of those "engaged in agricultural pursuits or in industrial" employment in Canada.
In the course of his speech the hon. gentleman said-and I am quoting from page 757 of Hansard:
...We must introduce into the tariff of this' country, to protect our own people, that element of protection which the Canadian tariff does not now afford.
It looks as though we were going to have a repetition in this country of the United States tariff campaigns of 1920 and 1921 in which the cry was " protect the farmer." Hon. members will recall that deflation in prices during 1920 left the farmers in a serious condition. In the United States this condition was to be remedied by protection on farm products. A great protectionist campaign was waged, and the farmers swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The sinker turned out to be the most effective part of the equipment.
This campaign was followed by the passing of the Emergency Tariff Act, May 1921, and the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922. The latter was supposed to be the last word in protection for the farmer. But Mr. Speaker, the condition of the United States farmer grew worse after the passing of the

Fordney-McCumber tariff bill. Why? When the Fordney-McCumber bill was before the United States senate, Senator Underwood of Alabama said-I quote from page 27 of "Farmers Tariff Studies"-
Where the fallacy of this argument comes is that under the guise of doing something to help the farmers in some particular item, their support is asked for a bill of which, as a whole, it seems that for every dollar the farmers may derive from the bill, they will pay $100 in taxes for the benefit of somebody else.
What did he refer to in that statement? I have under my hand the following items from the Fordney-McCumber Act of 1922:
	%		%
Pig iron	2.2	raised	to 41Bar steel	13	raised	to 27Structural steel	10	raised	to 25Cast iron pipe	10	raised	to 20Wrought pipe	20	raised	to 27Builders hardware & locks	20	raised	to 40Wire	26	raised	to 41Stamped ware	20	raised	to 40Sanitary ware-bath, sinks	& lavatories	20	raised	to 40Nails	free	raised	to 16Sewing machines	free	raised	to 15& 30 if over	$75 valuation	Gas engines	15	raised	to 30Pumps	15	raised	to 30Windmills	15	raised	to 30Hosiery & knit goods..	36.9	raised	to 66.6Cotton thread	15	raised	to 35Aluminum	21	raised	to 45Salt	free	raised	to 30.3Leather gloves	13.7	raised	to 50Window glass	9.6	raised	to 28
These are just a few items selected from the bill. It can readily be seen that the campaign of protection for the farmers was just a scheme to get the farmers' support for an increased tariff on manufactured goods. The increased tariff on manufactured goods affected the farmers' cost of production and left him worse off than he was before the passage of the Emergency and Fordney bills. The United States farmer got 42 cents a bushel protection on wheat, 12 cents a pound on butter and so on all along the line. These duties were put on to make the farmers feel that the tariff was framed in their interests. But the farmers of the United States have learned that these high duties on agricultural products were just fakes put there to keep them quiet while the tariff on manufactured goods was being boosted to the limit.
Senator David R. Walsh of Massachusetts reviewed the first year's operation of the Fordney Act, and I have here an editorial from the Manitoba Free Press of February 4th, 1924, which condenses the facts brought out in his speech: increased profits to manufacturers accounted for by higher prices-

The Budget-Mr. Bancroft
increased cost of living-no increase in wages paid to industrial workers-the farmers in sharp distress. I may be permitted, sir, to read the last paragraph of the editorial:
In short, the big manufacturers have benefited a great deal, the wage earners are about where they were before the law was passed, the general public are finding it harder to make ends meet and a large percentage of the farming population are in sharp distress. The high duties on agricultural products have proved a delusion and a snare. Since the passage of the emergency tariff bill in May, 1921, placing a duty of thirty-five cents a bushel on wheat (reduced to thirty cents in the Fordney-Mc-Cumber Act and raised to 42 cents in 1923) four hundred thousand farmers in the fifteen wheat-growing states have gone into bankruptcy.
Some might say that 1924 was too soon after the adoption of protection for the farmer for its benefits to be reflected on the farmers condition. During the congressional session of 1926, Senator Arthur Capper of Indiana, speaking before the United States senate on the plight of the American farmer, said that:-

the first five years of protection for farmers saw inore farm foreclosures than the preceding twenty years.
Further evidence of the failure of this policy can be seen in the attempt, during the last three sessions of congress, to pass the McNary-Haugen bill-a bill which attempts to bonus the American farmer by artificial means.
Perhaps the worst condemnation of the policy outlined in the Conservative amendment is found in the fact that this very month, April, 1929, eight years after the United States Emergency Tariff Act and seven years after the passage of the Fordney-MoCumber tariff bill, a special session of congress is being called to consider the plight of the American farmer. The policy adopted in the United States in 1921 and 1922 has practically ruined the agricultural industry in that country.
The amendment is held out as a bait to the Canadian farmer. In the same speech the hon. member for South Wellington advocates an increase in the tariff on agricultural implements and woollen goods, and asks for an element of protection which the Canadian tariff does not now afford. Other prominent members of his party followed, asking for increased tariffs on coal and steel. Since the Winnipeg convention they have advocated increased duties on farm implements, binder twine, automobiles, clothing, boots and shoes, and practically everything that enters into the cost of agricultural production. Then to cap it all the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) in his
speech tells the people of Canada that increased tariffs do not mean increased prices.
The Canadian farmer is neither blind nor stupid. He will be able to see through this amendment and the speeches that accompanied it. He will recognize in this policy the same gallows on which the American farmer was hanged. The hon. member for South Wellington used the term "gold brick" several times during his address. Well, the proverbial gold brick was at least attractive on the outside, while his policy has nothing about it to attract anyone. No one can blame the Conservative party for going to the United States for a policy. That is their right. But we can attach a great deal of blame to them for bringing forward a policy that has proven a dismal failure in the country from which they imported it.
Political parties may well turn their attention to agriculture. Agriculture is Canada's basic industry. The estimated agricultural wealth of Canada for 1928 is over eight billions of dollars and the estimated value of agricultural production for the same year is $1,731,805,000. We hear a lot of idle talk about worn out soils, wheat mining, and suggestions that the supremacy of agriculture is just a passing phase in our history. But, sir, soil does not. deteriorate if properly farmed; it becomes more productive under scientific tillage. The wheat yields of Canada are increasing. There has been a decided increase in the yield per acre during the past fifteen years. Agriculture is, and will continue to be, the greatest source of wealth production that wp have. But, while agriculture is in a much better condition today than 1921, it is well known that the farmers generally are not enjoying the measure of prosperity that is found in other industries. It is because of this fact that I suggest that all political parties should turn their attention to this great industry.
What is wrong with agriculture? In our endeavours to build up industries in Canada, we have ignored our greatest industry. We have pampered and bonused our secondary industries at the expense of our agricultural industry. Agriculture must be considered with all our other industries if we are to have a properly balanced nation. The farmers are justified in demanding that their industry be placed on an equality with other industries.
What is the foundation on which our manufacturing industries have been built up? The right to buy their raw materials in the best markets. No government would interfere with that right. No government would dare to tax the raw materials of the textile in-
The Bridget-Mr. Bancrojt

dustry, the paper industry, the farm implement industry, the rubber industry, or the automobile industry. The question then arises: Can we afford to give different treatment to the greatest wealth producer of all, the agricultural industry?
Whait are the raiw materials used in agricultural production? Building materials of all kinds, including hardware and cement, household equipment, stable equipment, farm implements, fencing materials, tools, including blacksmith and carpenters' tools, clothing boots and shoes and harness. These are some of the raw materials used in this industry and they are all taxed from 6 per cent to 35 per cent for the benefit of secondary industries.
The prices of agricultural products are fixed in the world's markets and cannot be increased at will to meet high costs of production. It will be readily seen, therefore, that the agricultural industry is working under a serious handicap when compared with other industries. In my opinion, this is the chief reason why the prosperity that is fairly general through Canada has not reached the home of the farmer. The Fordney-MoCumber tariff act failed because it increased the cost of the farmer's raw materials, and gave him little or no benefits in return. The policy laid down by the Conservative party has all the earmarks and brands of the Fordney-Mc-Cumber bill. They admit that all is not well with agriculture, and they advocate an increased duty on butter. Butter costs the consumer in Ottawa 48 cents a pound to-day. How much will that price have to be increased to make the farmer prosperous? They w'ant an increased duty on onions. Ontario grown onions are selling for 7i cents a pound in Ottawa. They advocate an increased duty on fruits. Apples cost us in Manitoba, this winter, $3.85 to S4 a box for table use, and $3 to $3.25 for cooking apples. These boxes contain about 35 pounds of apples. They tell us that the apple growers are being forced out of business at these prices. The question naturally arises: how much must these prices be increased to make the grower prosperous, and what effect will that increase have on consumption?
The Canadian farmer knows more of economics than the farmers of any other country that I know of. He knows that increased tariffs on his products will not solve his problems. He knows that any policy which will be detrimental to the consumer will react against him, for the farmers make up more than half of the consuming public 
of Canada. He sneers at tariff walls, before which he must sell his products and behind which he must buy his raw materials.
We hear a great deal of talk about saving the home market for Canadians. Saving the home market for Canadians means, if it means anything, an embargo on imports. The farmers must export a large portion of their product; 38-5 per cent of the total exports for 1928 were made up of farm products exported in their raw state. This being true, we must receive imports in payment for these exports; for in international trading over a period of years goods are paid for with goods. If the demands of our Conservative friends for increased restrictions on imports are satisfied, the ability of Canada to export must be seriously curtailed.
Hon. gentlemen demand the exclusion of imports of the goods in which they happen to be interested. If their demands were satisfied, Canada would be reduced to ruin. It is only because the Canadian people refuse to permit embargoes on imports that we can go on selling our products abroad. So much for the amendment.
Now, my hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer) moved a subamendment which reads:
That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after "house" and substituting therefor the following:
"urges upon the government the consideration of an immediate and substantial increase of the British preference as a step towards freer trade relations between Canada and other nations."
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that this subamendment urges upon the government the consideration of these things. Well, the government being in the act of considering them, I suppose the hon. member has all he asks for in the subamendment, because we find in the speech of the Minister of Finance that the government has been considering and is now considering this very matter. At page 5<H of Hansard for this year the Minister of Finance said:
It is gratifying to note the steady development of inter-empire trade. Canada, the pioneer of the British preference, looks on empire trade as the key-stone of its external trade policy and desires in every way to foster closer trading relations throughout the British commonwealth of nations.
Further down on the same page I find the following:
Many new trade channels within the British commonwealth are being opened and, in addition, the ever-increasing number of countries with which Canada exchanges most-favourednation treatment assists Canadian business to establish permanently "made-in-Canada" goods on the markets of the world.

The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
Further on I find the following:
In so far as we have a fiscal problem, our task would appear to be that of readjusting, as necessity arises, our customs tariff schedules tc meet new conditions, of removing inequalities where inquiry proves such to exist, of encouraging greater and more economical' production of quality products, of assisting in the utilization of domestic resources and, other things being equal, of favouring those countries which favour our products. In applying these principles, availability of supplies, transportation costs, and the proximity of markets are factors which roust be considered if all are to benefit and the Dominion prosper.
From this I gather, Mr. Speaker, that the government are considering the matters my hon. friend in his amendment asked them to consider. That fact, coupled with the fact that the subamendment is equivalent to a vote of want of confidence in the government, is sufficient reason why I should oppose the subamendment.


Mr. O. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to 'have this opportunity to take part in this debate, although there are many more experienced, more capable and. wiser members of this house than I. It gives me an opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the concise and convincing expose of the wonderful condition of our country, due to the good administration of the Liberal party. It also gives me an opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon the success of your lectures at the University of Paris, and to thank you for the added glory you have brought this house and this country.
I am also glad of this opportunity to bring before the house a question which is very close to my heart; I refer to the conservation of our population. It is because I am so much interested in this matter I raise my voice in this debate to urge again upon the government as strongly and as solemnly as possible the desirability and advisability of giving a preference to our native sons in connection with the colonization of our vacant lands. Ever since I have been a member of this house I have tried to have this matter discussed. I brought forward a resolution during the short session of 1927 dealing with this question, but it was not reached before prorogation; last year my resolution was reached' at five o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon and the house adjourned before anyone had time to give an opinion and before a decision could be reached. However, the idea has travelled; last year it was supported by a petition presented to the agriculture committee, signed by 125,000 people. It was supported by many societies and by a strong
section of the press, particularly the farm papers, and recently the idea was supported by the Canadian Council of Agriculture at their annual meeting which took place in Winnipeg on February 25 and 26 last. The resolution passed by that body was as follows:
Whereas statistics clearly prove that the financial rewards obtainable by people engaged in agriculture are on a lower scale than those enjoyed by people in any other useful occupation : and
AVhereas, despite this condition the farmers, in common with other classes of our people are taxed to pay part of the passage money spent in bringing more people to engage in farming;
Be it resolved that this council call upon the Dominion government to abandon wholly the present policy of giving assisted passages to agricultural classes; and
Be it further resolved that any inducement that may be offered to immigrants be as freely offered to Canadians living in Canada and to former Canadians now living in the United States.
Just here I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) to what the newspapers have been stating for the last few days. They have pointed out that at present the United States are contemplating turning out of that country hundreds of thousands of Canadians who entered more or less illegally, and I would ask the minister to try to bring some of those Canadian citizens who are to be turned out of the United States back to Canada and settle them on our vacant lands. A short time ago I had the honour of expressing my views in this connection in Toronto, and I am glad to say those views were endorsed by no less a person than the mayor of that great city, Mr. McBride.
This question was discussed last year in the agriculture committee, which conducted an investigation into immigration matters, and the committee made two suggestions which may be considered steps in the right direction. The committee recommended that the home-seekers' transportation rates, which existed before the war, be restored and that assistance be given Canadian youths trained in agriculture. The first suggestion of the committee was put up to the railways, who replied through the Canadian Passenger Association under the pretext that all railways in Canada were concerned, although it is a well-known fact that all railways are included in the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National systems. The reply was as follows:
Specially low fares for homeseekers from eastern to western Canada were inaugurated, as you will probably recollect, many years ago when it was difficult to secure settlers for the

The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
prairie provinces and it was necessary from a national standpoint to encourage the movement in every way possible. At that time there was very little business and commercial travel between the east and west.
Let me interject here that this paragraph from the reply of the railways seems hardly based on facts. These low rates to settlers were in force before the war, when hundreds of thousands of newcomers were pouring in every year in numbers which have not been equalled since, and when activity in western Canada was greater than has been the case since that time. These low rates made the development of the west possible and I know that a multitude of people, some of whom became members of this house, took advantage of those rates to move west where they founded prosperous communities and even towns. The answer of the railways continues:
As the settlement of the western provinces progressed, business and commercial travel gradually developed and the homeseekers' travel from eastern Canada steadily decreased. As the legitimate use of the fare gradually diminished, the railways in order to protect their interest against the advantage being taken of the fare by business and commercial travel gradually raised the charge.
I might remark here that the need of reduced homeseekers' fares has not greatly diminished, if we are to believe Mr. Beatty, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When he appeared before the committee on agriculture and colonization last year he stated that there were 35,000,000 acres of good land ready to be taken up within fifteen miles of the railways. The railways' answer continues [DOT]
The increase in homeseekers' fares has not been detrimental in so far as settlement of the west is concerned, isasmueh as the exceptionally low harvest help fares authorized each year meet the requirements of the actual land seeker from eastern Canada far better than the homeseekers' excursion fares, which is evidenced by the faot that for a number of years the majority of those in eastern Canada who desired to settle on the land in the west took advantage of these special harvest help fares. This gives them the advantages of working for farmers in the west and earning more than enough to pay their passage fares both ways, and those who decide to settle in the western provinces arrange to move their families at the time of the next harvest excursion, when they have their buildings and home under way and ready to receive them.
The harvesters' excursions may do a little fe^od, but they occur at a season of the year which is not suitable for the establishment of a new home. It is in the spring, not on the approach of fall and winter, when a man wants to do that. But we had the experience last year that harvesters' excursions could be cancelled at a moment's notice in order to try

out such experiments as the importation of out-of-work British miners. These men took the place of Canadian harvesters from the east who were available in sufficient number during this last summer to perform the work required to be done in the west. We hope that this experiment will not be repeated for, if we are to judge from the complaints which have been made, it was not a success. But they should be thankful for the free ride although they lacked the necessary experience and training to be successful harvesters. We cannot blame them for that, because it takes generations to make a successful farmer- you cannot make a farmer from a miner. At the beginning of the session the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) stated that although 8,000 of these miners came to Canada, only about 1,600 remained after the harvest. I would like to correct those figures by a statement which the Minister of Immigration was good enough to send to me. According to that statement a little more than 2,000 remained in Canada, but we cannot find out how .many remained on the farm. I am inclined to think that many of them spent the winter in the Windsor station in Montreal and in the stations at Winnipeg, Regina, Toronto, and the other big cities of Canada. The Department of Immigration and Colonization may say that the experiment did not cost Canada any money because the scheme did not necessitate any special organization on their part, but they certainly received a lot of bad publicity in England. The railways lost money on the experiment. I am not so much concerned with the losses of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but the losses of the Canadian National Railways were the nation's losses. The railways concluded their answer as follows:
Further, we are of the opinion that present conditions in Canada are such as to make it inadvisable to unduly encourage removal of individuals and families from one province to another. All provinces have vacant land and are anxiously endeavouring to not only hold their present population but to secure new settlers. Certain of the provinces have even felt the drain caused by the harvesters' excursions and have made protest against the arrangement.
That is news to me, as we have had no such protest in the east-not in Quebec, at least. The answer continues.
Our records indicate that from fifteen to twenty per cent of the harvesters who go west each year do not return to the east and that the majority of those who do not return actually settle on the land.
After very careful consideration the railways are strongly of the opinion that it would not be in the general interest to make any reduction in the present so-called "homeseekers' fares."

The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
That is the answer which was made by the railways of Canada. I confess that I cannot see the difference between the removal of individuals and families from one province to another and the removal of individuals and families from one part of the British Empire to another; if it is bad in one case it is just as bad in the other. Of course, I am speaking from the Canadian point of view. If the Department of Immigration and Colonization expected any other answer than the one I have just read from the railways, when they put it up to them, they were very candid and naive indeed. The railways will not do willingly anything which will cost them money or which will not bring them immediate returns. That is why they refuse to install safety devices at railway level crossings in order to protect the public, and why they refuse to dispense with the services of negroes on the trains and to replace them by native Canadians. Such an attitude might be understood on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which is an international business organization although Canadian in appearance. Their only concern is to make money for their international shareholders and bondholders. Patriotism, advancement of the country, improvement of the lot of the Canadian people, conservation of our population are all matters which do not enter unto their calculations. As an illustration, I might mention the fact that no effort has ever been made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to develop the mining and colonization areas in the province of Quebec and to connect the city of Montreal with the Abitibi region and the transcontinental railway.
We may be sure that the Canadian Pacific Railway will not reduce its rates for the purpose of aiding the settling of the 35,000,000 acres of good vacant land within fifteen miles of the railway, of which Mr. Beatty spoke, unless it is forced to do so by parliament or the railway commission. But such an attitude is not so easily understandable on the part of the Canadian National Railways, which is the people's system and which is supposed to be operated in the interests of the nation. I submit that the conservation of our population is a matter of great national importance and is one which should engage the attention of the directors of our national railways.
It has been said that a citizen is worth $3,000 to Canada, and at this rate we are losing about $20,000,000 a year by emigration. Of course everyone admits that emigration is not as considerable as it was a few years ago, and that many of our citizens who left us
are coming back. But nevertheless, too many farmers and sons of farmers are still leaving the land every year for the manufacturing cities of the United States. From my own county hundreds of such young men go every year. There is no place for them where they were born, and the cost of going to the
35.000.	000 acres of good vacant land within fifteen miles of the railways is prohibitive. Emigration will continue and Mr. Beatty's
35.000.	000 acres of good land will remain vacant as long as the best settlers in the world, the young Canadian farmers, are discriminated against in the matter of transportation rates. Our young farmers who cannot find land in their environment will emigrate as long as it costs less to go to Fall River, Manchester, Nashua, Biddeford and other American factory towns than to the Canadian vacant lands. These lands will not be properly settled as long as we give to settlers untrained and unaccustomed to our climate and to our conditions an undue preference over the native-born settlers. Very often the settlers whom we import at great cost do not stay. Our conditions are too different from those of their country of origin; we have no employment insurance, no sickness insurance, no maternity allowance, et cetera; life is very lonely in the settlement districts, and the settlers' cottages are not equipped with modern conveniences. Then our European settlers find out that it takes more than a few months' training to make a successful farmer. It is no wonder that they get discouraged and either go back home, flock to the cities or cross the border, and all the money we have spent to bring them here and to establish them has been spent in vain.
If we had spent one quarter of the money we have spent in the last ten years in the importation of European so-called settlers, to encourage settlement by our people, we would have stopped the emigration of thousands of young farmers and there would not be so much good land vacant in the vicinity of railways, because Canadians love the land and they have demonstrated that they can stay on it. If we continue our present policy there will soon be as many Canadians outside Canada as there are inside, and in spite of the expenditure of millions our rural population will remain stationary if it does not decrease.
In my humble opinion tl'ere is no advantage in paying people to come to Canada. Our country should be good enough and attractive enough to induce outsiders to make at least the effort of coming here on their own, as it offers to them all the desired

The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
opportunities of improving their lot. But I would be in favour of spending all we can to promote and foster colonization. I would be in favour of a bold, imaginative and vast plan of land settlement wherein the preference would be given to Canadian settlers. I would be in favour of assistance to young Canadian farmers trained in agriculture, in order to set them up in strategical locations where they could be models and examples to others. This plan was advocated by Dr. F. H. Barton, Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture of McGill university who, at my request, was called last year as a witness before the committee on agriculture and colonization. A recommendation in that sense was made by the committee, but in this case, as in the case of the recommendation for lower rates in favour of settlers, the Department of Immigration and Colonization merely put it up to the provinces and we have not heard of it since. I believe that if we make colonization easy, attractive and promising we shall have no difficulty in finding settlers who will remain on the land, we shall keep our own farmers in Canada and we shall attract so many settlers from the United States and Europe that not only will we have to stop paying people to come to Canada but we will have to pay them to keep out, or at least to impose some sort of quota restriction. Such a plan of colonization was outlined before the committee by Mr. C. A. Magrath, and in my humble opinion Canada would do well to study it and put it into operation.
Reduced transportation rates and establishment assistance in favour of bona fide settlers, beginning with our own people, are what .will realize Mr. Beatty's dream of settling those 35,000,000 acres of good vacant land within fifteen miles of the railways. That is where we should spend our money. There is no sense, in my humble opinion, in spending millions every year to bring to Canada, in indiscriminate numbers immigrants whom we leave to shift for themselves after they are in the country. And this is the suggestion which, as a modest back bencher, I make bold to offer.
It is all very well to say that easterners should remain east; that farmers should stay in the province where they happen to have been born and that we should settle the cold regions of northern Quebec or Ontario and the rocky slopes* of the Matapedia valley or of the Gaspe hinterland. That was said fifty or sixty years ago and the result has been the settlement on the south shore of the St. Lawrence of land which it would have been much better to leave as forest reserve. People

were planted on poor, light, rocky soil the fertility of which soon passed; they struggled and worked in a most admirable way; but in spite of their exertion, thrift and ingenuity, many of them had to leave in debt and seek a livelihood in the factories. I submit that Canadian citizens are more useful to the nation in Canada than in the United States. Therefore, I believe that if by reduced rates and assistance a better distribution of population is obtained even at the expense of congested older sections, and our young farmers are prevented from deserting the land, the whole country will stand to gain.
There are two other matters which I would like to mention before I sit down. In the first place I rejoice at the success achieved by the Canadian National Railways, which have shown a surplus of $58,000,000 for the last year and promise even more favourable returns for the years to come. Lest we forget, let me say that this wonderful performance is due just as much to the untiring work, loyalty and devotion to duty of the personnel of the railways from the most humble call boy to the president, as to the general pros-perQus conditions o-f our national trade. Our railwaymen deserve the most sincere congratulations and praises of parliament and of the nation.
Might I say in passing that in my humble opinion we, the people of Canada, owe to the Canadian National Railways a duty which perhaps we are sometimes apt to forget. We owe them the duty of supporting and encouraging them. Let us remember that they are our railways; that their success is our success and that their gains are to the advantage of the country. Therefore, why not try to use them more to travel and to ship our goods? Why not make propaganda in their favour? Our railways can give in everything just as good a service as any other system. Let us 'be proud of them and let us work in their interest. Let us get the " C.N.R." habit. That is the practical way of showing to our railwaymen our appreciation of their wonderful achievement.
Since this debate has started we have heard a lot about trade, trade balance and returns, exchanges, importations and exportations, tariff and financial matters. One would think that Canada is a nation of shopkeepers only. Few members have discussed the situation of agriculture, which is the profession of the majority of Canadians and which is the profession of the people I have the honour to represent in this house. It has been suggested that agriculture has not shared as it should have in our vaunted prosperity,

The Budget-Mr. Gott
and I believe that is true. Therefore I wish to join with those who have urged upon the government the necessity of giving better attention, if "possible, to the needs of the farmer, especially the eastern farmer who, rightly or wrongly, feels that he has been more or less neglected, perhaps because he is less vocal and less organized than his western confrere. The eastern fanner needs aid to adjust his methods to modern conditions, to improve his produce and to keep his markets.
I have been told by an official of the Quebec Department of Agriculture that three-quarters of the foodstuffs consumed in the large eastern cities come from foreign countries, although these cities, such as Montreal and Quebec, are situated in the middle of the richest farming country. Some say that a seasonal tariff would be a remedy. It is possible, but I rather believe that education and improvement in production and marketing methods would be more effective. In this connection I wish to mention the good service rendered to farmers by the demonstration and illustration stations of the Agriculture department and to congratulate the minister and his deputies. Doctor Grisdale and Doctor Charron, three real friends of the farmers, for their wonderful work in this respect. These stations do not cost much, and the good they do is immense. I have a few in my county, but not enough, and I know whereof I speak; we should have more. They are worth carloads of books of instructions and theories and millions of lectures, because examples are stronger than anything else. In those stations the farmers see the result which can be obtained by the best methods of cultivation. I venture to urge upon the Department of Agriculture the establishment of many more of those stations, in order to render agriculture more successful and more paying. They would teach our farmers to grow what the market demands; they would instruct them in the use of proper fertilizers, and in the classification, grading and preparation of their produce for the market, etcetera.
I would also ask assistance in favour of young breeders' clubs, one of which is functioning with great success in my county, at St. Michel, and recently obtained a first prize in competition with the whole country. They are the best thing to encourage the improvement of dairy herds and of cattle generally.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating the government on the very creditable record of achievements which the budget of the hon the Minister of Finance has disclosed. More
especially do I wish to congratulate them upon having re-established in the country that happy condition of peace, harmony, understanding and bonne entente between the different parts, classes and people, without which prosperity would have not been possible.
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that I shall occupy the time of the house I propose to discuss briefly some of the issues that are of major importance to the people in the riding which I have the honour to represent, where I am sorry to say, the plight of the farmer is such and conditions have been aggravated by the inaction of the government to such an extent that it would be hard for me to portray conditions as they actuality esjist. There are several reasons for that, some of which are unavoidable.
First, the com borer has ravaged 22,000 acres of our corn land. Second, the hog cholera epidemic of 1928 exterminated some of our finest grades and best hogs. Third, the supplementation of tobacco for corn has brought about chaotic conditions,. and the plight of the tobacco grower is so serious that the farmers are greatly discouraged and hundreds of assignments have been made. Fourth, the importation of surplus American farm produce at distress prices, at distress times, has made the growing of early vegetables an unprofitable occupation. Fifth, there was the failure of the government to take cognizance of these conditions and its indifference to requests and demands, its failure to offer assistance when government action was necessary and could have ameliorated conditions. Last, and most important of all, and for which the government will in due time be called upon to answer, conditions are so |rave that life-long Liberals in western Ontario are forsaking the party. There is division in the ranks of the Liberal party and strong opposition even to a seasonal tariff on vegetables, to which I shall make more extended reference later.
Before proceeding further with my remarks, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Letel'lier de St. Just), who I am sorry is not in bis seat at the moment, on contributing to this debate on Mtarch 14th last wbalt to my mind wag the finest presentation that has hitherto been made. There wais 'more meat and substance and more actual thought in the preparation of that speech than in forty speeches such as were delivered by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). I know something of the pains the hon. member for Compton took in
The Budget-Mr. Gott

preparing and translating his speech so that he might deliver it in English. I realize pos-'sibly more than many other hon. members who sit with him the many hours he devoted to making the necessary preparation, and I wish to compliment him on the exceptionally fine presentation he made, more particularly as the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) gave him very little to work on.
I was amused when I heard the Postmaster General (Mr. Vemict) say in the course of hi3 remarks-and I may say that I always get a kick out of his speeches-"We have the Conservative party representing Ontario at loggerheads with the Conservative party representing Nova Scotia," I should like to give a sample of party harmony which actually exists on the government side, between the twin members who occupy adjoining seats in this chamber, the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette), and the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Odette), and this would apply to almost any row on the government side of the house. The hon. member for North Timiskaming is officially reported in Hansard of March 11, page 857," as saying: "At the present time the fruit industry is fully protected," and the hon, memfber for East Essex speaking at Kingst ille on March 1st last, is reported as follows in .the Border Cities Star, of Windsor, in its issue of March 2nd, under these headlines:
to keep out low-priced United States i vegetables is sure i proved, says Mr. Odette, Liberal Essex.
under-selling M.P. for East
1 he Border Cities Star goes on to say:
Once Ottawa is shown proof that even a carload of United States fruit and vegetables is brought into Ontario from Detroit at less than Detroit market prices, the federal government according to Edmund G. Odette, [DOT] Liberal M.P. for East Essex, will act promptly to enact anti-dumping measures on behalf of the Essex county growers.
There must be some technicality about this, Mr. Speaker, I admit that I do not understand it. The proof is on file; it is on record, and the figures are indisputable.
I quote from the Border Cities Star of March 15 last:
The following resolution was unanimously passed and will be forwarded to Ottawa:
, Resolved, that the Southwestern Ontario V egetable Growers' Association, in session assembled at Belle River, do hereby strongly urge that the present federal government should immediately enact the necessary legislation to exclude from the Canadian market the following lower priced vegetables and early fruits, such as small berries, and fruits which have been successfully Canadian-grown, also tomatoes, lettuce, early potatoes and cabbage.

I remember quite well the references made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) last session to the situation in the fruit and vegetable industries, following the visit to Ottawa of a large delegation free from political motives, urging the government to restore some means of protection similar to that provided by order in council 1088. I remember the Prime Minister saying that the government could, and he thought would, pass an order in council protecting any particular fruit or vegetable if conditions demanded it. Having this in mind last summer I wired the right hon. the Prime Minister, under date of July 3, as follows:
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister, Ottawa, Ontario.
Essex county has wonderful potato crop ready for the market. American surplus finding Canadian market, three hundred cars daily. Strongly advise rendering all assistance possible to farmers moving and marketing. Reduced freight rates, while preventing surplus importation, would assist materially. Wish you could see western Ontario crop, you would render requested assistance immediately.
Signed by myself. To which I received the following reply:
Please be assured that the representations of your telegram just received will have careful consideration.
W. L. Mackenzie King.
The reply was alluring, and as the Prime Minister himself made it assuring, we had hoped for some results. The crop came on. The total crop yield for the Dominion for 1928 was estimated at 90,975,000 bushels from 599,775 acres, or 17 per cent increase over 1927. Yet the American potato was permitted to come in, and sold, to commence with, at from 65 to 75 cents per peck, or about three dollars per bushel. Again the United States farmer and shipper gets the cream, and our farmers plough under thousands of acres for fertilizer. Potatoes are selling in western Ontario to-day in some places for 40 cents per bag of ninety pounds.
Mr. Frank Smith, a member of the New Brunswick legislature, was in Ottawa, I am informed, during the month of February, urging on the government the adoption of a seasonal tariff on potatoes. He proposed that the tariff be in effect for April, May and June. Potatoes are the chief crop in many parts of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The market for maritime potatoes is in the United States, Cuba, Ontario and Quebec. The United States tariff is almost prohibitive, yet the United States potato growers capture the early potato market of Ontario and Quebec. It is to conserve the early Ontario and Quebec potato market for the maritime provinces that the seasonal tariff is being urged.

The Budget-Mr. Gott
If the proposed tariff was effective for April, May and June, it would not be of much use to the growers of Essex county and southwestern Ontario. It is seldom we commence shipping potatoes before July 10, and if the tariff was off July 1 the American potatoes could be brought in and spoil the early market for our crop. To be of any benefit to us, the tariff Should be on at least until August 1. That .would give our growers two, and perhaps three, weeks to ship at a fair price.
The Amherstburg Echo, the leading weekly Liberal paper in western Ontario, had the following editorial in its issue of August 17 last:
Colchester south and other south Essex municipalities, which by reason of their fine soil produce early vegetables in large quantities, are shockingly hard hit this season and producers are losing heavily on such commodities as potatoes, cabbages, beans, tomatoes and cucumbers. The situation is so serious governmental investigation and action should not he delayed.
Here may I interject, Mr. Speaker, that in Essex county we have competition, first, from the surplus of the Virginia cabbage market, second, the surplus of the Mississippi tomato market, then the surplus of the Michigan potato market, and the surplus of the Louisiana cucumber market, the tail-end of their season meeting the first end of our production season. To continue the editorial:
The loss in Colchester south alone will run well up to fifty thousand dollars. Allowing such a ruinous situation to arise shows that the Dominion government had either not been well advised by its agents in Essex county or has been asleep at the switch. The Echo is not in politics, but it would be a traitor to its constituency if it failed to call attention to the disaster which has befallen so many of our people by reason of the government's removal of a dumping clause in the act where a fixed, fair market value for certain fruits and vegetables was put on by a former government. Just where government supporters in western Ontario were when this regulation was cancelled is a fair question to ask. They do not appear to have been on the job, or at least they did not succeed in having the clause retained or a better one substituted in its place. And as supporters of the government in power, they are the men who the people expect are looking after the interests of their constituents in this and in other regards. The Canadian Horticultural Council at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging upon the Minister of National Revenue the advisability of establishing a list of fair values for fruits and vegetables, applicable at the port of entry, not the point of shipment, giving our farmers the same method of protection as motor ear manufacturers have against the dumping on Canada of a flood of used cars from the United States. This seems a sensible request. Its adoption would have saved the vegetable and fruit growers of Ontario from being ruined. Who ever heard of a used ear bought at, say, forty dollars in Detroit, being allowed to come through the Canadian
customs without appraisal at a fair market value? Yet our Colchester south and other south Essex produce growers are allowed to be slaughtered by a flood of undervalued American farm products grown under conditions of low labour costs, while not a representative of the government stood up in parliament to plead their cause and protest against the injustice. Ordinary business sense would seem to have dictated a different policy, not to mention the question of political expediency. In the meantime acres of choice foodstuffs are being ploughed under in south Essex because their sales value will not pay for the harvesting.
Now the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) being in his seat, I hope, if he did not pay any attention to this editorial at the time of its publication, he will at least read it to-morrow in Hansard.
At the great Liberal rally in Kingsville on March 1-divided though it may have been- in the riding which I have the honour to represent, one of the speakers proposed that the Ontario government be called upon to follow the example recently set by the government of British Columbia and assure protection for early fruits and vegetables by imposing an inspection tax sufficient to set up a barrier against the dumping of imported products. More harmony in the Liberal ranks! The hon. member for east Essex objects to the proposal, and according to the Border Cities Star of March 2, says that protection for fruit and vegetable growers of Canada is a matter for the Dominion government to deal with, that the government does not intend to shirk its responsibility; and that the tariff to-day is exactly the same as it was when the Liberal government went into office-there has been no reduction. I like straightforwardness in public men. The last statement is misleading. The hon. gentleman knows, and if he does not, the people whom 'he represents know, that the rescinding of order in council No. 1088, passed by the Conservative government on July 10, 1926, removed the measure of protection, -the nature of which had been sought by the fruit and vegetable growers of western Ontario for the past fifty years. I cannot take time to explain in detail order m council No. 1088 which the hon. Minister of Finance told a delegation on Friday, April 27, 192S, had not been cancelled. For the edification of the hon. member for East Essex I would ask him to refer to Hansard of 1928 at page 2486. The order was cancelled on March 19, 1928, the cancellation becoming effective on that date.
May I ask the government if the tariff advisory board has made any recommendation regarding protection, seasonal or otherwise, for Canadian fruit and vegetable growers? If so, what was the substance of the recommend-
The Budget-Mr. Gott

ation? Why has it not been implemented? Let me add, if they have made no recommendation I charge them wiLh dereliction of duty.
I have taken up the challenge that the provincial government should provide relief for the growers through an inspection tax. What action will the Dominion government take if British Columbia proceeds according to newspaper reports? I hope they will not interfere. As apparently there is no relief forthcoming from the Dominion authorities, I wrote the Hon. S. F. Tolmie, Premier of British Columbia, and a former esteemed member of this house. I quote from my letter to him of March 7, 1929:
The growers of Essex south are weary of waiting for action from the Mackenzie King government, who have put every possible obstacle in the path of the farmer, and I am of the opinion, from press reports only, that if it can be successfully operated (in British Columbia, Ontario should be permitted to benefit through the plan emanating from your province.
If this can be worked out from a provincial angle, south Essex will forget that we have a King government in Ottawa. I will, if it is possible, request our provincial government, either through legislation or regulation (according to your advice), to act on it at once.
Western Ontario Liberals should have supported our proposals in the house last session, but because they failed is no reason why we should not pursue more intensely our convictions in this matter.
The only reason, Mr. Speaker, that has been advanced in this house for failure to implement legislation that will be beneficial to the vegetable growers is the fear that the consumers will be compelled to pay fabulous prices for their products. Let me say to the government that I have never favoured permitting the farmer to exploit the consumer. I have never suggested to this government nor have I suggested to any individual that the farmer should be permitted to exploit the consumer. But have hon. gentlemen ever considered the lamentable position the consumer would be in should the early vegetable industry be ruined? Here is a principle on which we should agree. In order to sell a few baskets of early tomatoes at S2 a basket the grower plants a large acreage. Following the sale of these few baskets a week or two later he ships hundreds of baskets at prices within the reach of the working man. A week later tons and tons of the primest fruit, at a margin which it would not pay him to handle were it not for the first prices he obtained, are put on the market. The point is this: the grower must get the rich man's price for a limited number of baskets in order to reach the humblest table. The strawberry industry in 
Essex county and western Ontario should provide one with a fine example of what may happen to all other products. For instance, while strawberries were once a gift of nature to be found on the poorest man's table, in the spring in the form of choicest fruit and in the winter months in preserves, they have in Essex county, Canada's most southern county, become now a luxury available only to moneyed people. The reason is obvious. The condition is due to cold storage shipping from the south and the low duties on an inferior, tasteless quality, and if it comes to pass that the consumer is one day obliged to depend upon American growers he will be accepting the table cleanings as long as he lives. The Canadian producer and the Canadian produce bring down the price to the consumer; they force down the prices of American fruit and vegetables. But in the interim the shrewed American producer, assisted by our laws and regulations, skims the cream of the Canadian market and leaves the Canadian producer and consumer with nothing but the leavings.
May I again be permitted to refer to the Postmaster General's speech. I desire to congratulate the hon. gentleman on being the Dominion's leading optimist. At piage 926 of Hansard, speaking with regard to immigration and emigration, he says:
What is the record?
And answering his own question he states:
We find that since the termination of the war 270,666 settlers left the United States- American subjects, American born- and came across into Canada to settle, being to-day permanent citizens of this country.
I do not need to remind the house or the country of the real situation during the same period-and I select no special period but take that referred to by the hon. gentleman. AVhat is the true situation in that same period? Almost that number with their dependents, of the Canadian expeditionary forces who served in the Great war are today residents of the United States. The Bureau of Statistics at Washington shows that for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1928, 73,154 persons, making 42 per cent of the total immigration into the United States, came from Canada. The report for the previous fiscal year showed that 41 per cent of the total immigration into the United States came from . Canada; in other words, 81,506 Canadians left this Dominion in search of employment in a foreign country. What is the contrast? Our soldier boys, broken in pocket, in health and in spirit were forced by the fiscal policy of this government to seek employment in a foreign country, leaving behind many loved

The Budget-Mr. Gott
ones and the land from which inspiration for service arose, leaving behind the good old union jack, the beaver and the maple leaf, and what they imply, to become citizens of another country until such time as an economic problem can be solved which is beyond the reach of this government, and when they can return and obtain employment in the land they love so well. Oh, yes, the minister says that we obtained 270,666 settlers from the United States; and he asks, why were not both sides of the medal shown? The fact of the matter is-and both sides of the medal are shown, using the minister's own argument -that we traded our soldier boys, the cream and the flower of the land, for the Americans, through whose entry others will be forced to seek employment in Uncle Sam's domain.
I have not time to discuss immigration or emigration, for I want to deal with the question of tobacco; but let me remind the government that a baseball player with only a bat, a ball and the regular playing equipment, is as useless to the game if he has not the intelligence with which to make proper application, as a government, with all the legislation ever provided, is to a country if the courage is lacking to make the proper application for the safeguarding of our rights and institutions at all times and under all circumstances and conditions. May I suggest to the minister that his argument is as sound as that of the faithful old mother who was convinced that her son never indulged in the consumption of intoxicating liquors because he drank so much water in the morning.
The county of Essex was formerly divided into two constituencies, north and south Essex; now it is divided into three, west, east and south. Taking the two old ridings as a basis of computation, South Essex has increased in population in the last ten years by 2.300, while North Essex has increased 40,000. The reason is that industries have been established in North Essex. Subsidiaries of American plants have established themselves. not for the love of Canada, or Canadians, but because our tariff policy makes it advantageous for them to build here rather than to supply from the American plants and pay the duty. The result is far-reaching. It builds up Canadian industry, gives employment to Canadian workmen, and provides a larger and better market for our farmers. Far better it is, I submit, for the farmer of Essex county to furnish the people of Windsor and district with produce than for the Michigan farmer to supply that demand. Tariff and protection bring capital investment, industry, employ-78594-82
ment, wages and competition. Competition brings prices within the reach of the working man. Protection brings industry and one industry brings another. A protective tariff develops home industries and these industries promote others, giving employment and wages, and making for contentment in the home. A policy of protection, and one of fairness to all classes, is one which will be conducive to Dominion-wide prosperity in the home, in the factory and in our basic industry, farming. It is the only solution for our war and railway debts and the conserving of the youth of our Dominion.
The government should endeavour to reduce our national debt, and I suggest to the Minister of Finance that the Ontario scheme of debt reduction is worth looking into and studying. The government should endeavour to reduce our national expenditures by economy in the respective departments of state, and instead of adding 1,500 employees to the service should reduce the staff to that extent. Government in Canada costs too much per capita, and much as one might favour reduction in representation, I realize that to that end the start must be made from the town and county councils, to the legislatures, and to the House of Commons. A general reduction in representation should meet with unqualified approval, and Essex county to-day is leading the way in this regard in a substantial reduction in their respective councils.
Now I come to the question of tobacco. The late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier gave the tobacco growers their first protection of 10 cents per pound in 1897. Through the effort, personal endeavour, solicitation and recommendation of the late Mahlon K. Cowan, then member of the constituency which I have the honour to represent to-day, a beginning was made. In 1897 we produced 552,000 pounds of tobacco. The following year, with a tariff of 10 cents per pound on tobacco, we produced 5,500,000 pounds, or approximately ten times as much as the year before. In 1899 a further duty of 18 cents per pound was granted, making 28 cents, and that further increased production to 10,554,000 pounds. In 1918 an additional 12 cents per pound was granted by the Union government, bringing* the duty to 40 cents per pound, and that still further increased production to over 20,000,000 pounds in 1920. That duty still stands. In 1928 we produced in Canada 40,956,400 pounds; as to the grades or varieties there are no statistics available. In 1920 we exported about 70,000 pounds of tobacco; in 1928 we exported 6,218,301 pounds, and again

The Budget-Mr. Gott

there are no statistics available as to grades. I hope the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture will listen to these figures:	In 1928 we imported 17,943,070
pounds of tobacco, and of that total we imported from the United States 16,513,117 pounds, valued at 85,399,505. Again there are no statistics available as to the grades, but my contention is that practically all the tobacco imported from the United States was of the flue-cured variety, the growing of which we are now taking up more extensively.
When we had no duty on tobacco, the tobacco used in Canadian factories was all imported; when the duty was 10 cents per pound only 5 per cent of the tobacco used in Canadian factories was grown in Canada. When the duty was 28 cents per pound on foreign leaf, 30 per cent of the tobacco used in Canadian factories was domestic grown, and since we have had a duty of 40 cents per pound on foreign leaf, 48 per cent of all tobacco consumed in Canada has been domestic grown. I contend that if we increase the duty to 60 cents or 75 cents per pound, in three years 75 per cent of the tobacco used by Canadian manufacturers would be domestic grown, and our production would be greatly increased. In spite of what the tobacco commission have said I think there is a wonderful future for the tobacco industry; the commissioners were not men whose advice I could or would seek.
I have under my hand regulation No. 8, relating to the taxes on tobacco, snuff, cigars and cigarettes, under the revised statutes of the United States, from which I have ascertained that the United States duty against Canadian tobacco is from 45 cents to $1.85 per pound on unstemmed tobacco and from 50 cents to $2.50 on stemmed tobacco. The Canadian duty is only 40 cents and 60 cents per pound. In Canada rebates on duty paid are allowed when imported raw leaf is manufactured for export, and let me tell the Minister of Finance that this encourages Canadian manufacturers to use United States tobacco in our factories. Again, when tobacco comes into Canada it is permitted to lie in bond for two years. When automobiles come into this country the duty must be paid immediately, and I suggest to the minister that duty should be collected on every pound of tobacco coming into Canada, as is the case with other commodities. I think it is an insult to the intelligence of our tobacco growers that this article should be permitted to come into Canada and remain in bond until the Canadian tobacco is pushed off the market or until such time as it is to the advantage of the manufacturer to use imported tobacco.

The Minister of Agriculture will recognize this document which I now hold in my hand; it is the report of the Tobacco Inquiry Commission, appointed in 1928. This report is a conglomeration of generalities clustered in radiant form, and with everything considered this commission cost the government more than $5,000. That money was spent with what result? The only result was that the farmers were advised to reduce their tobacco acreage. May I say that the minister and his deputy were exceptionally well received in western Ontario, and I think they came there with very sincere intent; they came realizing that a condition existed there which did not exist in any other part of Canada, and I believe they sincerely wished to be of some help. The situation was diagnosed by the minister and his deputy; when doctors diagnose a case they prescribe a remedy, and in this case the minister's prescription was a tobacco commission. Generally, in the practise of medicine, when one prescription fails another is tried, but the minister did not prescribe anything else. I have here a detailed report of the expenses of this commission. The commissioners received $20 per day each, and in addition the three commissioners received $12 per day as an allowance for living expenses. Then there were the expenses for the secretary, for hiring halls for meetings and so on, but in a word all they did was pass the responsibility and soft-pedal a very grave situation. I suggest to the minister that this investigation was a farce, and I will try to show the minister why I make that statement. The people in Essex county, both Liberal and Conservative, think it was a farce. Perhaps it was not a farce; it may have been a comedy in thirty-two acts, since it took thirty-two days to complete the investigation. The farmers were innocent; they thought this was in t'heir best interests, but why did not this commission examine some of the buyers who sought to crush out the very lives of the growers? The net profits of the Imperial Tobacco Company in 1927 were $4,371,613; I have not seen their annual report for 1928 but I have been informed that their profits are well above the $5,000,000 mark, although I cannot speak authoritatively in this connection. However, I think the commission, if they had desired, could have gone into the enormous profits piled up by this and other companies, which in my opinion would have been more in keeping with the purpose for which they were appointed.
May I say to the minister that conditions existed which should have been but never were brought to light. The minister had the situation in the palm of his hand in 1927

The Budget-Mr. Gott
and 1928; he could have made a name for himself in western Ontario then. He could have taken the bull by the horns-and when I say that he will know what I mean, being Minister of Agriculture-and not release one pound of bonded tobacco until every pound of Canadian tobacco of the grades that could have been used at once had been taken up. This would have brought the tobacco moguls to time. The minister had an opportunity to approach the moguls of the combine and throw a bomb into their works which would have shattered the organization for years to come, but he failed to do so.
Now I have some suggestions to make, and I trust that they are sufficiently constructive to be heeded. I place them in two classifications; first, those too late to classify, or rather too late to rectify, and in the second class those which can be heeded.
In the first class, the first point is that the assistance offered, though exceptionally well and sincerely intended, was offered to a dying cooperative when it should have been directed to the organization of a more extensive marketing system. The second point in this group is this: The minister had 5,000 tobacco growers in Essex and Kent counties massed and ready to organize on any fair and reasonable basis, but he dismissed them without action. The third point in this class is that interest waned because the minister was wrongly advised; dissension spread, jealousies arose, proposals and plans disappeared and the growers encountered their second consecutive season of failure in 1928.
Then as to the second class, I have the following suggestions to make, all of which 1 think can be heeded.
1.	Do not waste the people's money wantonly for the purpose of shirking responsibility.
2.	Revert the expenditure to channels that will be productive of assistance to an industry which is at present struggling to survive the reverses of the past two years.
3.	Consult the authorities of the Department of Trade and Commerce and cooperate in such a manner that Canadian tobacco, with the 49 cents a pound preference, can obtain a firm hold in the British markets.
4.	Send men to the British Isles and keep them there until they establish, through display or otherwise, Canadian tobacco firmly in the British market.
5.	Encourage Canadians to discard their prejudice against Canadian tobacco by means of an educational campaign, and keep Canadian tobaccos, cigars and cigarettes to the fore through cooperation with the Minister of Finance in the reduction of the excise duties
78594-82J
on cigars and cigarettes, which duty has increased from $1,889,376.74 in 1912 to $23,569,641 in 1928.
6.	In view of the fact that Norfolk county and other sections of western Ontario are increasing tremendously their acreage of flue-cured, prevent the re-occurrence of the importation of millions of pounds of tobacco from the United States each year. The imports of raw leaf tobacco into Canada from the United States during the year ending December 31, 1928, amounted to 16,513,117 pounds; the import value of which was rated at $5,399,505.
7.	In view of the fact that statistics are not available as to the imports into Canada and the exports from Canada of tobaoco by grades, and this being important, I suggest that in the future a separate record be kept of same.
8.	Eliminate the wholesale and retail smuggling of United States cigarettes, which smuggling is in open contravention and defiance of the law, by making the Canadian excise on cigarettes in proportion to and in conformity with the excise tax levied by the United States government on the production in that country.
Although there are many other suggestions which could be made, my final suggestion is:
9.	Do not permit a pound of tobacco to come into Canada without the duty being paid at time of entry, and allow no drawbacks so that manufacturers who have a prejudice against Canadian tobacco may resort to bonded stock at opportune times in preference to Canadian tobacco. Do not permit fruits and vegetables to come into Canada in bond and lie in cold storage cars.
I trust the minister will consider some of the suggestions I have made, and if my services are required, I will help him, his deputy or his staff at any time in the drafting of regulations which will bring new life into an industry which means so much to our section of the country.
On motion of Mr. Heaps the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Robb the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Friday, April 5, 1929