1930-05-15

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing com-mitte on railways and shipping.-Sir Eugene Fiset.
Fourth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Glen.
Third report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Brown.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from the Senate, together with a long list of unopposed divorce bills in which the concurrence of this house is desired. It is moved by Mr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Glen, that the following unopposed private bills be now read a first and second time and referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills:
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Verna Gladys Stannard.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Christian McVicars.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Vivian Francis Young.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Erie Godwin Havens.-Mr. Rutherford.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Ruth Elizabeth Greene.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Muriel Palmer.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Elizabeth Anderson.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Edith Elizabeth Gibson.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Margaret Wallace.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Mary Ellen Peever.-Mr. Arthurs.

Private Bills
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Annie Emily Simpson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Abraham Gleadall.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Ann Pisano. -Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Florence Louise Pretoria Pollock.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Alma Vera Cochrane.-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Edith Jane Cartwright.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Annie Hewit-son Taunton.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of James Henry Loree.-Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Cecelia Leta Rice.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Audrey Lillian Connelly.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Robert Webb. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Lillian Martha Cecile Martin.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Antoine Joseph Bourdon.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Irene Clarice Bunting.-Mr. Hay.
Bill	No.	165,	for	the	relief	of Lawrence
Wellington Robertson.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Gordon Robert Foster.-Mr. Geary.
Bill	No.	167,	for	the	relief	of Andrew
Chauncey Sanders.

Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Isador Simpson.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Royal May Frances Hider.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill	No.	170,	for	the	relief	of Margaret
Caroline Watson.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Myrtle Alice Niece.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Broadus Baxter Farmer.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Meryl Grigg Fizzell.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Mabel Ann Dixon.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Annie Pettit Nicholls.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Thomas William Treadway.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Pearl Robena Close.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Ivy Lillian Echlin.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Thomas Clifton Dawes.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Herbert Dean Philip.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 181, for the relief of William Pearson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of William Woods. -Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Mary Cameron McMillan.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Bridget Gladys Vivian Tegart.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Charles Cob-lens.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Esther Gertrude Wooder.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Eleanor Jane Moorhead.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Aubrey Robert Alee.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Edith Lerene Collins.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Florence Ada Bark Simpson.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No.191, for the relief of Helen Theresa Baker.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Harry Everett Marked.-Mr. Murphy.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of George Wellington Garfield Neal.-Mr. Murphy.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Sarah Delia Baker Tribe-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Elsie Emily Disney.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Harry Douglas Towers.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Elizabeth Warga.

Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of William Thomas Raines.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Enos Nuttall Davis.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Violet May McFadden.-Mr. Lawson.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bills read the first
and second times.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) moved concurrence in the fifth and sixth reports of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
[Stage Direction]
He said: This motion is made in order to avoid unnecessary delay. The next stage of the procedure will be the presentation of a resolution, followed by the introduction of a bill.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to take steps to increase the lower grade salaries in the civil service during the present session?
2.	If so, to what extent?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: This question was answered, I think, by the statement which I made yesterday in reply to the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans).


PUBLIC DEBT
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	By what amount, per year, was the debt of Canada increased, from 1911 to 1921?
2.	By what amount, per year, was the debt of Canada decreased, from 1921 to 1930?
3.	To whom was entrusted the administration of the country from 1911 to 1921, and from 1921 to 1930?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.
Eiscal	Increase of	Decrease ofyear	net debt	net debt1910- 11	$ 3,773,505 701911- 12	
$ 122,591 321912-	13	
25,617,835	031913-	14	
21,695,224	461914-	15	
113,379,233	071915-	16	
165,780,087	811916-	17	
264,030,126	781917-	18	
312,697,764	701918-	19	
382,646,969	941919-	20	
674,337,591	351920-	21	
92,010,359	90
2.
Fiscal	Increase of	Decrease ofyear	net debt	net debt1921- 22	1 81,256,818 041922-	23	
31,641,067	011923-	24	
$35,993,593	861924-	25	
345,589	291925-	26	
27,706,586	171926-	27	
41,896,729	331927-	28	
50,984,137	171928-	29	
71,345,527	821929-	30	
44,507,000	00
(estimated)
3.	The governments of Right Hon. Sir Robert L. Borden and Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (1911-1921); the governments of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (19211926); Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (June to September, 1926); and Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (1926-1930).


ADVANCES TO HARBOUR COMMISSIONS
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	What amount has been advanced to each of the harbour commissions in Canada as of January 1, 1930, by purchase of bonds or otherwise?
2.	How much of the said advances have been repaid in each case?
3.	What is the amount owing to the Dominion Government by each harbour commission as of January 1, 1930, including interest?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Montreal		. . .$ 54,875,000 00
	Quebec		. .. 20,034,995 68
	Halifax		. .. 435,000 00
	Saint John		. .. 1,881,000 00
	Vancouver		. .. 17,805,900 00
	Chicoutimi		. .. 1,000,000 00
	Three Rivers.. .	. .. 81,760 97
2.	Montreal	. .. 1,000,000 003.	Montreal	. .. 53,875,000 00Quebec	. .. 30,820,259 34Saint John	. .. 1,881,000 00Vancouver	. .. 17,805,900 00Chicoutimi	. .. 1,000,000 00Three Rivers.. .	. .. 381,927 08


EXCISE TAX ON CIGARETTES
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What is the excise tax on cigarettes?
2.	When was present rate of excise imposed?
3.	How many times has raise in excise been made during the past 15 years?
4.	How much revenue was raised from excise on cigarettes each year from 1912?
5.	How many cigarettes were imported into Canada per year during the foregoing years, and what was the value of same?
6.	How many cigarettes were manufactured in. Canada each year during the same years?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Cigarettes weighing not more than three pounds per thousand are subject to an excise duty of $6 per thousand; cigarettes weighing more than three pounds per thousand are subject to an excise duty of $11 per thousand.
2.	23rd June, 1923.
3.	Three times.
4.
Fiscal Year
1911-	12.. ..
1912-	13	
1913-	14.. ..
1914-	15	
Revenue $ 1,889,376 74 2,357.705 81 2,809.347 02 3,004,822 14

Questions as Orders for Returns
Fiscal Year	Revenue
1915-	16	
3,252,797	581916-	17	
3,929,130	151917-	18	
5,002,576	441918-	19	
8,852,076	021919-	20	
14,657,162	631920-	21	
14,650,577	551921-	22	
14,710,869	681922-	23	
14,079,064	611923-	24	
14,767,259	511924-	25	
15,197,878	401925-	26	
17,308,109	011926-	27	
20,011,204	661927-	28	
23.569,640	951928-	29	
27,650,707	971929-	30	
30,223,822	91
5.
Fiscal Year	Pounds Value
1911- 12	
65,173	$159,6811912-	13	
75,555	178.6441913-	14	
79,875	188,0971914-	15	
44,339	103,8001915-	16	
30,222	79,0691916-	17	
22.39S	67,0601917-	18	
23,698	76,8051918-	19	
21,085	73,1371919-	20	
19,933	84,3641920-	21	
25,611	105.3091921-	22	
27,136	110,2611922-	23	
36,127	120,4921923-	24	
31,880	120.8341924-	25	
42,115	151,4521925-	26	
50,896	192,2691926-	27	
45.622	171,5911927-	28	
46,670	179,0401928-	29	
58,174	208,7731929-	30	
59,050	211,849
6.
Fiscal Year	Number
1911-	12	
783,982,1851912-	13	
979,206,4071913-	14	
1.166,707,6101914-	15	
1,088,858,6561915-	16	
1.356,846,0851916-	17	
1,698,815,3801917-	18	
2,321,594,5331918-	19	
3,023.729,6901919-	20	
3,305.963.0021920-	21	
2.512,048,1861921-	22	
2,401,142,1921922- 23	1,984.043,1821923-	24	
2,431.696,0611924-	25	
2,566,900,5701925-	26	
2,897,179,5001926-	27	
3,313,551,1101927-	28	
4,006.498.0751928-	29	
4.464,692,6351929-	30	
5,035,878.655
2419-134J


CIVIL AVIATION INSPECTORS
Mr. ROSS (Kingston City):: 1.	How many persons have been appointed inspectors in civil aviation branch?
2.	What are their names?
3.	What services and qualifications did each possess?
4.	Were any returned men rejected?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Nine.
2.	G. S. Abbott, G. G. Wakeman, S. Graham, H. C. Ingram, A. D. McLean, D. G. Joy, T. G. M. Stevens, R. C. Guest, T. M. Shields.
3.	These inspectors are all overseas men; were appointed by the Civil Service Commission and complied with the requirements of that commission with respect to service and qualifications.
4.	No information.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What was the number of persons on the staff in the Labour department at Ottawa, male and female, in the years 1923 to 1929, inclusive ?
2.	What were their names, addresses, and occupations, previous to their appointment in the Department of Labour?
3.	How many persons are employed by the Department of Labour at outside points?
4.	What are their names, addresses and previous occupations?


BUTTER AND MILK PRODUCTION
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How much creamery butter was producted in Canada in the calender years 1928-29?
2.	How much dairy butter was produced in Canada in the calendar years 1928-29?
3.	How much butter was exported from Canada in the calender years 1928-29?
4.	How much butter was imported into Canada in the calendar years 1928-29?
5.	What was the consumption of butter per capita in Canada in the calendar years 1928-29?
6.	Is any substitute for butter permitted to be imported, manufactured or sold in Canada?
7.	Is it permissible to renovate butter under the existing Canadian laws?
8.	How much milk was produced in Canada in the calendar years 1928-29?
9.	How much milk was exported from Canada in the calendar years 1928-29, and to what countries?
10.	How much cream was exported from Canada in the calendar years 1928-29, and to what countries?
11.	What was the per capita consumption of milk in Canada in the calendar years 1928-29?
12.	What was the number of dairy cattle in Canada in the calendar years 1928-29?
Inquiries jor Returns

13.	What was the average milk production per dairy cow in the calendar years 1928-29?
14.	How many farmers in Canada are interested in the dairy industry?
15.	What was the average price of butter, cream and milk in Canada by months during the calendar years 1928-29?



ST. JOHN HARBOUR RAILWAY BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). I have had a communication from St. John expressing apprehension that a bill for the construction of a railway bridge in the harbour of St. John may not be brought down this session. As the matter is of great public importance and is causing much anxiety, would the minister kindly make a statement as to the government's intention in regard to it?
Hon. PIERRE J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):	Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not in a position to give a definite answer to my hon. friend on this important subject. I can only say that it is still under consideration.


Murray MacLaren: I think that was the
answer I got last year.



BRITISH AIRSHIP R-100 APPOINTMENT OF BILINGUAL ANNOUNCER AT ST. HUBERT BROADCASTING STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put this question to the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). Is it within the knowledge of the department that Mr. J. A. Wilson, comptroller of civil aviation in Canada, refused to appoint a bilingual announcer at the St. Hubert broadcasting station regarding the arrival of the airship R-100 from England? If so, is it the intention of the department to appoint such a bilingual announcer?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: The answer to my hon. friend's
first question is no. As to the second question, it is not really a matter of whether or not a bilingual announcer should be appointed, but whether or not bilingual statements can better be given from the tower or be distributed from the various stations. This is a matter which involves a great deal of technical investigation. It is two weeks before 
the R-100 is expected here, and I can assure my hon. friend that I am personally going into the question to see which is the better way of broadcasting information having regard to the technical considerations involved. I would refer my hon. friend to the statement which appears in the morning's papers with regard to the whole subject.


Paul Mercier: I am satisfied.



IMPORTATION OF LUMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: May I ask the Minister of
National Revenue (Mr. Euler) to give me an answer to the question that I asked last week?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: I am sorry to say that I do not
recall exactly just what the question was. If it related to lumber, I think I told my hon. friend at the time that the matter was under investigation. I am afraid I have to give him the same answer to-day.


Peter McGibbon: How long is it going to take to complete the investigation?


William Daum Euler: Not very long.



BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) whether the huge slaughter of cattle for bovine tuberculosis is intended by the government as an economic measure or as a measure of public health?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: It is the best method known
to us of dealing with bovine tuberculosis, both from the economic and the health standpoints.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Might I ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Rin-fret), Mr. Speaker, when I may expect the order for a return passed on March 17, with reference to the Louisville, Quebec, post office caretaker ?


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: My hon. friend was kind enough to
send me a note of his question. I may tell him that the return was tabled on April 26 and that he may secure it from the office downstairs.

The Budget-Mr. Glen



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION

Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, on April 9, an order was passed for a return showing the treaty, or arrangement, between Japan and Canada regulating Japanese immigration and some other particulars, but up to date the return has not been laid on the table. It would not take very long to prepare and as the end of the session is approaching I should like to ask the government that it be tabled without delay.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will endeavour to see
that the return is expedited.



UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN AT THE PAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker,
I have reliable information that a large number of workmen are stranded at The Pas and are in a serious condition. These men were lured there by prospects of work on the Hudson Bay railway and at Fort Churchill. Can the government do anything either to find these men work or give them free transportation to their homes?


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals):: In reply to my hon. friend I
may say that arrangements are now being made to secure the personnel of the working force for the construction work at Churchill during the coming season. About 80 per cent of the men who were there last year have expressed their willingness to go back, and they will be given the preference. At the present time a representative of the department is in western Canada endeavouring to secure the balance of the men, and in the course of a few days he will be at The Pas. Unfortunately, it appears that a large number of men went to The Pas in the expectation that they might find employment in the north country.
I may add for the information of the house that in the near future the Canadian National Railways will be resuming the work they have to do on the line to Fort Churchill and several hundred men will be required for that work. As to what else can be done in that matter, I am at the moment not able to say.



RELIEF TO SWEDISH IMMIGRANTS

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago
I asked the acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) a question in relation to a press despatch stating that several hundred Scandinavians were in Winnipeg, destitute, and were applying to both the provincal and the federal governments for help. Has our government done anything in the matter?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration):: In reply to my
hon. friend's question, we have made inquiries and find that there were in the neighbourhood of one hundred, or one hundred and thirteen men, nationals of Sweden, who were out of employment at that time, but who expected to be employed on the Hudson Bay railway and the construction work at Fort Churchill. I was informed that they would be given an opportunity to go to that part of the country. With respect to their application to the Swedish government, I have no knowledge.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I
should like to ask the acting Minister of Immigration if those persons now stranded at Winnipeg are to be given the preference over those
at The Pas?


Mr STEWART (Edmonton):: My understanding is that those men have been in the country for some time. I have no knowledge of their having sent any messages to their home government, and my information was that in a short time most of those who were willing to take employment would be given the opportunity.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 14, consideration of the motion of Hon. Charles A. Dunning that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett, and -the amendment to the amendment thereto of Mr. Fansher (Last Mountain).
Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: There is nothing in parliamentary life which can transcend the importance of the budget, and there is nothing which better reveals in a temporary fashion the mentality of hon. members in the house than the budget debate. There is nothing in our deliberations which has such great effect upon the life of the country as the budget, and the one presented this year is certainly no exception to the rule. It has been introduced by a new Minister of Finance, young in years but who has had a varied and wide experience, and I think it is not an exaggeration to say that the country waited with intense curiosity to learn
21 IS
The Budget-Mr. Glen

the proposals which would be contained in his first budget. He most certainly has provoked thought and discussion. He has not pleased all his friends; on the contrary he has unleashed the political enmity of all his Tory friends. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has run true to form in that he has at least supplied the storm centre of political controversy and I am sure his position is not an unhappy one.
There are two ways, among others, in which the budget can be discussed and appraised. The first is the proposals as contained in the budget itself, and the second is the attitude of the opposition towards those proposals as revealed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I propose for a few moments to discuss the latter aspect of the situation. At the outset I must say that I cannot reconcile the words of the leader of the opposition when he spoke at the close of the address by the Minister of Finance. I take the view, and I think the country will do likewise, that in the exasperation of the moment he revealed his true deep-seated antagonism to the proposals contained in the budget, and he could only resort to denunciation of anything contained therein. In one breath he deplored the fact that the Minister of Finance had not realized that the word " countervailing " was just a poor substitute for the word "retaliation." In the next sentence he stated that the finance minister had enunciated a tariff policy made in Washington for operation in Canada, and asked whether the Minister of Finance realized that this was nothing more than a retaliatory policy. It is beyond belief that a tariff policy could be framed in Washington as a retaliatory policy for Canada against the United States. Surely the United States are not so blind to their own interests that they will deliberately evolve a tariff against us for the purpose of providing us with a retaliatory weapon. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition omitted to state that we have a section in our customs tariff at the present time which provides for countervailing duties. I shall take the liberty of reading it:
If the president of the United States under authority of the United States Tariff Act of 1922 determines to reduce the duties imposed by such act on the following articles, that is to say, cattle, wheat, wheat flour, oats, barley, potatoes, onions, turnips, hay, fish as enumerated in paragraphs 717, 718, 719 and 720 of the Tariff Act of 1892.
The governor in council may by order in council make such reductions of duties on such articles imported into Canada from the United States as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for such reductions on Canadian products imported into the United States.
[Mr. Glea.1
I think the leader of the opposition must have omitted that from his address. If I have correctly interpreted the address given by that hon. gentleman and the address delivered by his red-blooded colleague the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), I think I am justified in having assumed that the Tory party are wedded and entirely committed to a policy of reprisals against the United States. Their aim and purpose, as they have declared, is not to turn the other cheek to the United States.


Mr. BENNETT:: May I interrupt my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman will recall that last year I distinctly said just the opposite. I said that I was not concerned with legislation against anyone but that I proposed legislation for Canada.


James Allison Glen: My hon. friend may turn
as he will. He is in favour of tariffs for Canada against whom? There was only one country with which we were dealing in the discussion which took place last year and that country was the United States. The only reprisals which could have been made against a country at that time would have been against the United States. As a matter of fact hon. members will remember that the leader of the opposition asked that this house should sit until the United States framed their tariff in order that we would be in a position to meet it. If that be so, then on their own submission, these countervailing duties being retaliatory, are exactly what they desired should be done and for that reason would not be framed in Washington. It was rather striking to find-and I give this statement of fact to the house, leaving hon. members to draw their own conclusions-that on the 2nd day of May, the day after the budget was introduced, there was a discussion in the House of Representatives on the proposed duties on certain kinds of timber, lumber and shingles which were restored to the free List. In the course of the debate Representative Crisp is reported on page 8501 of the Congressional Record as follows:
I called attention yesterday to the protests being made by the foreign nations, and in the press to-day you will read where the government of Canada in its budget yesterday raised its tariff rates and raised them to be retaliatory equal to the rates in the present bill, with the statement that if this goes into effect they will be raised to be on a parity with this law.
Canada is our best customer. One of the things we do get from Canada is lumber, and when you stop buying anything from Canada, you are going to lose one of your best customers. You can not blame them for the action they have taken, because that is human nature. Under their budget they are to give preferential tariff nates to other nations that give them pre-

The Budget-Mr. Glen
ferential rates. Consequently commerce will go from those other nations to Canada, and America will lose one of her very best customers.
Gentlemen, you are carrying the tariff to a fanatical state. You have got to think. Are we now having great Republican prosperity? If you would listen to the members of this house talk about the unemployment in their districts you would not think we had much of the boasted Republican prosperity in this country.
Gentlemen, I fear this: If you stop all foreign markets for your surplus goods, whether agricultural or manufactured goods, you are going to have more men out of employment in this country, because the factories are going to shut down.
It is somewhat noteworthy to find such sentiments expressed in that house and I think I have heard like expressions in this house. I cannot and I will not say that a tariff war is in the best interests of Canada. Last year I spoke during the budget debate and I deplored the fact that a tariff war could exist between this country and any other country. To my mind a tariff war is equally as ofen-sive as an armed crusade. Armaments can be curtailed but I think it is more difficult under our system of government to curtail the activities of vested interests, as they are called, in a tariff economic war. People are so ready to believe that when you take away from someone something which he already has you take away a vested interest and therefore it is much more difficult to discontinue a tariff war. I was very much impressed by one fact in connection with the United States tariff. There was a memorial presented by a thousand economists of the highest standing in the United States, protesting against the recently proposed tariff increases. This memorial points out especially that tariffs have not helped agriculture. On May 12 last an Associated Press despatch from Geneva states that the British Labour government is ready for further negotiations looking to a tariff truce. Thirty states which met under the auspices of the League of Nations were unable to agree to a tariff truce, but they adopted a convention under which in principle they recognized the interdependence of their own tariff policies and those of other countries, and undertook to consider the interests of other countries before introducing tariff increases, "except in cases where the urgent and vital interests of national economy render this impossible."
I believe that the next great international question will be the reduction of tariffs, and the question of disarmament necessarily must be linked up with the question of tariff reduction. Both questions concern wars which vitally affect civilization and the burden of which ultimately must fall upon the shoulders
of the people. For that reason I would view with alarm the suggestion that at the next Imperial conference this country should be represented by a protectionist party. They would go to that conference with preconceived notions with regard to tariffs which I profoundly believe are inimical and harmful to the best interests of Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask whether that same principle should not apply on this continent as well, instead of building a tariff wall between Canada and the United States?


James Allison Glen: I have already explained that I am entirely in agreement with that view, and I deplore any tariff wall between Canada and any other country. The leader of the opposition dealt at length with the British preference. He had unlimited time at his disposal, but since my time is rather limited I must deal with this question more generally than I should have liked.
Would it be an exaggeration to say that the leader of the opposition is opposed to the British preference, or would it be more delicate to say that he views it with disfavour? His party always has assumed the ultra-British attitude, which being translated into action finds his party, because of party policy only, opposed to the British preference. It is difficult to conceive the Conservative party adopting any other attitude. Their whole policy is protection, and surely it cannot be gainsaid that any measure of free trade with Great Britain or any other country is the absolute negation of their tariff policy as we know it to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is your policy?


James Allison Glen: I will come to my policy
presently. Despite the lip loyalty frequently expressed by the Conservative party they dare any other parties to seek approval of the British preference. I have no doubt the leader of the opposition realizes that our intangible bonds of love and affection with the mother country can be expressed in the more tangible bonds of trade and commerce, and we can make it clear through the British preference that we mean to cement those bonds. Personally I must approve of the provisions of the budget which are expected to result in greater trade with Great Britain. There are absurdities in the present tariff which the Minister of Finance proposes to adjust, and I think it somewhat unfair of opposition speakers to criticize the deletion of some of these items from the customs schedule.
The Budget-Mr. Glen

The budget speech of the Minister of Finance is not only a challenge to other countries; certainly it is a challenge to Great Britain as well. Here we have probably the most far-reaching proposal for reciprocal trade between Canada and the British Isles that ever has been made. Canada now offers to free trade Great Britain a large measure of fre* trade proposals. It is eminently fitting that this offer should come from the present administration, and I make that statement sincerely. We are perhaps too near the events of the last four years to estimate correctly the tremendous and far-reaching consequences of the change in our relationship with the rest of the empire, but I am confident that the present administration, and particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, will be remembered in the future history of Canada as the proponents and supporters of the new era of empire relationship which was inaugurated at the Imperial conference of 1926, with the consent and the concurrence of the whole British Empire, among whose delegates were the most distinguished statesmen of Great Britain. Now, just before another Imperial conference, Canada has flung out its challenge to Great Britain and the empire to consolidate that forward step by doing away with many of the obstacles in the way of empire trade and commerce. I do think that the present Prime Minister and Minister of Justice are the proper persons to represent Canada at that conference and to complete the work which they began.
In conjunction with this it is a happy augury that the Hudson Bay railway is so near completion and that very soon we will be able to use that route in marketing our grain and other products. In this connection I might add that the people of the west will indignantly resent any efforts which may be made to hinder the full development of the facilities of that railway. For forty years they have been fighting to obtain it and, having obtained it, they hope now that the dice will not be loaded against the Hudson Bay railway as was the case in the past. They look for the full development of the facilities of that route, with the fullest cooperation of government and railway officials.
If these and the other subjects to which I have referred were all that the budget contained I would be in a happy state of mind;
I would cheerfully acquiesce in and support the general principles contained in the budget.
I realize, however, in common with nearly 
every other member who has spoken in this debate, that the tremendous number of changes in the tariff dealing with the iron and steel schedules, among others, must be explained in committee. It is not possible for one who is not an expert, with life long experience, to understand the ramifications of this involved industry. In committee we will have an opportunity to discuss these changes more intelligently, and all that can be done in the meantime is to discuss the general principle. I have received calculations showing the number of items in which the consumers are concerned which are affected by this budget. The figure is very large, and I certainly hope it can be proved. If the Minister of Finance can demonstrate to the house that the figures are even approximately correct it will go far to substantiate his arguments contained in the budget speech.
There are two items, however, which I must discuss as fully as time will permit; I refer to the items dealing with butter and fruits and vegetables, with which I might join the item of eggs. I know my hon. friend the leader of the opposition will be waiting with some interest to learn just what I have to say on this particular subject, in view of my position in the past. I will not keep him long in suspense; I will tell him that my conceptions of what I believe to be sound economic principles are absolutely unchanged, but I am sorry to say that a number of hon. gentlemen-and I hope a small number-have seen fit to change their opinions in this regard. When the Australian treaty, with its extension to New Zealand, was discussed in this house recently I was frankly amazed at the trend of opinion expressed by hon. members. Having that in mind, I was not so greatly surprised on my visit home during the Easter recess to learn that this opinion was shared in part by some of the farmers of the west.
I find it necessary to express my views in this regard; I would be remiss in my duty and false to myself if I did not do so.
I believe that the duty which has been placed on Australian and New Zealand butter represents a shortsighted policy, as far as the interests of western Canada are concerned. If the trade returns from 1923 to l929 are any criterion, not only do those who favour this duty deprive themselves of the right to protest against tariff" duties affecting other industries, but there will be no corresponding benefit to the producers of butter. The following table shows the average monthly price for No. 1 cream which obtained in Toronto during the

The Budget-Mr. Glen
years 1923 to 1929 inclusive. The prices are given at cents per pound of butter fat, and are as follows:
1923	1924	1925	1926	1927	1928	1929January.	. 41	44	37	43	43	40	44February	. 41	45	33	43	44	42	44March. .	. 48	44	33	45	45	43	46April. .	. 43	35	33	45	47	43	46May. . .	. 31	31	35	35	43	40	40June. .	. 32	32	34	35	35	37	37July. . .	. 31	34	35	34	35	36	38August. .	. 32	34	36	35	35	37	40September	. 36	36	37	34	38	40	41October.	. 37	37	40	34	40	41	42November	. 38	37	42	35	40	41	42December.	.42	39	43	39	40	44	43
The imports of butter for the years 1923 to 1929 were as follows:
Year	Pounds
1923		 1,588,000
1924		 903,000
1925		 95,000
1926		 5,812,000
1927		 11,206,000
1928		 16,797,000
1929		 35,928,000


Mr. GOTT:: Will the hon. member permit
me to insert the figures for the last fiscal year?


James Allison Glen: The hon. member can do that himself.


Eccles James Gott: They are government figures, not my own.


James Allison Glen: In 1928, when the imports
amounted to 16,797,000 pounds, the monthly prices, with the exception of November, were greater than the corresponding prices for the months of 1925, when only 95,000 pounds were imported. During 1929, when the importations amounted to 35,928,000 pounds as against importations of 16,797,000 pounds in 1928, one would have imagined that the prices would have been lower. But what do we find? With the exception of December, 1928, when the price was 44 cents per pound, and December, 1929, when it was 43 cents per pound-the months of May and June in 1928 and 1929 were the same-all the other months in 1929 were higher than the corresponding months in 1928.


Mr. SENN:: Are the prices quoted by the
hon. member based on the price of cream as obtaining in Toronto, or upon the price of butter itself?


James Allison Glen: They are based upon the average monthly Toronto price of No. 1 cream, given in cents per pound for butter fat.
When the time comes that we are exporting butter, then it will be true that the export
market price will become the domestic market price. The point is that you will not make cream shippers richer by shutting out imports, because just so long as our exports of dairy products exceed our imports then the price received by producers for cream or anything else will depend upon the prices ruling on the markets of the world. It is natural for a producer to accept the statements made to him by interested parties and to believe that were it not for the importation of certain quantities of butter he would receive a better price for his commodity. In this particular instance, I think that belief is answered, and I do not believe the producer will derive a cent of benefit.
For many years there has been a persistent agitation waged by the fruit and vegetable growers. They, like the producers of butter, thought that a little protection would benefit their industry, and so far they have been successful. Now, in return, that policy has had an effect more far-reaching than they ever dreamed and with consequences so hazardous that they begin now to tremble. As I have said before, you must be prepared for strange sequels once you begin to wallow in the protectionist trough. One often hears the statement made that the imposition of a tariff does not increase the price to the consumer. In this present instance we have an illuminating and striking example of the actions of those who seek and invoke tariff protection. It has been reported that the fruit jobbers have increased the price of oranges by ten cents per dozen. An outcry was raised immediately, yet the plain truth is that oranges are not included in the budget proposal: they are in the same position as they were prior to its introduction. I have been informed that there is a scarcity of oranges, but I wish the consumer in western Canada could be convinced of that. Does western Canada realize what will ensue if they begin to flirt with tariff protection? I believe that the effect of the tariff on fruits and vegetables undoubtedly will qualify and reconsolidate low tariff opinion in the west.
The Conservatives cannot complain; it is their doctrine. If they were in power they would unhesitatingly increase the tariffs in every direction. So far as we in the west are concerned, we hope that the lesson derived from this temporary tariff expedient will demonstrate the folly of the principle of protection. So far as I am concerned personally, I must oppose the principle involved in these items. I cannot ask for protection on butter in one breath, and in the next seek free trade in fruits and vegetables. The policy
The Budget-Mr. Glen

hitherto obtaining in the west is the only policy suitable to that section of the country- instead of an increasing there shall be a lessening of the burden of the farmers. The grain situation has impaired the revenues of the government, a deficiency in purchasing power has been caused by extraordinary world conditions, and instead of burdening the farmers, relief should be offered to them if they are to live and prosper, and that prosperity cannot be achieved by protection.
This budget contains a variety of items so complex in their character, so diversified in their application that it is impossible to say yea or nay to the budget as a whole. I can support many of the items, but there are others of which I cannot foretell the effect. I doubt if there is a single hon. member in this house who can truthfully say that he knows what will be the effect of all these items. He cannot know that until they have been thoroughly explained. I venture to say that no budget at any time, and certainly not this one, could be answered by yea or nay, and yet we are faced with that necessity. The thought has been expressed in this house many times that there is a better way of dealing with this matter, to have all the items discussed and then a vote taken. In that way we could give a yea or nay, but at the present time all that we know is that we are faced with a proposition which is bound to have far-reaching effects upon the economic life of this country, and in particular upon the economic life of western Canada. I would hate to turn down anything which might be of benefit, but I am faced with the necessity of making a decision on certain principles, the effect of which we do not know. The budget should be put before the house in such a way as to permit intelligent discussion.
I am not satisfied with all the provisions of the budget, but I am convinced that there are many things in it which will be of incaleu-able benefit to the country. What does that reservation mean? It means that I must support the budget.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


James Allison Glen: Wait a minute. I said that
it meant I must support the budget. In the past, at times the attitude toward the general principle of the budget has been indicated by the vote given upon it. Let me unhesitatingly say that there can be no acceptance of a general principle in a budget of this character because of its far-reaching and complex effect. I have mid what I will do and I propose to do it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


James Allison Glen: I do not think the Conservatives have any reason to complain because they have stated they must have an opportunity of discussing all the items comprised in the budget. I have not heard any members on the Conservative benches state that they understood all the budget and that they could say yea or nay. I know from information gleaned in the lobbies, many members on the Tory side are just as concerned about the budget proposals as any member on this side. I know many members of the Tory party who, if they had an opportunity, and if they consulted their own interests, would vote against their party, but like the rest of us they have to wait until the house goes into committee to ascertain just exactly what the proposals mean. For that reason I am explicitly stating that I do not accept the general principle as contained in the budget as we know it. I shall therefore oppose the subamendment ; I shall certainly oppose the amendment and I shall vote for the house to go into committee on the budget proposals.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much pleasure, as I always do, to the remarks of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). I feel a good deal as he does, but I have reached a somewhat different conclusion from his. In order to make myself clear I shall state at once how I propose to vote. I propose to vote against the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) because it contains a principle and a policy which I have always opposed. I am going to vote against the oratorical sentence which is supposed to express the policy of the Conservative party because it leads nowhere and is a mere election phrase. I propose to abstain from voting upon the main motion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: -largely for the reasons that have been advanced by the hon. member for Marquette. There are in the budget some features that I approve; there are some that I cannot approve; and the budget as a whole is so involved that I have been unable so far to work out the proportion between good and bad. Therefore I shall do as most of the people in the country will have to do-wait for a month or so of study and discussion before I make up my mind.
The only two features upon which I desire to express my opinion are the proposals styled the countervailing duties, and the increase in

The Budget-Mr. Bourassa
the British preference. Both are protectionist measures. One is a measure of Canadian protection and the other is a measure of English or Imperial protection. I have never been a free trader in principle and therefore I do not feel pangs of conscience as some of my hon. friends on this side of the house do in either supporting or opposing this dual protectionist budget.
As regards the countervailing duties I say, perhaps somewhat cynically, that I think they commend themselves to the attention of the house and ought not to be opposed, mainly because they are demanded, not in all parts of the country, but generally by the country; and under our system of government I believe it is the duty of the government to listen to the voice of the people unless that voice demands something absolutely contrary to public interest. Like the hon. member for Marquette I do not believe the imposition of these countervailing duties will relieve the situation of the farmers to the extent that some of them seem to expect. I would rather be inclined to think the suggestion propounded on many occasions by the late member for Laprairie, Mr. Lanctot, namely, the imposition of a seasonal tariff, taking into account differences in climate and therefore differences in production, importation and consumption, would have been a sounder basis for such a policy. Words have been exchanged between both sides of the house as to the principle and the effect of this new policy. Hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to contrast it with the policy once suggested by their former leader, Mr. Meighen. I think they have made a mistake. This policy is precisely Mr. Meighen's policy; it is undoubtedly a brick for brick policy, under a new name. It is like the endeavour in England to conceal the measure of protection that was adopted under the term "safeguarding of industry." It is like the gymnastics into which the various delegates of the Conservative party entered at their Winnipeg convention in order to secure an approval of their fiscal policy without mentioning the word "protection." Of course it is a policy of retaliation. The question is whether it is legitimate or not. The fact that members on that side or this side approved or disapproved of that policy five, ten or twenty-five years ago, has nothing to do with the matter. The question is whether it is the proper policy to adapt now in the interests of the people of Canada. I am not quite sure as to that; but I know that a large and growing number of people in Canada, east and west, in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces, are asking for it. Frankly I would rather have it in
this way than in the form of a general increase in the tariff upon those products. In a sense, it is an open avowal of the futility of our efforts in the past to secure fair treatment from the United States government; but at the same time it leaves the door open to better terms. It has been stated that this is a made-in-Washington tariff. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) especially made a very effective use, so far a3 what I will call skin feeling is concerned, of that expression. Of course that is childish. The brick-for-brick policy of Mr. Meighen was equally a tariff made in Washington.


Mr. SPENCE:: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes. it meant that Mr. Meighen and his party were prepared to raise our tariff brick for brick as the people of the United States raised theirs. Call it brick for brick, retaliation, countervailing duties, or what you will, the moment that this parliament, which is always master of its acts, decides to change its tariff policy according to changes made by another country, call your policy whatever name you like, baptize it in whatever creed you belong to, the principle is that you change your tariff according to the position taken by another country. And it is not altogether wrong; that is, if you do not make a religion of free trade. I have one religion which I hope is sufficient for the salvation of my soul, provided I make use of it, and I have never tried to make of any economic or political creed a religion. I admit that I am an opportunist in these matters and that I am prepared to change economic policies according to the economic changes that take place in this country and the rest of the world. Therefore, so far as that part of the budget is concerned, I would have no objection in supporting the policy of the government.
Whether it will create a great effect in the United States or not I do not know, and it is no surprise that an ignorant individual like myself should hesitate at pronouncing an opinion upon that point when I find these two contradictory expressions of opinion in the gospel book of the great Tory party. I quote from the first leading editorial on page 12 of the Montreal Gazette of the 12th of May, this short sentence:
United States opinion is that Canada's countervailing duties will do no harm to American trade.
In other words, according to the opinion expressed by the editors of the Montreal Gazette, or imposed upon the editors of the Montreal Gazette by the leader of their party or by the leaders of finance in Montreal,

The Budget-Mr. Bourassa
countervailing duties will have no effect upon the exportation of American goods to Canada. But in the same issue of the same paper, on page 13, just the opposite page, I find this message, not a press message, but a message from a special correspondent of the Gazette in Washington:
An analysis of the new Canadian tariff law revised to foster empire trade, which would adversely affect American trade with Canada probably to the amount of $225,000,000, was made public to-night by the Department of Commerce of the United States. The analysis is based on telegraphic despatches from Commercial Attache Lynn W. Meekins, and Assistant Trade Commissioner A. H. Thiemann, at Ottawa.
So here you have in the same issue the opinion that these duties will not affect the trade of the United States, and on the other hand the opinion based on the reports of representatives of the United States in Canada that they will adversely affect American trade to the amount of $225,000,000. Quite a contradiction. The future will demonstrate which of the opinions is right. Nevertheless, I repeat, I think the government did right in this matter, to lend itself to the incessant demand of the fruit producers as well as a large number of farmers, especially those engaged in the dairy industry.
As to the other part of the budget dealing with the British preference, the reason why I shall vote against the subamendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fan-sher) is the reason why I cannot support this part of the budget. It has been stated by one of our good friends from the west (Mr. McPhee), to whose speech last night I listened with much pleasure, that this is a prolongation of the policy adopted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding. Well, let us understand which policy, because there were two decisive phases in the adoption and pursuance of that British preference policy. I was in parliament when we passed from one phase to the other and therefore I know a little of what I am talking about.
In 1897, Mr. Fielding brought down in his budget the first preferential tariff ever introduced in this country. Under its provisions, favoured treatment was granted to goods imported from Great Britain and from any other country. British or foreign, offering to Canada special trade advantages. That was, I thought, a good basis for increasing our international trade. Although the British people and the British government granted us no special favours, although they treated our products in the same manner as they treated their imports from all other countries on earth, so
lMr. Bourassa.]
long as Great Britain constituted our best market for our exports I thought that that was a good policy and I supported it.
But in 1900, three years later, in the midst of our first fits of imperial frenzy, at the suggestion of Mr. Russell, then the member for Halifax and now Judge Russell, a dear friend of mine, but a staunch and exalted imperialist, the government changed the basis of their policy. They adopted a three-cornered tariff, so to speak; one tariff applying to Great Britain and other British countries, on grounds of sentiment; another, the intermediate tariff, applying to countries which offered us equal advantages in trade, which was a businesslike principle; and a third tariff applied against all other countries. I could not see why sentiment should be introduced into a policy of that kind, and I voted against it, to the great scandal of my Liberal friends and to the great annoyance of the Tories who did not want to have anything to do with such a heretic as I was. Then and ever since, I stated that as a Canadian I think that the people in the world with whom we have the most interest in dealing are the British people, that they are the finest traders in the world: but also, that the worst manner in which we Canadians or any people on earth can meet the British in matters of trade is to introduce that form of mugwash sentiment which we introduced in 1900, and which has never been reciprocated by the British. Thank heaven, they continue to give us lessons in common sense and in the right spirit of business; and I think that the best way in which we can prove our loyalty to British institutions and British traditions is to trade with the British on the same basis on which they are prepared to trade with us or anybody else. A couple of years afterwards our own people began to open their eyes.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that we should have free trade with Great Britain?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, no.


Milton Neil Campbell: That is what was implied.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Just wait a second.
Two years later the first fever of love was somewhat abated, the more so because it was not reciprocated. I do not know who it was that said that the most inflamed passion cannot continue to exist unless it is sustained by two parties at least, unless it is reciprocated. At the Imperial conference in 1902, Mr. Fielding, in London, gave warning to

The Budget-Mr. Bourassa
Great Britain that unless she treated Canada and her producers in a somewhat different manner from that in which she treated all her other customers, Canada would retrace her steps. But we never retraced our steps. We went on keeping as the basis of our fiscal policy the policy of protection as against most nations, the policy of intermediate tariffs as against nations that offered us trade advantages, and a policy of unreciprocated preferences with regard to Great Britain, whether or not Great Britain gave preferences to the Dominion.
Now, the member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) in introducing his amendment advocated-and the amendment carries out that idea-the granting of still more advantages to British trade, mainly the abrogating of the measure which was introduced last year by this government requiring that so-called British products should contain at least 50 per cent British labour and material. The idea I derived from reading the speech of the hon. gentleman is that if we go still further in that direction, if, for example, we enable the cotton spinners of Lancashire to drown our markets, to ruin our own cotton factories, the good people of the west will have a greater advantage in selling their products in the British market.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: Were these cotton industries ruined before February 1st, 1929?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No.


William Russell Fansher: That is when the regulation came into effect.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. gentleman asks us to do away with the requirement that British products should contain at least 50 per cent British labour and material. 1 want to point out the dire illusion under which our western friends labour if they imagine that by doing some further favour to the cotton spinners of Lancashire they will get better treatment from the wheat buyers and millers of England and Scotland.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Let me assure the hon. gentleman we have no illusions in that regard.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Then what is the reason for the amendment, and why does the government increase the British preference, when there is no apparent sign whatever that the British government is prepared at the present time to grant us any more favourable treatment than it grants to the Germans, to the Italians, to the French, to the Japanese or to the Chinese? In this respect I would ask our
western friends, and my Liberal friends generally to ponder over these paragraphs which were reproduced from the Toronto Star in the Free Press Evening Bulletin of Winnipeg of March 15th last. They appear in a very able review of the wheat situation by a gentleman of the name of Frederick Griffin.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the hon. gentleman permit just one question?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my hon. friend will excuse me: Under the forty minute rule, and having to express views which do not coincide with those of any other group, I am somewhat handicapped.


Edward Joseph Garland: But the hon. gentleman leaves a wrong impression.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There will be an opportunity to correct it. I am reading now these paragraphs:
There has been much talk of the British miller-and in Winnipeg someone remarked that there is no one on earth-as hard-headed as the Scottish cooperative miller who figures in this wheat picture. British millers have been blamed for screwing the wheat pool, for being out to smash cooperative selling on the part of the great mass of Canadian farmers.
Perhaps they have been. If they have proven unsentimental, if they have failed to let the alleged imperial tie interfere with the chance to win dividends even to the extent of giving the British consumer at the old price an inferior loaf made from lower grade wheat without the old proportion of Canadian mixing, it must be said that they are merely giving an imitation of Greek meeting Greek. The wheat pool cannot be accused of sentimentality. The Canadian wheat producers have not been worrying much about the imperial effect when trying to extract the last possible cent per bushel from British and European consumers.
This is said without sarcasm. It simply illustrates what the most emotional imperialist knows; that money talks a language that is not so much diplomatic as direct and that no amount of flag-waving can loosen up a pocketbook-at least in peace times.
Great Britain-rather the British millers- simply took advantage of the European situation to turn the tables on Canada. For a number of years they have had to meet Canadian prices, and like it. Now they found the chance to make Canada meet theirs, and like it. All is fair in peace and trade, even between imperial brethren.
Now, this is the exact situation which presented itself at every conference at which those matters were discussed. A giant in mental and political strength compared with the lordly pigmy of to-day-who, thanks to his happy operations in cement-merging in Canada, is endeavouring ito resurrect the old idea of Imperial economic unity-the late Joseph Chamberlain devoted the last years of his life in endeavouring to enthuse the British people over what he called an imperi-

The Budget-Mr. Bourassa
ally minded policy. He did not succeed. During the war the Tories of England endeavoured to take advantage of the situation to advance in a more modest manner the idea of imperial economic unity. They failed. And to-day Lord Beaverbrook, with all his genius for cementing and cement, is dragging behind him, but only apparently and only to a certain degree, Mr. Stanley Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin is a shrewd Englishman of the old type, and I believe he will find ways of getting rid of Lord Beaverbrook, just as Mr. Lloyd George found means of getting rid of Lord Northoliffe in due time.
But taking the situation as it presents itself to-day, whether this increase in the British preference-not only without an assurance but without any indication on the part of the British government that they are prepared to do something reciprocally-will gather votes in Canada, I do not know. Apparently it has gathered some votes in West Fulham in favour of the candidate of the new Tory-Imperialist party! But what about the next imperial economic conference, when representatives of this country will go and meet the representatives of Great Britain and the other Dominions or sister nations? I am not quite sure that the Prime Minister of Canada will be any stronger in his dealings with Mr. Ramsay MacDonald by pluming himself on the compliments which he has received from Lord Beaverbrook. As far as I am concerned, disconnected from all parties as I am, there remains enough in me of the old Liberal to oelieve that the Liberal party and the Liberal government in Canada have something else to do than to strengthen the hands of the most Tory-Imperialist wing of the Tory party of England.
That is from the political point of view But from the economic point of view I was surprised to hear a sensible man like the Minister of Finance-one of the members of this house for whom I have the most respect and esteem-sensible Englishman as he is, speaking in that lofty-and childish-fashion of granting gratuitous favours to the poor, down trodden English nation, in no "spirit of petty bargaining." If the British communities to-day stand foremost on the five continents of the world it is not because of their deeds of conquest, it is not because of their political genius or their mental superiority. In all these matters they have had and still have their qualities and their deficiencies. They have committed their crimes and they have done their great deeds. If there is one thing which has made and sustained the greatness of the British nation for the last two centuries it is its bargaining spirit. Lord Rosebery once
[Mr. Bourassa.J
said in effect: "We quite foolishly took to heart for a number of years Napoleon's saying that ' England is a nation of shopkeepers.' Why did we not realize before that our source of greatness is our shopping spirit? The trouble is that so many people have learned our lessons and are becoming shopkeepers that to-day we have to drive the best bargains we can with the nations of the world." This, of course, is not a verbatim quotation.
Likewise, I think the best manner in which Canada can prove herself a true scion of old John Bull, a true chip of the old block, is to meet the British not in a "spirit of petty bargaining" but on a solid ground of fair play and good bargaining. It seems to me that if we wanted to offer some advantages in matters of trade to the British government and to the British people, we should have done as we have done with the Americans: put it on a conditional basis, not on a basis of "petty bargaining" but on a solid basis of fair play and sound bargaining. What reason have we to believe that if we lower all these duties, the British millers, who have for some years struggled with the wheat pool of Canada and have at last obtained the upper hand, are going to cease their purchasing of cheaper wheat in the Argentine and elsewhere, thereby lowering their own profits, just to enable the Lancashire weavers to ship a few more tons of their products to Canada? The British nation as a whole stands first for itself and fair play for others after it has served itself; likewise every branch of British trade and industry stands first for itself. Canada will not meet the English miller by bestowing favours upon the Lancashire cotton maker; Canada will not meet a trader in wheat which purchases in the cheapest market and sells for a profit to the highest bidder, by saying that she has granted favours to the makers of crockery in this or that English town.
It has been said that in order to minimise the emigration of unemployed from Great Britain to our shores we must increase the trade of Great Britain to such an extent that she will be able to keep her people at home. Well, surely nobody has seriously thought of that. The great crisis in Great Britain to-day is because of the fact that she is threatened- I do not say that she is fatally threatened, but I do say that Great Britain is threatened in her position as the trade centre of the world. Great Britain lived, prospered and grew, perhaps abnormally, because of her free trade policy, because of her shipping trade, because of her genius as a trading and travelling nation; she had succeeded in finding out and

The Budget-Mr. Bourassa
tapping all the markets of the five continents from which she could draw the raw material necessary to maintain her industries, and to which she sent back her manufactured goods. That is the source of the trouble in India today, and it is the main source of the present Chinese difficulties; it is also one of the sources of the trouble in Russia. England's power is threatened because markets containing over a billion of human beings have cut off her trade; and some people here imagine that because we are going to buy a few more bales of cotton from Great Britain and threaten the existence of a few Canadian manufacturers, we are going to settle the affairs of Great Britain and take the place of all the Indians, Chinese, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Turks, and all those clients of England upon whose trade England has thrived for fifty years, and the bulk of whose trade is now lost to England, or at least greatly handicapped? It is preposterous.
I sympathise with the English; I think the world would be worse if England disappeared, the world would suffer if English power were too greatly weakened. However, it is ridiculous, it is the thought of a parvenu or of a child who has not measured his strength, to imagine that we can settle the affairs of England. Let us rather come back to the thought which has been frequently expressed by the leader of this government and by the Minister of Justice (Mr Lapointe): Let us frame our policy first to suit ourselves, but frame it with an open eye, so that we may deal preferentially with people who are prepared to deal with us. I wish to state that there is no people on earth with whom I would rather deal, or with whom I would rather commune mentally or politically, than the British people:	I refer
of course to the true, broad British people, the British people with the world view. At the same time it is ridiculous to imagine that Britons are going to change their policies in order to suit us and to purchase our wheat. Therefore I think we should make our own conditions to suit ourselves, and approach the situation as we have approached the one affecting the United States. We should approach the English situation in a proper spirit.


Edward Joseph Garland: Have the
English people any duty against our wheat?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, it is not a question of duty.


Edward Joseph Garland: Oh yes, it is.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, that was the mistake made by the old Tory-Imperialist group. It is the mistake of the present Tory group,
the allies of this government, Lord Beaver-brook and his friends. The English people will not stand the imposition of a duty on food articles, at least for years to come. It is a question of trade; and I think we should approach the British government next fall with fair trade proposals instead of giving in advance a certain favour to this fabric and a certain favour to that. We should approach the English government by saying that in Canada we are prepared to foster the importation of British goods generally, provided we know what they are prepared to do for us. In that way we might obtain favourable trade arrangements and have Great Britain buy our wheat instead of that of the Argentine and other countries. We should not approach this matter "in a petty bargaining spirit," as the finance minister has chosen to call it, but rather on the basis of fair dealing between two countries who respect each other and who respect themselves first.


Mr. LENNOX:: That is a sound business
proposition.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think it is, but I
admit I am not a business man. I know it is useless to express my view, but I would suggest that next fall we should send two sets of representatives to the Imperal conference. To go on with the magnificent work of political emancipation which has not been too much eulogized on this side of the house, we should send the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice; and we should send the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) to deal with matters of business. It might be asked why the leader of the opposition should not be sent.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: Oh, he is going.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I would not do that if
I were you, because he might remain there; they might keep him to be an ornament to the House of Lords, if he is prepared to pay the price. I do not know whether prices have gone up since the Liberal government went out of office-


Thomas Herbert Lennox: It would be a great thing for the British government.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is a matter of
opinion. I simply say that the leader of the opposition moved me as he moved the house -I saw some of the ministers applauding him -when he made his bold statement of Canada first. Of course, I applauded him, because that reminded me of old days, when both Liberals and Conservatives stood for Canada first. Then came the day when there was a
2128	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton)
rivalry between the two parties as to which would sacrifice Canada for the empire more than the other; and then came the day when a future leader of the Conservative party boasted, and his boast was advertised from the Pacific to the Atlantic, that he was prepared to bankrupt Canada to save the empire.
Those were days of imperial drunkenness. Everyone gets drunk once in a while, even people who drink only cold water. I give this warning to my dear friends to my left: Let them not allow their opponents to resurrect and monopolize the old "Canada first" policy; because in spite of all the changes of government and policy, they may rest assured of one thing: In the breasts of all true Canadians, whether they are of English, Scottish, Irish, French, Polish or any other origin, there is one sentiment which in the long run will prevail over all others, in politics as well as in economics. That sentiment is "Canada first and the empire afterwards."


Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: Mr. Speaker, I may begin what 1
have to say this afternoon by expressing my envy of the two previous speakers. I wish I could approach this subject as they did. I am heartily in accord with the idea advanced by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen); I think it will commend itself to the judgment of this house, and this budget brings the matter right to a head. As the hon. member has said, this budget contains a number of proposals with which members on both sides do not agree. If we could discuss these items among ourselves before being obliged to swallow the budget as a whole I think many of us in this house would be more comfortable this afternoon. For my part, under ordinary circumstances I would hesitate to take up the time of the house at all, but the circumstances surrounding this budget are so peculiar that I feel that I really must make a statement to the house as to the position I intend to take.
I may say in beginning that I think the budget presented this year is without a parallel in Canadian political history, although I understand that there have been two or three occasions in British history when the government of the day simply took the policy which had been advocated by the opposition, made it their own and appealed to the people. This is an exceedingly difficult position; it is a regular paradox to find the government of the day appealing to the people to support them because they are now adopting policies to which they have been opposed for some 
years. It must be confusing to the man on the street, in whose mind the two parties have been associated with particular policies; now he finds that the party with which he associated one set of policies has taken an about face and is appealing for his support on the policies which have been advocated by the opposition. I think the man on the street will be largely influenced by his own judgment, because after all the general level of intelligence in Canada is fairly high. If these policies now being submitted by the government commend themselves to the people, I think the people will see to it that the party which promulgated these policies in the first instance will be the party entrusted with their administration.
Now I want to refer to a statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister on February 24 of this year, which will be found at page 47 of Hansard. He was referring then to the record of his government during the last nine years, and he referred to what he had done for the relief of the maritime provinces. This is what he said:
Reference is made to the maritime provinces. When we came into office we found a condition of unrest in the maritimes. It was the most serious situation with which the country was then faced. We appointed a commission to look into conditions there, and we acted on the report of that commission in very considerable detail. A very little still remains to be done, and I hope that before we are through hon. gentlemen may find that the report has been implemented in all particulars.
The right hon. gentleman overlooked some very salient facts in that connection. This government did come into power in 1921, with a solid contingent of Liberals from the province of Nova Scotia. There was not a Conservative elected from that province, and from 1921 to 1925 the Prime Minister sat in this house with a solid Nova Scotia representation behind him, but not one peep ever came from any member representing that province with regard to the grievances of the maritimes. The Prime Minister was right in saying that there was unrest in the maritimes in 1921, very grievous unrest, which grew until it culminated in the provincial and federal elections of 1925. The provincial Liberal government, which had been in power in Nova Scotia for forty years, was swept into the discard; when it went to the country there were forty Liberals in the house with only three Conservatives, but the figures were reversed after the election.
Then what happened? During the first session of the legislature a resolution was adopted dealing with matters as they then
MAY IS, 1930	2129
The Budget-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton)
stood in that province, which resolution is to be found at page 51 of the brief prepared by the province. It is as follows:
Whereas Nova Scotia in entering confederation made possible the unification and consolidation of a British Dominion on this continent;
And whereas at that time certain pledges were given that such measures would be undertaken and such policies pursued as would ensure for the future a satisfactory economic position for this province;
And whereas the pledges given ^have been disregarded, as a result of which Nova Scotia has not shared in equal measure the prosperity enjoyed by the Dominion as a whole;
And whereas the government is now engaged in preparing a memorandum setting forth in detail the claims of the province -with the object in view of seeking such adequate redress as wri!l ensure a return of contentment and prosperity to our people;	_
Therefore be it resolved that this house approves of the action now being taken by the government;
And be it further resolved that such memorandum be presented by the government to the federal government, with the assurance that the people of this province believe that adequate remedies exist and must be applied.
That resolution was passed on March 12, 1926. In the speech from the throne delivered in 1926, the government of that day, headed by the present Prime Minister, declared its intention to appoint a commission. That was not our idea of the manner in which to approach this question. The government of Nova Scotia at great cost had prepared an elaborate brief and it was their desire to present that brief to the government. However, there was a difference of opinion; the maritime members insisted tjiat this matter should be presented to the government, and the government and its followers insisted upon the matter being referred to a commission. That commission was appointed some months afterwards, on April 17, 1926, a month or so after this resolution was passed in the provincial house. That commission sat and made its report in September of 1926, and from that day to this the maritime members have been insisting that the recommendations contained in that report should be implemented by this government. Whatever benefits have accrued to the maritime provinces as a result of the Duncan commission are due entirely to the insistent and persistent efforts made by the Conservative members from 1926 onward, and we find one more recommendation being implemented in the present budget. Do not let it be thought that all the recommendations contained in the Duncan report have been implemented; they have not. Some have, and for those I suppose we should be duly grateful, but the adoption of a national fuel policy whereby this country could be made 2419-135
independent of any other country in the matter of fuel has not been decided upon by this government.
I think we were all, and I know I was, rather favourably impressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in his presentation of the budget on May 1. At that time I thought that the minister had succeeded in putting over a very tricky budget. However, as he delivered his speech and when I saw the demonstrations which followed, I changed my opinion. There were certain provisions in the budget which appealed to members on both sides of the house. There were others which caused considerable surprise, but when I looked at the faces of the hon. gentlemen opposite during the presentation of that budget, if they expressed joyful surprise then I do not know the meaning of the word "consternation." That first favourable impression has been largely discounted. A practice has grown up in recent years amongst certain literary men, known as debunking. Certain gentlemen are pulling down idols which have existed for some time, and destroying traditions which have been handed down for many years. They endeavour to show that the idols have feet of clay, and the traditions have no foundation in fact. The same thing has happened with regard to this budget. A debunking process has been going on ever since it was presented, and it is now found that the whole thing was an illusion.
I was particularly interested in the provisions dealing with the iron and steel industry, but there is not a man living, as far as I can learn, who can give an intelligent interpretation as to the meaning of those provisions. I spent half a day going over the items, but I had to give it up in despair. I got in touch with some of the leading steel executives of this country, but they told me quite frankly that they did not know what they meant and that it would take a year or two to find the real effects. I am in receipt of telegrams which claim that the proposed item 380, which permits fabricated steel to enter this country under the British preferential tariff on payment of 10 per cent duty will put the steel fabricators of Sydney out of business. Other steel executives state that on the whole they are satisfied.
There is one provision in the budget which commends itself to me, that with regard to the payment of a bonus on coal used in iron and steel production. That provision is contained in the last paragraph of the budget speech, which reads:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of forty-nine and one-half cents per ton on bituminous coal mined

2130	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton)
in Canada and converted into coke in Canada and used in the smelting of iron from ore, or in the production of steel.
The very first thing to be noted with regard to that is that it is not in the terms of the Duncan report. Just whether the matter is important or not I do not pretend to say, but there is a strong impression in many places that there is a great difference between the Duncan report recommendations and the reference in the budget speech. The Duncan report states at page 38:
Having regard to the bounty system previously applied, and to this aspect of the application of the drawback, we recommend that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture, and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture.
As I have said, so far as I am concerned that is the important feature in this budget. What I am going to say now is directed principally to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). I am sorry he is not in his seat, because what I am going to say is intended to afford him an opportunity, the opportunity of his life, to do something for the labouring men employed in the steel industry of Cape Breton. I want to point out first the ground upon which this bounty is given, the basis for its recommendation. This will be found on page 37 of the Duncan report as follows:
We were asked to recommend that a bounty should be again made available. In this connection we have thought it right to give consideration to a point which was emphasized in the course of the evidence, viz.:-that a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty is given when imported coal is used for metallurgical purposes, and that this is tantamount to giving a bonus of that amount, since it means that the Dominion is yielding up money which otherwise under its general policy in regard to bituminous coal would accrue to it.
The basis of that recommendation is that the Cape Breton steel industry should be put on the same footing as the other Canadian industries. What I want to call the attention of the Minister of Labour to is this, that some of these other Canadian industries are now adopting the eight hour day and if the Cape Breton steel industry is to be put on an even footing with the other Canadian concerns, there should be some provision for the adoption of the eight hour day.
There is another consideration that I desire to offer to the Minister of Labour. During the last three years the steel company at Sydney has been in the hands of a receiver. According to the reports made for that receiver, that concern has been earning more than $2,000,000 a year over its operating expenses. Of course the receiver does not

have to pay any interest on bonds or dividends to stockholders or anything of that sort. That situation is all right for the company, but how about the men employed there, men employed for two or three days a week, men deprived of employment altogether, 600 men thrown out of employment within the last few months, with repeated applications made to the city council of Sydney for relief and to start city work in order to give those people enough to eat. I have in my hand a letter from the president of the Trades and Labour Council who was employed there. He has been working only three days a week and his total pay, January 1 to April 24, has been $144. That man's case is typical; with a family of five he has been working for over three months at less than $40 a month.
The point I want to bring home to the government is this: we have a saying down in our part of the country that there is no necessity for greasing a fat pig. That company is now making money; it has the money in its treasury. Let us see that that money is used for two purposes: first, to increase the wages of the men, and, second, to shorten their hours of labour. There is no excuse in this case of getting behind the constitutional question and saying that the constitution prevents this being done. The government has the money and it can tie it up with whatever strings it wants to when it gives it to the company. This is the opportunity of a lifetime for the Minister of Labour and the government to do something. I represent in this house the workers in that steel industry and I Say to the government without reserve: Let them give me the assurance now that they will devote this money to increasing wages and I will vote for the budget. We have not a minister present who is able to reply. During the whole course of this debate the front benches have been occupied by only one or two ministers, sometimes awake and sometimes asleep. There is no getting away from this challenge. I am not taking anybody by surprise, because to-day I informed the Prime Minister that I would ask him this question across the floor of the house. Let them give me the assurance that they will devote this money or a portion of it to affording these people a living wage and I will vote for the budget; otherwise I will not. This is a serious matter for me. For the first time in twenty-five years my chief and I have had a difference of opinion. He knows and I know how serious that is, but I have to tell him to-day that such will be my course if the government will give me that assurance, and there is no minister present vo give it.

The Budget-Mr. Brown
With regard to the amendment I subscribe to every paragraph of the amendment moved by my leader. I have no confidence in the government, but I am prepared to give them my support on the budget if they will give me that assurance. Either they are going to help the men employed in that concern or they are going to help a concern that does not need it. I am in this position. I am pledged to these men. I have given them my assurance that anything that comes down for their assistance, either steel or coal, will have my support in this house no matter whether it comes from the Grits or the Tories, and that pledge I am going to keep. I know that this party is entitled to whatever credit comes from the implementing of the Duncan report, and I know that when this party comes into power after the next election, as come it will, this portion of the report will be implemented in full, and we will go even further and carry out the recommendations that we all want with regard to a fuel policy. Just now I feel that I want to support this particular clause in the budget, but I connot do so unless I support the whole budget. That is the same point that was raised by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). I want to support this particular clause, but to do so I have to swallow the whole budget, and I am prepared to do that if the government will give me the assurance that I have asked for. Will they do it?
I rather envy the position taken by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) who has just preceded me. He is going to vote one way on one amendment, one way on another amendment, and then take to the woods on the main motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Finlay MacDonald: Hon.
members may laugh, but I must confess that that is a proceeding that strongly appeals to me. I am not going to vote for the amendment to the amendment, but if any assurance such as I have asked for is given to me, I will vote for the budget. I must have that assurance because I want this money for the men; I do not want it for the company.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker,
before addressing myself to the subject that is at present before the house, the budget statement which has been submitted by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), I wish to discuss a subject which I consider to be of prime importance, and I wish to discuss it by way of addressing a few ques tions to the hon. leader of the opposition.
A few days ago the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Bock) who, in spite of the sneers of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), delivered a speech that had in it more humour and common sense combined than is usually the case with speeches in this house, drew the attention of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) to the fact that certain tactics were being pursued by the Conservative party in the province of Saskatchewan. and he asked the leader of the opposition if he endorsed those tactics. The hon. leader of the opposition has not given an answer to that question. I would say this, at least, that he cannot repudiate what is being done by his followers in Saskatchewan simply by going down somewhere in the province of Quebec and making a speech that would seem to be on entirely different lines. The answer must be given in the place where the offence is committed.
I have another question to ask the leader of the opposition. On two or three occasions it has been in my mind to bring this matter to the attention of the house, but I have hitherto refrained from doing so. Those occasions were when the leader of the opposition was declaiming against the sins of his opponents in regard to questions of political patronage. We have already had one illustration that would seem to show, at least, that the leader of the opposition has two standards of political morality, one for his friends and one for his opponents.


Mr. COTNAM:: How many standards have you?


John Livingstone Brown: What I want to know is,
has the leader of the opposition two standards on this question of patronage, one for his friends and one for his opponents?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: You are a good judge.


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, I am a judge and I
have formed my conclusions too, and I am going to express them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman wish an answer to the question he asked? I will answer him now. I hold in my hand volume 1, No. 2, of L'Action Liberale, which contains on its front page a picture of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), under the heading, " A Great French-Canadian Politician."


John Livingstone Brown: I am not going to have the hon. gentleman-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You asked for an answer and you are going to get it.
The Budget-Mr. Brown


John Livingstone Brown: I will get it a little later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot speak on it
later. Inside is circulated a cartoon of a burning school with Premier Anderson beside it, and under the cartoon are the words:
Anderson. Conservative premier of Saskatchewan. Abominable fanatic supported by Orange Lodges and Ku Klux Klan. Furious iconoclast, he revives Julian The Apostate's action against the Christ. But, like him, he will be vanquished. This crab, political canker, wants to stir up against the Catholic minority and the teaching of French the most cruel and impious persecution of our history. He has expelled the nuns from schools kept up by our western brothers. And the Conservative party had not the courage to protest against it.
There is the minister's picture, there is the cartoon, and there is the paper circulated in Quebec by my hon. friend's friends.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I have given no money to that paper.


John Livingstone Brown: Is it any wonder that it
was circulated in Quebec in view of what is being done in Saskatchewan? The question I want to discuss at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is the question of political patronage. I am asking the leader of the opposition if he has two standards in this matter, one for his friends and one for his opponents. I am moved to discuss this matter because of a letter that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen this week, headed, " Mr. Dickie's Comment:"
To the Editor:-I have always been treated so fairly by your good self that I feel sure you will have corrected a slight inadvertency that crept into an excerpt of a report on my few remarks at Esquimalt Conservative picnic. I said in part: "When our party gets in power, if I am your member, I will at once consult with the various executives of this large constituency; will obtain and assemble their views, and bring my best judgment to bear on them; for most certainly the views of those who have borne the burden and heat of the day when we were out of power should be accorded every consideration. In this way a perfect machine could be built up. and it might be found necessary, as with a ship in distress, to jettison otherwise valuable cargo.
C. H. Dickie.
Victoria, B.C., Aug. 10, 1929.
I did not notice until to-day that it was dated August 10, 1929. I presume the editor of the Citizen had some purpose in reprinting the letter this week. But what I want to say is this, that although that letter is clothed in very euphemistic language, nevertheless it expressed one of the most vicious principles of political patronage. When I was a boy I found in my father's library a book on the Study of Words, by Archbishop Trench. For a good many years I did not bother to look into it. thinking it was one of those dry-as-

dust books that would be of no interest to me. However, when little more than a boy I took occasion one day to read it and I found it an intensely interesting book. There was one chapter on history in words, and I remember there was another chapter on morality in words. I regret that when I went to the library I was not able to find the book, and not having seen it for forty years, perhaps I may be excused if I do not give exact quotations. But that chapter on morality in words has had an influence on my thinking during my whole life. The thought of that great writer on using smooth words to cover up an evil thing was expressed something like this:
How much better is it under all circumstances to use an ugly name for an ugly thing than to use a name that plays fast and loose with the fundamental principles of morality. Better call a thing by its real name than to use a term that glosses it over and makes it appear to be a good thing when it is really evil.
Now, let us examine this letter of the hon. gentleman:
-for most certainly the views of those who have borne the burden and heat of the day when we were out of power should he accorded every consideration. In this way a perfect machine could be built up and it might be found necessary, as with a ship in distress, to jettison otherwise valuable cargo.
If that means anything it means that if the Conservative machine is in distress, then valuable public servants shall be cast aside.


Mr. DICKIE:: Might I interrupt the hon. gentleman just a moment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Herbert Dickie: He has referred to me.


John Livingstone Brown: This letter bears the hon. member's signature. I say again that if those words mean anything they mean that whenever the Conservative machine happens to be in distress every valuable public servant shall be cast aside.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Perhaps I may be considered to have been a little indiscreet in some of the language I used at that picnic, but I expresed my own views, views that I hold at the present time, and I was speaking at a picnic among hundreds of men who had applied without success for jobs in the dockyard. They had to produce red tickets from the Liberal party to get jobs. So I felt I knew to whom I was speaking.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Privilege.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.

The Budget-Mr. Brown
Mr. DICKIE- I am speaking on a question of privilege, sir.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I am speaking on a question of privilege, sir.


John Frederick Johnston: If the hon.
member is speaking on a question of privilege he is in order.


John Livingstone Brown: Then I beg Your Honour to look at the clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I should like to explain to my hon. friend, who has taken such trouble in putting my views before the house, that that hon. gentleman, who has faced three or four different ways since I have known him in this house-


John Livingstone Brown: This is not a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Frederick Johnston: Order. The
hon. gentleman may state his question of privilege, but not enter into a discussion.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is just coming to it.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I wish to say to my hon. friend, who has faced so many ways, that perhaps I have made a mistake or two from a party viewpoint, but I can tell him that the provocation was very, very great indeed in the district in which I was speaking.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not a question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: I think the
hon. gentleman has stated his question of privilege.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, he is just coming to it.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Just one moment, Your
Honour. I think my people will bear me out in saying that in regard to applying for work I never asked any man what his political views were.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Privilege.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I have seen scores of returned soldiers with families to support refused work at the dockyard because they did not have a red ticket from the Liberal party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker, I have made my point, I have secured from the hon. member for Nanaimo an admission of indiscretion. That he was extremely indiscreet I am prepared to admit. In view of this indiscretion, what does the hon. leader of the opposition intend to do in the matter? I would say that what he should do would be to take the hon. member for Nanaimo aside and give him a lesson in political morality.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: Undoubtedly what he will do is take him aside and give him a curtain lecture.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not at all.


John Livingstone Brown: He will probably say to him: Don't write when you can talk; and don't talk when you can keep silent. He will probably add for the hon. gentleman's benefit that while speech is silver, silence is golden. He will probably tell him-


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell us about the
budget.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


John Livingstone Brown: He will probably tell him that while a man's words may be capable of different interpretations, there is an advantage in silence because you can give your silence any interpretation you wish according to the exigencies of the moment. And the hon. leader of the opposition will probably point to his own illustrious example and say: Look at what I did; I was silent for four years on one question, and for three years on another question.


An hon. MEMBER:: New Zealand butter.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


John Livingstone Brown: Finally, the hon. leader of
the opposition probably will say to the hon. member for Nanaimo, that since he is so lacking in discretion he had better not speak at picnics or write letters to the press. I think, Mr. Speaker, the house has a right to know whether the principles advocated by the hon. member for Nanaimo are endorsed by the leader of the opposition and his followers. Those who have heard me speak before in this house and who have paid any attention to what I have said will quite readily understand that there are some things in this budget and some principles expressed therein which in the past have not met with my approval.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: The announced purpose of the budget-
The Budget-Mr. Brown


An hon. MEMBER:: Right about face.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Order.


John Livingstone Brown: I heartily agree with the
purpose announced in the budget of extending trade within the British Empire. Whether it will accomplish the purpose intended is of course a matter regarding which there are differences of opinion. There are those who contend that it will and there are others who contend that it will not.


An hon. MEMBER:: What do you say
about it?


John Livingstone Brown: A year ago the then Minister of Finance, the late Mr. Robb, made the statement of policy that in view of the attitude of the people of the United States it would be our policy to seek trade with those who would trade with us. In spite of the fact that I have always opposed the raising of tariffs I recognized at that time that if trade were to be diverted from one channel to another it would probably be necessary in some cases to raise the general tariff rates.


An hon. MEMBER:: One hundred per cent.


John Livingstone Brown: The possibilities of diverting trade through the use of tariffs have been brought to my notice on two occasions during this session. A short time ago when I spoke on the Australian treaty, which had for its purpose the diverting to Australia of trade In raisins and currents, I pointed out that in the case of currants, by putting on a duty of 3 cents a pound we had diverted from Greece to Australia practically the whole trade in currants. Whether or not the diversion of that trade was a wise policy is not at the moment a matter of importance. There are some considerations which might be urged to the effect that it would be wise for us to continue our trade relations with Greece. However, that is not the point we are discussing at the present time.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is in the budget.


John Livingstone Brown: When the West Indies treaty was passed a few years ago it contained a provision whereby we put a duty of 50 cents a bunch on bananas, and allowed them to come in free if they came by way of the maritime ports. I was not particularly enthusiastic about the treaty at the time, and I felt doubtful whether we in the west were not likely to bear an additional burden. I was doubtful whether bananas would move to the west by way of the maritime ports. There are indications however that bananas coming from the West Indies to the maritime ports are being carried well across Canada. There would seem

to be an indication that the American companies shipping bananas through the Mississippi valley to the prairies were absorbing that duty of 50 cents a bunch. I now recognize that there is the possibility of a tariff being used without burdening the Canadian people, if it is used to divert trade from one channel to another.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In fairness, thfe hon.
gentleman will be entitled to speak longer than his allotted time if the interruptions are continued.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give him two hours.


John Livingstone Brown: I agree entirely with the
finance minister when he speaks of the spirit in which these preferences are offered. I do not wish to approach the British people in a bargaining spirit. In the past we have offered them certain preferences in our market and I believe that we can do that to-day. I would point out that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and some of his lieutenants have practically said that we will give no preference to the British people unless we can get a quid pro quo. They say in one breath that we do not wish to dictate to the people of Great Britain, and in the next that if Great Britain will not give us some preference in her markets she cannot expect to receive preference in ours. As between the attitude expressed by the Minister of Finance and that expressed by several hon. members of the opposition, I have no hesitation in making my choice. I do not wish to be represented at the imperial economic conference by those who have expressed the sentiments which have come from across the house.


Mr. STEVENS:: That would be a mutual
agreement.


John Livingstone Brown: The statements made by
the hon. gentlemen opposite are by no means consistent; there are inconsistencies in their speeches. The leader of the opposition quoted a statement, which he said was the statement of a noted Conservative statesman, to the effect that a woollen mill in Canada is as good as a woollen mill in Yorkshire.


An hon. MEMBER:: For the empire.


John Livingstone Brown: I can agree with that statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Livingstone Brown: Will hon. members opposite reciprocate?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Certainly.

The Budget-Mr. Brown


John Livingstone Brown: Will hon. members opposite say that a woollen mill in Yorkshire is as good for the empire as a woollen mill in Canada? Certainly they will not reciprocate, and their hesitancy shows the hollowness of the claim they make when they say that they are anxious to maintain trade with the British Empire. I want to call the attention of the house to what I regard as misleading statements and arguments that have been used in the course of this debate. At first I had intended to refer to statements made by the leader of the opposition, and statements which have been repeated in this house for years back. It has been stated on numerous occasions that taxation has been increased.


An hon. MEMBER:: Has the hon. member any conscience?


John Livingstone Brown: They point to the fact that the total volume of revenue has increased. To my mind the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart. Edmonton) most effectively answered that contention. He answered it, even if it is beyond the intelligence of hon. members of the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: All any government can
do is to fix the rates of taxation.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have fixed
them, and they are going to change them.


John Livingstone Brown: They may fix the rates of
taxation, and as the years go by they may find that that taxation produces a greater volume of revenue than is required. They may then seek to reduce the rates, but in the very act of doing so they may increase the volume of revenue. I was brought up to believe, and I still hold to the belief in regard to custom duties, that in many cases it is possible to Teduce the duties and yet increase the revenue. In one breath the leader of the opposition charged the government with having increased taxation, pointing to the volume of revenue, whereas in the next breath he criticized the government for not getting enough out of the income tax.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he believe this government intends to put these rates into effect?


John Livingstone Brown: I did not catch the question, and I will not take time to answer. I was simply pointing out that in one breath the leader of the opposition condemned the government for increasing taxation, pointing to the greater volume of revenue, and in the
next breath condemned them because there were not enough people paying income tax, and consequently there was not enough revenue being raised from that source. These are inconsistencies we cannot help but notice.
There was another fallacious argument advanced by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) and the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher), during the course of the speech in which he moved the subamendment, fell into the same error. That is the claim made in some quarters that the only true index of tariff trend is the average duty collected. I simply say that is not true. That statement is based on a fallacy, because it fails to take into account the large number of unknown factors which of necessity enter into the problem.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Would the hon. member suggest a truer basis for making a comparison?


John Livingstone Brown: I say that fact should be
clear-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: I cannot be led away from my speech to answer questions of that kind. I will say this, however: If you want to consider the question whether Great Britain is granted real preferences, you must consider those preferences as they apply to definite, specific articles. You cannot form a conclusion by dealing in averages, and that is the point I make. I say the fact that this conclusion is invalid is clear from the further fact that averages vary from year to year without changes being made in the tariff. When we are importing goods of various classes in varying quantities, some free and some dutiable; some at a high rate of duty and some at a low rate; some under ad valorem and some under specific duties, it is simply impossible to make any valid statement based upon these averages. The hon. member for Fort William practically admitted the truth of this statement when he pointed out that some people would want to exclude from this calculation the vast amount of free goods coming in from the United States. The hon. member was quite logical in excluding those goods, but he did not go far enough. He should also have taken into account the large amounts of goods which we, in our own interests, bring in from the United States under low tariffs.
Now let me point out that our imports from Great Britain include a large volume of alcoholic liquors, which volume increased from about $4,000,000 in 1918 to over $40,000,000 in 1929. The duty on the $40,000,000 worth of


alcoholic liquor imported from Great Britain during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929, was almost 819,000,000, or at the rate of approximately 45 per cent. Surely everyone must recognize that because of that particular class of goods, with such a high percentage of duty, the average must be very materially affected. The fact of the matter is that if we exclude alcoholic liquors we will find that the average rate of duty on goods imported from Great Britain is less than the average rate on goods imported from the United States. I am not saying that this is particularly a matter for congratulation or otherwise, but that is the fact as nearly as I can arrive at it.
How would hon. members opposite correct that situation? Will any one of them say that we should correct it by reducing the duty on alcoholic liquors? I am certain the hon. member for Last Mountain will not say so. I know his attitude toward the liquor traffic and I know that his sentiments are very closely allied to my own. While we do not believe in high duties in general I know he does not want to correct what he thinks is an anomaly by lowering the duty on alcoholic liquors. Will any hon. gentleman opposite advocate that this should be done? Surely not.
Then there may be another way to correct it; we might increase the duties on goods coming from the United States. I know that method would appeal to hon. gentlemen immediately opposite, but would it appeal to the hon. member for Last Mountain? I think not. Of course he is aware that large quantities of agricultural implements enter Canada from the United States at very low rates of duty, and these rates are low because we deem it in our best interests that they should be low. Certainly the hon. member for Last Mountain would not wish to correct the situation to which he referred by raising the duty on agricultural implements or on any of those articles which come from the United States at low rates of duty.
I want to place on Hansard some figures bearing upon the subject which I have been discussing, so that hon. members who have endeavoured to follow the trend of my argument may read the figures for themselves and find out whether or not my argument is sound. I believe that the argument I have made to the house is valid in every respect. In 1908 we imported from Great Britain alcoholic liquors to the amount of $4,350,000; in 1915 the importations had grown to 815,770,805, and in 1929 the volume had increased to $40,314,856. The fact that there is a very high rate of duty imposed on this commodity must, of

necessity, have considerable bearing upon the average rate of duty. No valid statement can be made based upon average duties.
I do not propose to detain the house much longer, but I must state that there are some features of the budget which do not appeal to me. As I have said again and again in this house and in the country, protection on agricultural products does not mean anything to the farmer. I have always objected to the imposition of such duties, not because the farmer has not a right to protection-there is no one who has more right-but because he will receive no benefits.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not give it to
them?


John Livingstone Brown: I do not object to the duties because they are high-they are not. The duties on dairy products are certainly not high when judged by the standard of protective tariffs. In the long run the farmer has nothing to gain from a system of protection, and while he has as much right to protection as anyone, it is unwise for him to link himself up with a system which will ultimately return nothing to him. This is shown by the experience of the farmers of the United States. That is the position which I have always taken and I have not changed [DOT]my mind.
The government has to some extent yielded in its decision to give some protection on certain agricultural products. Time will show whether it has acted wisely or unwisely. For my part, I have not changed my opinion as to the expediency of those duties as considered from the farmer's standpoint. When I go before the electors, as possibly I may, I will say to them that my ideal of trade is that trade which is the freest possible exchange of goods among the nations of the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: Including New Zealand butter.


John Livingstone Brown: In the interests of Canada,
in the interests of the British Empire, and in the interests of humanity, there should be the freest possible exchange of goods. That is an ideal which may not be realized for some time. Next to that, I would say that I believe in creating a sentiment among the people of the British Empire that it would be well for us to seek trade with each other. To my mind the British Empire is the greatest experiment in all history; it is an empire based not upon force-in the past empires which were based upon force have always fallen-and its strength will be in proportion to the elasticity of the bonds which bind us.

The Budget-Division
Mutual good will should be established between the different parts of the empire which would be beneficial to the empire as well as to mankind. I am heartily in accord with anything which will tend to promote those relations.
I will tell the farmers, as I have told them before, that I think a great mistake is being made when they seek relief through tariff protection. I will tell them that in so doing they are simply tying their hands or muzzling themselves. Perhaps Your Honour is familiar with that old English saying, that there are other ways of killing a dog than by choking it with butter.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was a cat.


John Livingstone Brown: It may seem absurd to talk about choking a dog with butter.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was a cat.


John Livingstone Brown: But figuratively, if not literally, the farmers can choke themselves with butter. They may so tie their hands-to change the figure-or muzzle themselves that they will not be in a position to protest against higher duties when they are imposed upon articles which are of prime necessity to them in carrying on their business.


Mr. BOYS:: Does the hon. member propose to help them by his vote?


John Livingstone Brown: Those are the sentiments which I will express to the people in my constituency, and it must rest with them to say whether I shall carry on in this house or out of the house.
The house divided on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Fansher, Last Mountain)-
That all the words after "it is of opinion that" in the amendment in the 6th line thereof, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
"the government having definitely adopted the principle of increased protection, modified only by certain extensions of the British preference, it is to be regretted that more effective consideration has not been given to the position of agriculture and labour, but that, on the contrary. the changes made in the iron and steel schedules will result in an increased cost in respect of all structural work and the machinery of production, and further, that the beet interests of Canada would be served by a more substantial increase in the British preference, particularly as affecting textiles and other articles of a similar character, together with a modification or abandonment of the regulations requiring a 50 per cent empire content which have largely nullified the effect of any preference given;
"That a much larger proportion of our revenues should be provided for through direct taxation, more especially through the income tax;
"We further wish to state our conviction that these and other changes in our fiscal policies are not of themselves a solution of our modern economic problems but that effective encouragement should be given to the development of cooperative principles, having regard to production, distribution and the utilization and control of credit."
-which was negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:
Bird,	Irvine,
Campbell,	Jelliff,
Carmichael,	Kellner,
Coote,	Kennedy,
Evans,	Lucas,
Fansher (Last	Luchkovich,
Mountain),	Macphail (Miss),
Gardiner,	Speakman,
Garland (BowRiver),	Spencer,
Heaps,	Woodsworth.-19.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Allan,	Delisle,
Anderson (Toronto-	Denis,
High Park),	Desaulniers,
Arthurs,	Descoteaux,
Bancroft,	Deslauriers,
Barber,	Dickie,
Beaubien,	Dionne,
Bell (Hamilton West),	Dumaine,
Bell (St.Antoine),	Dunning,
Bell (St. John-Albert),	Dupuis,
Bennett,	Dussault,
Benoit,	Embury,
Bertrand,	Ernst,
Bettez,	Esling,
Bissett,	Fafard,
Black (Yukon),	Ferland,
Black (Halifax),	Fiset (Sir Eugene),
Blanchard,	Fraser,
Blatehford,	Garland (Carleton),
Bock,	Geary,
Boivin,	Gershaw,
Bothwell,	Gervais,
Bouchard,	Girouard,
Boucher,	Glen,
Boulanger,	Gott,
Bourassa,	Goulet,
Bourgeois,	Gray,
Bowen,	Grimmer,
Boys,	Hall,
Bradette,	Harris,
Brady,	Heenan,
Brown,	Hocken,
Cahan,	Howden,
Cahill,	Hubbs,
Cannon,	Ilsley,
Cantley,	Jacobs,
Cardin,	J enkins,
Casgrain,	Johnston (Long Lake),
Casselman,	Kaiser,
Cayley,	Kay,
Chaplin,	King (Kootenay East),
Charters,	King. Mackenzie
Chevrier,	(Prince Albert),
Cotnam,	Lacroix,
Cowan,	Ladner,
Crerar,	Laflamme,
The Budget-Division

Langlois,	Pettit,
Lang,	Plunkett,
Lapierre,	Pouliot,
Lapointe,	Power,
Lavigueur,	Prevost,
Lawson,	Price,
Lennox,	Ralston,
Letellier,	Raymond,
Lovie,	Rennie,
Macdonald	Rinfret,
(Glengarry),	Robitaille,
MacDonald (Cape	Ross (Moose Jaw),
Breton South),	Rowe,
Macdonald (Kings),	Rutherford,
Macdonald (Richmond-	Ryckman,
West Cape Breton),	Ryerson,
Macdougall,	Sanderson,
MacLaren,	Seguin,
MacLean (Prince),	Senn,
McLean (Melfort),	Simpson,
MacNutt,	Smith (Stormont),
McDiarmid,	Smoke,
McGibbon,	Spankie,
McGregor,	Spence,
McIntosh,	Steedsman,
McKenzie,	Stevens,
McMillan,	Stewart (Edmonton
McPhee,	West),
McPherson,	Stewart (Leeds),
McQuarrie,	Stinson,
McRae,	Stirling,
Malcolm,	Taylor,
Maloney,	Telford,
Matthews,	Thompson,
Mercier (Laurier-	Thorson,
Outremont),	Tobin,
Mercier (St. Henri),	Totzke,
Millar,	Tummon,
Milne,	Yerville,
Morrissy,	Ward,
Motherwell,	White (London),
Neill,	Wilson (Wentworth),
O'Connor,	Young (Saskatoon),
Parent,	Young (Toronto
Peck,	Northeast),
Perley (Sir George),	Young
Perras,	(Weyburn).-177.
PAIRS	
(The list of pairs is	i furnished by the chief
whips.)	
Messrs:	
Elliott,	Edwards (Waterloo),
Sinclair (Queens),	Jones,
Y eniot,	Hanson,
Duff,	Smith (Cumberland),
Bowman,	Hodgins,
Hay,	Murphy,
Baldwin,	Johnstone,
Fontaine,	Anderson (Halton),
Euler,	Manion,
St-Pere,	Maybee,
Rheaume,	Church,
Hepburn,	Spotton,
Roberge,	Ross (Kingston),
Lacombe,	Guthrie,
Donnelly,	Quinn,
Odette,	Robinson,
Wilson (Vaudreuil),	White (MountRoyal),
Sylvestre,	Fansher (Lambton),
Foster,	Short,
Yallance,	Clark.
;Mr. Brown.]	
The house divided on the amendment (Mr. Bennett)-
That all the words after the word "That" be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:-
"while this house welcomes and approves of every measure that will afford to Canadian agriculture, industry and labour an equal opportunity and fair competition in the development of the rich and varied natural resources of the Dominion, and provide for the extension of inter-empire trade by mutually advantageous preferences and agreements, with due regard, in either case, to the interests of consumers, it is of opinion that the proposals which were submitted by the Minister of Finance on May 1, are in several important respects so completely at variance with the policies of this government, as heretofore declared by its official leaders in parliament and elsewhere, that this administration having lost the confidence of the country, cannot safely be entrusted with the direction of the fiscal policy of Canada nor the carrying into effect of proposals to which it has heretofore been opposed and which constitute a breach of its solemn pledges to the electorate, and which are deceptive, fail to estimate the financial results of their operations and which create distrust of and contempt for representative institutions."
-which was negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto-	Lennox,
High Park),	Macdonald (Kings),
Arthurs,	Macdonald (Richmond-
Barber,	West Cape Breton),
Bell (Hamilton West),	Macdougall,
Bell (St. Antoine),	MacLaren,
Bell (St. John-Albert),	MacNutt,
Bennett,	McGibbon,
Black (Yukon),	McGregor,
Black (Halifax),	McQuarrie,
Bowen,	McRae,
Boys,	Matthews,
Brady,	Peck,
Cahan,	Pettit,
Cantley,	Price,
Chaplin,	Rennie,
Charters,	Rowe,
Cotnam,	Ryerson,
Cowan,	Senn,
Dickie,	Simpson,
Embury,	Smoke,
Ernst,	Spankie,
Esling,	Spence,
Fraser,	Stevens,
Garland (Carleton),	Stewart (Leeds),
Geary,	Stinson,
Gott,	Stirling,
Grimmer,	Thompson,
Harris,	Tummon,
Hocken,	White (London),
Hubbs,	Wilson (Wentworth),
Kaiser,	Young (Toronto
Ladner, Lawson,	Northeast).-64.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Allan,	Benoit,
Bancroft,	Bertrand,
Beaubien,	Bettez,

The Budget-Division
Bird,
Bissett,
Blanchard,
Blatchford,
Bock,
Boivin,
Bothwell,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Boulanger,
Bourassa,
Bourgeois,
Bradette,
Brown,
Cahill,
Campbell,
Cannon,
Cardin,
Carmichael,
Casgrain,
Cayley,
Chevrier,
Coote,
Crerar,
Delisle,
Denis.
Desaulniers,
Descoteaux,
Deslauriers,
Dionne,
Dumaine,
Dunning,
Dupuis.
Dussault,
Evans,
Fafard,
Fansher (Last Mountain),
F erland,
Fiset (SirEugene), Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Gershaw,
Gervais,
Girouard,
Glen,
Goulet,
Gray,
Heaps,
Heenan,
Howden,
Ilsley,
Irvine,
J acobs,
Jelliff,
Jenkins,
Johnston (LongLake), Kay,
Kellner,
Kennedy,
King (Kootenay East), King, Mackenzie (Prince Albert),
Lacroix,
Laflamme,
Langlois,
Lang,
Lapierre,
Lapointe,
Lavigueur,
Letellier,
Lovie,
Lucas,
Luchko vich, Macdonald
(Glengarry), MacLean (Prince), McLean (Melfort), Macphail (Miss), McDiarmid, McIntosh,
McKenzie,
McMillan,
McPhee,
McPherson,
Malcolm,
Mercier (Laurier-
Outremont), Mercier (St. Henri), Millar,
Milne,
Morrissy,
Motherwell,
Neill,
O'Connor,
Parent,
Perras,
Pouliot,
Power,
Prevost,
Ralston,
Raymond,
Rinfret,
Robitaille,
Rutherford,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Smith (Stormont), Speakman,
Spencer,
Steedsman,
Stewart (Edmonton
West),
Taylor,
Telford,
Thorson,
Tobin,
Totzke,
V er ville,
Ward,
Woodsworth,
Young (Saskatoon), Young
(Weyburn).-124.
Baldwin,
Fontaine,
Euler,
St-Pere,
Morin,
Rheaume,
Hepburn,
Roberge,
Lacombe,
Donnelly,
Odette,
Wilson (Vaudreuil), Svlvestre,
Foster,
Guerin,
Ross (Moose Jaw), Hall,
Vallance,
Howard,
Johnstone,
Anderson (Halton), Manion,
Maybee,
Ryckman,
Church,
Spotton,
Ross (Kingston), Guthrie,
Quinn,
Robinson,
White (Mount Royal), Fansher (Lambton), Short,
Maloney,
Plunkett,
Sinclair (Wellington), Clark,
Casselman.
I was paired with the


Mr. ELLIOTT:: hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and against the amendment.


Mr. MAYBEE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and for the amendment.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and against the amendment.


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Foster). Hal I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and for the amendment.


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


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mar-cil). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Plunkett). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)
Messrs:
Marcil,
Elliott,
Sinclair (Queens), V eniot,

Bowman,
Hay,
Perley,
Edwards (Waterloo),
Jones,
Hanson,
Smith (Cumberland), Hodgins,
Murphy,


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I was paired with
the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and for the amendment.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and for the amendment.
The Budget-Mr. Simpson


Mr. RHEAUME:: I was paired with the
Lon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and against the amendment.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fontaine). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and for the amend-[DOT] ment.


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


Mr. DONNELLY:: I was paired with the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and against the amendment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The question is on the
main motion.


Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (West Algoma):: Mr Speaker, having supported the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), thereby declaring my lack of confidence in the present government, I desire to make a very brief statement with respect to the main motion.
For several years past we on this side of the house have endeavoured to impress upon the government the necessity of extending some protection to the primary steel industry of this country which would at least provide for the industry an equal opportunity in our home markets in competition with the mass production of the highly specialized steel industries of the United States.
We have asked that assistance be given towards the development of the large deposits of low grade iron ore that are known to exist in this country which would enable the primary steel industries to obtain their supplies of raw material in Canada, providing employment for Canadian labour, rather than depending upon a supply from outside Canada, as they do to-day. We have asked for a revision of the steel schedule in the customs tariff; that an adjustment of tariff be made which would afford more adequate protection for some grades and shapes of primary steel now manufactured in this country.

But nothing has been done, and during this time the imports of iron and steel and their products from the United States have enormously increased; the primary steel industries in Canada have been able to operate only part time, and many of our workers have been forced either to go to the United States to seek employment or to be content with working about three days a week. This can best be illustrated by a quotation from the brief submitted before the tariff board by the Algoma Steel Corporation in 1928, which in part reads as follows:
During the seven years (1921 to 1928) our steel-making capacity has been employed only to the extent of 39 per cent of rated capacity, and in only one year did we exceed 50 per cent, viz.: the fiscal year ended June last. The increase in that year was due entirely to the increased demand for standard rails and fastenings.
The salaries and wages paid during this period (1921 to 1928) amounted to $22,501,555.65, or an average of $3,214,507.95 per annum. Assuming full employment for our steel-making capacity, the additional wages paid within our own plant would amount to upwards of $2,000,000 per annum.
This would indicate that had we been given a proper fiscal policy during the past nine years, in my city alone an additional amount of $2,000,000 a year in wages might have been distributed among the workmen there, providing them with more steady employment and comforts for their families which many have not been able to enjoy.
The government now bring down a budget which contains several provisions to which I do not subscribe, but it does provide a certain measure of relief for the steel industry. It contains some things that we have been asking for, but they are several years too late. I am inclined to believe that the provisions contained in this budget have been adopted by the government as a matter of political expediency, and not from conviction, and I have no confidence in this government giving effect to this budget in a way that would be to the best advantage of the people of Canada. However, as the budget provides for certain changes in the customs tariff which will be of advantage to the steel industry in Canada, and on account of a promise which I have made to my constituents that I would support any legislation which would be beneficial to the industry, I, unlike the government in this regard, intend to keep faith with my people, and as a matter of personal honour will support the budget.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: Mr. Speaker, I represent a Cape Breton constituency. With that island

The Budget-Mr. Simpson
I have been connected for three generations. I was elected as a supporter of the Conservative party. I have just voted for the amendment of that party declaring that, while certain of the proposals submitted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) are acceptable, others represent a betrayal of the confidence of the Canadian people in the previously declared fiscal policy of the government. During my election I promised the men and women amongst whom I live and practise my profession that I would support any government that would give a bounty to coal used as coke in the production of iron and steel as recommended by the Duncan report. That recommendation reads as follows :
It was pointed out to us that, at its inception. the Nova Scotia steel industry enjoyed national aid in the form of a bounty. This system of bounties prevailed for many years. We were asked to recommend that a bounty should be again made available. In this connection we have thought it right to give consideration to a point which was emphasized in the course of the evidence, viz.:-that a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty is given when imported coal is used for metallurgical purposes, and that this is tantamount to giving a bonus of that amount, since it means that the Dominion is yelding up money which otherwise under its general policy in regard to bituminous coal would accrue to it. While there are, no doubt, other angles from which this concession can be regarded, it does in its operation have the effect of a bonus, and it is difficult to see how the same bonus can be denied to native coal.
Having regard to the bounty system previously applied, and to this aspect of the application of the drawback, we recommend that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture, and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture.
That recommendation was made three years ago last September. I protest against the long delay in giving effect to it. Such delay has caused untold injury to my constituents and their families. But favouring as I do the payment of a bonus as recommended by the Duncan report, as a matter of personal honour I propose to vote for the motion and thereby keep my promise.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not in my seat when the divisions on the subamendment and the amendment were taken, as I did not expect when I left the house at a few minutes to six that any division would be taken until the house resumed at eight o'clock. I merely rise to express my opinion on the main motion and on the amendment and the subamendment. Had I voted I would have voted against
the Conservative amendment and for the subamendment.
As regards the budget, I may say that I was first elected to this house on the principles of low tariff and free trade. I was painfully surprised during my first session to hear the member for, I think it was. Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lavigueur) state that he and his colleagues from Quebec were protectionist. At the time I made perhaps the rather crude remark that at last I knew why Sir Wilfrid Laurier was defeated in 1911; the protectionists in his ranks foreswore their low tariff principles and thus crucified Sir Wilfrid on a cross of protection. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) took exception to that remark of mine and said that it was not reciprocity but another issue which had turned some of the French-Canadians against their chieftain. May I say in regard to Sir Wilfrid Laurier that in 1905 I received a letter from him with respect to free trade, and in my opinion at no time in his long and distinguished career did he show to better advantage than in his defeat in 1911, for on that occasion he went down to defeat because he preferred to stick to his principles rather than continue in power by deserting those principles. In fact the leaven of protection seems to have been permeating the Liberal party ever since 1911. Pope has well said that:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
My hon. friends opposite at one time hated the name of protection, they despised it as something which should not be espoused by their party, but after seeing it for a while they began to endure, then pity, and now we find them embracing it-much to the amusement of my friends to my right.
I am rather sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot support the budget. There are many things in it that I like; but it contains a good many things that I do not like from the standpoint of low tariff or free trade. It looks to me that what Canada needs at the present time is leadership; the leadership of men who have some principles at heart, who believe in those principles, and who carry them out in spite of whatever may happen. Goldsmith, in describing the character of the village preacher, a man whom he admired very much, said that:
He tried each art, reproved each dull delay,
Allured to brighter worlds, and led the way.
I am afraid that at the present time the policies of this government, far from leading the way, have degenerated into an attitude
The Budget-Mr. Ernst

of putting its ear to the ground to see what can best be done to win the next election. I would have been more pleased to see my Liberal friends on the opposite side stick to the principles which they once professed and which Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Richard Cartwright, Alexander Mackenzie and others in this land of ours laid down as Liberal principles-'principles which do not change with the changing times. The square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares described on the other two sides. No amount of sophistry can ever alter that truth. If the principles upon which the platform of the Liberal party is based are sound, they do not change with the changing times. They do not look for leaders Who will fashion their doctrines to the varying hour.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend permit a question? He referred to the vote on the reciprocity question in the province of Quebec. May I tell him that the vote in Quebec showed a large majority in favour of reciprocity when his own county voted against it.


Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, if hon. gentlemen opposite are expecting from me a declaration to the effect that I am going to support the budget, I may say that some of them, and those in particular who come from the west, should remember the copybook maxim that honesty is the best policy.
The budget has been debated at great length in respect to the main principles which it involves. There are however a few observations that I would like to make. It has been rightly stated that it will not be found palatable to the Canadian people, and I can think of no better illustration of the truth of this statement than to remind hon. members of the difficulty which that master swallower, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) had in swallowing the budget this afternoon. That hon. gentleman is a past master in the art of swallowing everything-even himself. When that hon. gentleman has had such difficulty I wonder how the Canadian people in the main will stomach it at all.
The budget contains many features which lead me to wonder how the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Crerar), who has obtained the portfolio of Minister of Railways in the present cabinet, will justify the vote he will cast in a few minutes in favour of this budget. I cannot understand his position, especially in view of the observations he made in the city of Winnipeg after he became Minister of Railways.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was before.


William Gordon Ernst: No, since he became Minister of Railways. I have in my hand a copy of the Winnipeg Tribune dated January 22, 1930, and the hon. minister-


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that the Tribune you have in your hand?


William Gordon Ernst: Yes, it is a section of it. The hon. minister in addressing the Liberal club of the city of Winnipeg expressed himself in these terms:
Condemning protective tariffs, Mr. Crerar said protection was a fiscal policy which could work out in no other way than by conferring benefits on certain sections of the community at the expense of the others. The principle of protection was not suited to a new country.
Here is a portion which corresponds very ill with the speech at Woodstock of the Minister of Justice on national unity:
We can't build up eastern cities at the expense of western cities without developing jealousies, suspicions and strife.
In view of some of the provisions in this budget the house has been waiting for manj'' days to hear a declaration from the Minister of Railways as to how he can justify his vote for protection. I cannot help but feel that that hon. gentleman. and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) must have got their heads together and decided that there must be some way out.
At this time I wish to deal with two or three features of the budget which affect my own province. As a very last item in the budget there is tacked on a paragraph dealing with a bounty on coal used in the production of coke for the manufacture of steel. When the Minister of Finance moves that this house go into committee of ways and means, the traditional usage, as I understand it and as I have no doubt the house understands it, is that that committee should provide ways and means for raising supply for His Majesty. Expenditure has no proper place in the budget, it is put in for one purpose only. I was going to say that it is put in for trickery, but it may be that the word "trickery" is unparliamentary; I shall temper my remarks by saying that the bounty resolution is put in for the purpose of diverting the attention of the people of Nova Scotia and causing them to think that their representatives in this house have voted against something for which that province has asked, whereas in reality they have merely voted against a budget which as a whole they cannot possibly swallow.
My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) made some allusions this

The Budget-Mr. Ernst
afternoon to the fact that there was no protection for labour. May I make some further reference to the coal and steel industries. The Duncan report recommended that the tariff board be asked to make an investigation into the duty on coal. Has that been done? My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) pledged himself when he won the by-election in that constituency that he would resign his seat if the Duncan report were not implemented in full at the end of the first session after his election.


Mr. DUFF:: That is an absolute falsehood.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Speaker, the hon gentleman has a reputation for somersaulting, but the statement, or what purported to be his statement certainly appeared in the Halifax Herald. I have to accept the hon. member's word, but I will leave to his constituents the question whether in the final analysis it is true.


William Duff: I say it is an absolute falsehood.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back; withdraw your statement.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the hon. gentleman withdraw the statement he has made.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, of course not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman has accepted the denial made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough.


William Duff: No, he has not; I will not agree to that. He has not withdrawn it.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I said that I accepted the word of the hon. gentleman. I repeat, however, that the Halifax Herald carried the statement in its pages three years ago, and I would add that I might have been pardoned for quoting it because for three years the statement has not been denied. I have no doubt whatever that the hon. gentleman will go home as the champion of maritime rights, although I have a recollection of seeing the statement made in Montreal that it is only Tory propaganda. I have no doubt that the Minister of National Defence will do likewise. This afternoon my hon. friend from South Cape Breton gave a resume of the fight we have had since 1923 when that grand old veteran the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) was elected to parliament. That is when the fight started. That was the fight which broke the solid sixteen, and never at any time until the Duncan commission made its report did any hon. gentleman opposite make a speech for what were
known as maritime rights. I hold in my hand extracts from the speeches they made during the campaigns of 1925 and 1926. Take, for instance, the running mate of the Minister of National Defence, who was defeated in Halifax in the election of 1926. I refer to Mr. John Murphy, now a member of the harbour commission, who, speaking before the royal commission and giving evidence, gave this as his conception of maritime rights.
Freedom to negotiate our own trade treaties and to buy and sell in whatever markets we can to the best advantage is the only permanent solution of Nova Scotia's problems.
Mr. A. S. MacMillan, a rather noted gentleman in the province of Nova Scotia-


William Duff: You ran away from the investigation last year.


William Gordon Ernst: I have only this to say in
that connection, Mr. Speaker: Probably it was lucky for Mr. MacMillan that the evidence was never summed up in this house. Dealing with maritime rights, Mr. MacMillan touched on local conditions and the government's presentation of the case before the royal commission. I am quoting from the Halifax Chronicle of August 26, 1926, in which appears a report of Mr. MacMillan's remarks at Truro. Dealing with maritime rights he said:
"It is not maritime rights, but maritime wrongs from which we suffer," said the speaker. "First, confederation; second, national policy and third, the rejection of the reciprocity treaty of 1911."
Those were the hon. gentleman's conceptions of maritime rights. Then there was Mr. Ernest Robinson, former member for King's county, who spoke at Kentville on September 14, 1925, and whose remarks are reported in the Morning Chronicle. Speaking of the proposed reduction in freight rates which had been advocated by hon. members on this side of the house, which would enable our products to reach central Canada, he said:
"What have we now in the maritime provinces which we would be likely to send to central Canada? Nothing except coal and fish. It would be all right to put a lower rate on them, but as for butter, eggs, potatoes and apples, they have more than we." Mr. Robinson said he did not believe in taxing one part of Canada in order to pay another.
Then there was Mr. H. J. Logan, at that time the member for Cumberland and now a senator, who spoke in Kentville and whose remarks are reported in the Morning Chronicle of September 14, 1925. Speaking of maritime rights and Mr. Meighen's promise he said:
The Budget-Mr. Ernst

What will he give us? Chapter freight rates? Well, he has intimated that, but has not said so yet. The provinces do not want doles, but simply justice.
Now we have Mr. Robert E. Finn, of recent fame in the by-election in Halifax city, formerly a member of this house, who is reported as follows in the Chronicle of August 9, 1925:
Maritime rights would never have been heard of had not Sir Charles Tupper and his associates in the Conservative party of 1867 been successful in dragging Nova Scotia into confederation. Tupper had sold this province for eighty cents a head and lived to boast of his accomplishment. The work of the Liberal party has been to undo that great wrong.
Those, Mr. Speaker, were the views of these gentlemen during the elections of 1925 and 1926, but now I have no doubt they will climb on the band wagon along with the minister of National Defence and sing " Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here." But, sir, the people of Nova Scotia will not forget who fought their fight; they will not forget that every major recommendation in that report which relates to the province of Nova Scotia was based on the case prepared by the Rhodes government. Did any hon. gentleman opposite contribute anything to that inquiry? Did any hon. gentleman opposite give evidence before that commission, and if he did what finding was based upon that evidence? Did the Minister of National Defence contribute anything to that inquiry, or the hon. member for Hants-Iiings, or the hon. member for Lunenburg, as he was then?


William Duff: I paid for what you did.


William Gordon Ernst: I did not have anything
whatever to do with it; I was in the same position as the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the people of that province never can be deluded by trick budgets into forgetting who fought for them at that time.
Now, sir, there are two other matters in the budget which relate particularly to my own province and to which I wish to refer. Provision is made for countervailing duties on sixteen articles, practically all farm products. I want to ask the Minister of National Defence where he was in the cabinet council when these countervailing duties were being prepared, that he forgot to include fish. He represents one of the great fishing constituencies of this country. I do not believe in countervailing duties, but if the farmers of Canada are worthy of protection surely the fishermen are equally worthy of it. Where was the Minister of National Defence; what explanation can he give?


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest that while the gentleman has the floor order should be maintained so that he may devote all his time to his remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Order.
Mr. BLACK (Halifax)):	On behalf of the
hon. gentleman who has the floor I ask that he be heard with some respect and that order be maintained while he is speaking.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask for order on all sides of the house.


William Gordon Ernst: I may just say that the
senior member for Halifax should not be worried by the disrespect of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough; it does not worry me at all.


William Duff: You might worry about it
before the election is over.


William Gordon Ernst: I am ready to submit myself to the judgment of my electors at any time.


William Duff: What about those twelve telegrams you sent out yesterday?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Order, please.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I was about
to give the figures of the importations of fish into this country from the United States. Last year we imported fish to the value of $1,122,698.


An hon. MEMBER:: What kind of fish?


William Gordon Ernst: Various kinds, but fish which can be produced in this country. The duty on fish entering the United States varies according to the kind and the degree of preparation. Ordinarily, for fresh or frozen halibut, mackerel, salmon and swordfish, the duty is two cents per pound. For all other fish, with the exception of three minor varieties which are not imported, the duty is one cent per pound. The duty on dried fish is If cents per pound; on smoked herring 2| cents per pound; on smoked fillets 25 cents ad valorem, and on all others cents per pound. The duty on fish coming into this country from the United States is exactly one cent per pound. Now, sir, I ask again where was the Minister of National Defence, who represents a fishing constituency, when these countervailing duties were prepared, that he did not protect the interests of his own fishermen?
The budget also contains an allusion to a treaty which is to be negotiated with New-

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
foundland. Our trade figures with Newfoundland are rather staggering; from that country we import goods to the value of only a little over $2,000,000 a year, while our exports to Newfoundland amount to over SI 1.000.000 a year. The chief articles which that country has to export to us are fish, the products of the forest, and ores. Our exports are practically all manufactured goods. Last year fish made up one-third of the total importations into this country from Newfoundland. If a treaty is to be negotiated, the fishermen of Nova Scotia will look with concern upon any negotiations carried on by a government which acted as it did regarding the importation of butter from New Zealand. Are we not just as likely to have our fishing interests sacrificed? That is a matter which the Minister of National Defence will have to explain to his constituents, especially in view of his telegram of last year in which he said he was willing to sacrifice a million dollars' worth of the salt fish business in order to please his friends in the city of Halifax.


William Duff: Is the hon. member in favour
of the placing of a duty on fish coming into Canada from Newfoundland?


William Gordon Ernst: I will deal with that question as soon as it arises in this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Order.


William Gordon Ernst: I have said already that I
will deal with that question when it arises.


An hon. MEMBER:: Answer it now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Order.


William Duff: Is the hon. member in favour of the placing of a duty on fish coming into Canada from Newfoundland?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Order.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Speaker,-


Rodolphe Lemieux: We must have order.


William Gordon Ernst: These are some of the
reasons why I, in justice to my constituents-


William Duff: I would like an answer to my question.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nova Scotia will give you an answer when you go back.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The debate should be
conducted with all fairness to the hon. member who is speaking.


William Gordon Ernst: I have given a few reasons
why I cannot, as a Nova Scotian, support this budget; I would not be true to my own province if I did so.


William Duff: What about free trade in
engines? What does the hon. member say to that?


William Gordon Ernst: If the hon. gentleman cannot raise his mind above matters of local concern, I shall be glad to debate them with him in my own constituency.


William Duff: I will have that honour, too.


William Gordon Ernst: I have said already that
it is a difficult thing for anyone to swallow this budget and not get political indigestion. It is not a Canadian budget, as has been said repeatedly; it is an election budget. In looking back over the last few years, it is no wonder that this government has found it necessary to bring in an election budget. Look at the heritage we possess in this country. We have everything; we have water powers, minerals, forests, farm lands, fisheries, and we have a fine people. In spite of all these blessings of Providence we have the sorry spectacle of hundreds of thousands of our own people leaving the country and the trickle of immigration having ceased. Thousands of unemployed walk our streets, and I do not see how this government, with an election budget or any other kind of budget, can hope to win back the confidence of the people of Canada. There is only one way in which this country can be put back on its feet, and that is a policy of Canada for the Canadians.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time that I have ever heard a corpse scream. The Tory party has proved to-night that it has breathed its last breath. If the position of Deputy Minister of Finance is still vacant, I would recommend the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) for that position, because he is such an expert in figures. I was very much surprised to hear this government not being given credit for the Duncan report.


Mr. QUINN:: Oh, no, we shook it out of
you.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. members for
West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) and Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone) have proven to the house that they are possessed of greater wisdom in their little fingers than that shown by my hon. friend in all his utterances. For several sessions we have been hearing about maritime rights, but who brought forth the Duncan report?


An hon. MEMBER:: The Tories.


Jean-François Pouliot: I never thought that the
Tory party included a member so ignorant as

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

that. I knew there were prejudiced people in the Tory ranks, but I newer thought that there was so much ignorance. This govern-ernment has played fair with every part of this country. The people in the maritime provinces were suffering, they had troubles, and this government said to them: "What are your troubles? Tell them to us and we will give you fair play and justice." That is what this government has done. To-day anyone can go to the maritime provinces and see that the people are prosperous, thanks to this government, thanks to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) and to the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), both native sons of those provinces. This condition has been brought about despite the screaming which comes from the other side. The people of Nova Scotia, and even the Tories who sit in the provincial house, are very glad to have received increased subsidies from this government. Otherwise there would have been a deficit in the provincial revenue.
This government has acted fairly towards the maritime provinces as it has towards the other provinces. This government has returned to the western provinces their natural resources, something which the right hon. Arthur Meighen said no one was able to do. Although some members speak critically of it, I have nothing but admiration for the government for accomplishing that fact. We have the old age pensions. The government tries 'to help the poor people; and I also congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon his declaration of yesterday with regard to minimum wages for people employed in the Dominion government service.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Has Taschereau an old age
pension?


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend repeats
an old joke, and it is like meat that has been cooked several times-it has lost its flavour.


Felix Patrick Quinn: There is no joke like the
hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: Never before, at the end of a parliament, have we heard of so many members who intend to retire. One of them, a member whom I respect and esteem, is the former whip of the Conservative party. Everyone in the house likes him. He is leaving to resume his private practice. Several others are in the same position. To-day we have seen members of the Conservative party who are honest, who are disgusted with their own party and who approve the policies of the government, not because they are Conservatives but because they are sound headed. In spite of

the money that is spent for Tory advertising and propaganda throughout the country, in spite of the lies that are spread with regard to the recorded policies of the Conservatives 

notwithstanding all that propaganda I say that there is still as much harmony in the Tory ranks as there was when the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) called his predecessor in office, then a full minister, a musical instrument.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Taschereau?


Jean-François Pouliot: There is no marrow within that joke; it is only the bone. It is a worn-out joke. At Keith's theatre you would not get five cents for it. I wonder whether the first name of the hon. member who made that interjection is Amos or Andy.
There is a great difference between federal and provincial politics. I have no time tonight to repeat what I have already said in the house; the people know it, and those who do not wish to listen and who have eyes to see, can read it in Hansard. We shall face an election within a short time. My hon. friends opposite do not show much pleasure about it because they know very well that in every part of the country the people of Canada are satisfied with the policy of the government. It is a Canadian policy for Canadians, the making of which is a feat that has never been accomplished by the Tory party, which has been the party of class and privilege. There is a great difference between Liberalsm and Toryism. The slogan of Liberalism is "Live and let live." The slogan of Toryism is "We, Us and Company," and another one is: "Believe or die."


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Hurry up and die.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, die; because people
who have changed their colours, dye. The house is well posted on the whole matter; everyone knows about the budget; we are ready to vote, but before the vote is taken I wish to say to my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax and the big one over there-


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not parliamentary for the hon. member to refer to another hon. member in that manner.


Jean-François Pouliot: The young member who
comes from a county where there is a wild goose pond; we will meet them on the hustings with the record and the policy of the government and a few drops of Fly-tox and Flit, and then we shall never see them again in the house.

The Budget-Division
The house divided on the main motion (Mr. Dunning)-
That Mr Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means.
-which was agreed to on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:
Allan,
Bancroft,
Beaubien,
Benoit,
Bertrand,
Bettez,
Bissett,
Blanchard,
Blatchford,
Bock,
Boivin,
Both well,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Boulanger,
Bourgeois,
Bradette,
Brown,
Cahill,
Cannon,
Cardin,
Casgrain,
Cayley,
Chevrier,
Crerar,
Delisle,
Denis,
Desaulniers,
Descoteaux,
Deslauriers,
Dionne,
Donnelly,
Dubuc,

Dumaine,
Dunning,
Dupuis,
Dussault,
Fafard.
Ferland,
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Gershaw,
Gervais,
Girouard,
Glen,
Goulet,
Gray,
Guerin,
Heenan,
Howden,
Ilsley,
Jacobs,
Jelliff,
Jenkins,
Johnston (Long Lake), Kay,
King (Kootenay East), King, Mackenzie (Prince Albert), Lacroix,
2419-136-i
Laflamme,
Langlois,
Lang,
Lapierre,
Lapointe,
Lavigueur,
Letellier,
Lovie,
Macdonald (Glengarry), MacDonald (Cape Breton South), MacLean (Prince), McLean (Melfort), McDiarmid, McIntosh,
McKenzie,
McMillan,
McPhee,
McPherson,
Malcolm,
Marcil,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont), Mercier (St. Henri), Millar,
Milne,
Morrissy,
Motherwell,
Neill,
O'Connor,
Parent,
Perras,
Pouliot,
Power,
Prevost,
Ralston,
Raymond,
Rinfret,
Robitaille,
Ross (Moose Jaw), Rutherford,
St-Pere,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Simpson,
Smith (Stormont), Steedsman,
Stewart (Edmonton West),
Taylor,
Telford,
Thorson,
Tobin,
Totzke,
Verville,
Ward,
Young (Saskatoon), Young
(Weyburn).-114.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto-	Lawson,
High Park),	Lennox,
Arthurs,	Lucas,
Barber,	Luchkovich,
Bell (Hamilton West), Macdonald (Kings),	
Bell (St. Antoine),	Macdonald (Richmond-
Bell (St. John-Albert), West Cape Breton),	
Bennett,	Macdougall,
Bird,	MacLaren,
Black (Yukon),	MacNutt,
Black (Halifax),	Macphail (Miss),
Bowen,	McGibbou,
Boys,	McGregor,
Brady,	McQuarrie,
Cahan,	McRae,
Campbell,	Maloney,
Cantley,	Matthews,
Carmichael,	Maybee,
Chaplin,	Peck,
Charters,	Perley (Sir George),
Coote,	Pettit,
Cotnam,	Plunkett,
Cowan,	Price, ^	
Dickie,	Quinn,
Embury,	Rennie,
Ernst,	Rowe,
Esling,	Ryerson,
Evans,	Senn,
Fansher (Last	Smith (Cumberland),
Mountain),	Smoke,
Fraser,	Spankie,
Gardiner,	Speakman,
Garland (Bow River), Spence,	
Garland (Carleton),	Spencer,
Geary,	Stevens,
Gott,	Stewart (Leeds),
Grimmer,	Stinson, Stirling,
Harris,	
Hocken,	Thompson,
Hubbs,	Tummon,
Irvine, Kaiser,	White (London),
	Wilson (Wentworth),
Kellner,	Woodsworth,
Kennedy,	Young (Toronto
Ladner,	Northeast).-86. PAIRS
(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.) Messrs:	
Veniot,	Hanson,
Elliott,	Edwards (Waterloo),
Euler,	Manion,
Sinclair (Queens),	Jones,
Bowman,	Hodgins,
Hay,	Murphy,
Baldwin,	Johnstone,
Fontaine,	Anderson (Halton),
Hall,	Sinclair (Wellington),
Morin,	Ryckman,
Rheaume,	Church,
Hepburn,	Spotton,
Roberge,	Ross (Kingston),
Lacombe,	Guthrie,
Vallance,	Clark,
Odette,	Robinson,
Wilson (Vaudreuil),	White (Mount Royal),
Sylvestre,	Fansher (Lambton),
Howard,	Casselman,
Foster,	Short.
214S	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the budget.


Joseph-Théodule Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). Had I voted I would have voted for the main motion.


Mr. VENIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the main motion.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted, I woud have voted against the main motion.


John Ewen Sinclair: I was paired with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted, I would have voted for the main motion.


Harry Bernard Short: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Foster). Had I voted I would have voted against the main motion.


Arthur Edward Ross: I was paired with the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). Had I voted, I would have voted against the main motion.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the main motion.


Robert King Anderson: I was paired with the hon. member for Hull (Mr.Fontaine). Had I voted, I would have voted against the main motion.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
1. Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the customs tariff, being chapter forty-four of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, by repealing subsections (c), (d), (e), (i), (1) of section two thereof and by substituting the following therefor:-	_
(c)	"hoop, band and strip" when applied to
metals mean flat forms not more than fourteen inches in width and less than .1875 inch in thickness;	_
(d)	"in diameter" when applied to pipes and tubes means the actual inside diameter;
(i) "plate" when applied to metals means a rectangle, circle or sketch as cut in^ a plate mill, more than fourteen inches in width and .1875 inch or more in thickness, with variations from such thickness not exceeding .015 inch;
(1) "sheet" when applied to metals means a rectangle more than fourteen inches in width and less than a plate in thickness;
£Mr. Speaker.]
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. DUNNING:: This resolution merely deals with definitions in the iron and steel industry which are brought into line with modern practice. The method of measurement is also changed in order to conform with modern practice, the measurements now being expressed in decimals instead of in the old form of sixteenths.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I am sorry I cannot agree with the minister. I do not know why he has departed from the old custom of defining measurement by reference to B.W.G.-Birmingham wire gauge. The term B.W.G. has been understood in the trade for a hundred years and more. Everybody on both continents knows exactly what it means. How are the buyers, dealers or users of hoops and sheets to determine the decimal fractions that this resolution provides for in regard to thickness? There are no gauges in general use to-day, so far as I know, that will do it. Going further back than my lifetime, at all events, the measure of thickness of sheets and hoops of iron and steel has been the wire gauge, and such has been recognized universally.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I think I stated in
the budget address, the wordings in connection with the iron and steel schedule to which these definitions refer were widely published among those, who like my hon. friend, have knowledge of the business and of its technique. They were asked to criticize and suggest wordings and definitions, and at the public hearings of the tariff board the matter of definition of measurement to which my hon. friend has just referred was fully discussed. I am advised, and in fact the records of the hearings of the board, will, I am sure, bear it out, that all of those engaged in this business desired the decimal method of measurement to be used as being the most up to date and the most generally in use to-day and the most generally in use also in other countries. The request was unanimous that the decimal method should be adopted. I questioned the change myself when the matter was brought to my attention and assured myself on that point. My hon. friend is in disagreement in this respect not only with the majority but practically with all those engaged in the industry itself.


Thomas Cantley: I should like to know,
Mr. Chairman, who the authorities are who make recommendations of that kind. They are authorities unknown in this country so far as I am aware. Now, I will make a suggestion to the minister. Why not adopt the alternative method and say: B.W.G. or

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
certain decimals. B.W.G. is known throughout the whole world and has been practised by practically all nations for at least three generations. It is understood everywhere. Birmingham wire gauges are in the hands of every wholesale hardware house in this country, and of every metal manufacturing wholesale and retail metal dealing concern in the old country or on the continent with whom we have been dealing, and both they and we know exactly what that means. So far as I am aware there are no gauges generally available in the country to-day by which to determine the decimal thicknesses that are called for by this resolution. Now, if the minister insists on retaining his decimal determinations, I ask him to put in also the equivalent B.W.G. If he does not, I can tell him that chaos will follow; there is no doubt about that. I am confident that if he does not do this he will run into a whole lot of trouble and will be maligned and sworn at by people throughout this country from one end to the other.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course I am guided
in this matter as my hon. friend can understand, by the expressions of opinion of those engaged in the industry. I have again made inquiry as to the unanimity of those representations, and I am again confirmed in the statement I made a little while ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the Pittsburgh
schedule?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh no, it is the decimal
system simply. It overcomes the difficulty of the American system on the one hand and the B.W.G. on the other by stating in definite decimal terms of measurement in thousandths of an inch what is actually involved. It does not adopt any of the arbitrary standards known by particlular names, but does give the actual decimal thickness involved. The difficulty my hon. friend has in his mind can, I am sure, be overcome by the customs department publishing a comparative chart of all the equivalents in the different styles of measurement which are in use in other countries; not only the B.W.G., which is the English standard, but also the American gauge. I may tell him that the fact that he has raised the point will ensure this being done without amending the law.


Thomas Cantley: There is another gauge
almost as well recognized, Stubb's gauge, used particularly in regard to wire. Both those gauges are universally recognized and universally used, particularly the BAV.G., throughout all British countries. This is a British country, may I remind the minister, not an American dependency, and I think it would be fitting
for this government at least to recognize and use the old accepted standards that we were brought up with and have dealt in for generations. I see no good reason, no practical ' advantage, to be gained by departing from it; but if he must do so, I again suggest he put in brackets after the decimal measurement its equivalent, or its nearest equivalent, in the


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
2. Resolved, that the Customs Tariff, being chapter forty-four of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. be amended by repealing subsection two of section six thereof and by substituting the following therefor:
[Stage Direction]
(2) Excise duties or excise taxes shall be disregarded in estimating the market value of goods for the purposes of special duty when the goods are entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff, intermediate tariff or any more favourable tariff.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister might in
this regard give the committee a clear explanation of what countries' importations will be affected, what rates of duty are charged by those countries, and what the effect will be upon the revenues of this country. It will be observed that the excise duties are to be disregarded in estimating the market value. Market value determines the basis on which the tariff duties are computed. This, I understand, will affect importations from Japan, as Japan enjoys our intermediate tariff. I am given that information as it has been communicated to me.


Charles Avery Dunning: The situation has been
developing in recent years due to the increased use in many countries of the excise form of taxation, which produces this result in practice: the goods are sold to the home consumers in the country of origin at a higher figure than they are sold for export, for the reason that the excise duty is not chargeable when the goods are exported. That fact automatically brings the goods in question under the dumping section of the Canadian law, and it has the result, so I am advised, of greatly hampering legitimate import business. My hon. friend asks me about the countries. In reply I can tell him offhand that in Japan it applies with reference to silk. In Germany, Czechoslovakia-I am not sure of France-


Richard Bedford Bennett: France is covered by the treaty.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. My hon. friend however will notice that for the purposes of special duty the amendment seeks to disregard excise in respect of goods entitled to entry under the British preferential or intermediate tariffs, or under any more favourable tariff. The present situation is that excise is
2150	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
exempt only when the goods come from Great Britain, and the amendment seeks to extend that to intermediate countries.
Another point in connection with the matter has recently been drawn to my attention by the chairman of the Ontario liquor commission, Sir Henry Drayton. As the result of his communication I desire to make an addition to the resolution to meet the point raised which, to my mind, is one of some moment. For centuries it has been the custom for Portuguese wines to be imported in wood, by the barrel, into England, and there bottled in bond for export. A year or so ago, through some complaints, it became apparent to the Department of National Revenue that the practice of bottling in bond in England, involving as it did selling by Great Britain to Canada at prices lower than the wines were selling at in England, brought the Portuguese wines bottled in England under the Canadian dumping law. The chairman of the Ontario liquor commission recently asked me to give consideration to the matter, as in his opinion it was quite unfair to impose a dumping duty in connection with a transaction of that kind. I think there is merit in the contention. In his letter to me Sir Henry Drayton states:
The wines are sent to Great Britain for bottling purposes only, so that the more expert work of the British labourer can be taken advantage of. To give a case in point: A case of port, sold to us at 40 shillings, in bond, f.o.b. London, nevertheless has to be valued for the purpose of your customs department at 56 shillings, the 16 shillings representing the customs duties of Great Britain on that port, assuming it to have been taken out of bond and released for domestic consumption in Great Britain.
I may say that similar representations in reference to the matter were made by the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom, Sir William Clark. The point is that we charge duty on customs duties levied by Great Britain, although the customs duties are not levied on the particular wine which is exported from Portugal, bottled in bond in London and bought by the various liquor commissions in Canada. I therefore propose to add this section to resolution No. 2:
2a. Customs duties of the United Kingdom shall be disregarded in estimating the market value of goods for the purposes of special duty when the goods are entitled to entry under the intermediate tariff or any more favourable tariff and are bottled in bond in the United Kingdom and imported direct therefrom.
I think this measure will commend itself to hon. members of the committee as being a very fair one.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: In respect to port, I do not find any particular objection to the pro-

posal of the minister. However, I wish to call the minister's attention to another matter bearing upon this resolution. In the matter of silk from Japan the same excuse does not hold. As to goods made in Japan, we have always based our duties upon the fair market value of any article imported, and we have defined the fair market value as the price of the article in the country of production plus the tax that the local government has placed upon it. For years we have adopted that policy, and I understand that the minister now intends to make a change, so that the value for duty of goods imported will not now represent the fair market value of the articles in question.	-


Mr. CAHAN:: Yesterday afternoon I called attention to the question of silk manufacturing in the province of Quebec. In that province the silk industry has been developing on a very low profit basis. I am advised that if the provision embodied in this resolution is enforced a blow will be delivered at the entire silk industry, because Japanese competition will serve to wipe out the industry in the province of Quebec. There is no doubt that the industry will suffer if this change is made in favour of the Japanese producer as against the Canadian manufacturer. The proposed change is a very serious one, and has created the greatest possible apprehension throughout the province of Quebec and particularly among those who are interested in this new industry. I protest against such a change at a time when we need all the employment in that province that it is possible to make available. Furthermore, the government is striking a covert blow at a growing industry.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Shall the resolution as amended carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. We are to have a statement from the minister as to what value of goods would be affected by it.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is quite impossible to state that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, it is quite impossible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My meaning is this: We will let the price be $2, and let the excise be $1; in that case the duty is computed on $3. You are wiping out SI and computing the duty on $2 only. What would the effect of this resolution be upon importations? I agree with what my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has said in connec-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tion with silk from Japan. I have been advised that it will have a most serious effect upon an industry which is equipped as well as any silk industry of the United States and is in a position to produce material as cheaply. The industry is subjected to very keen competition in our market not only from the United States but from Japan. In any store you will observe enormous quantities of goods that have come in under the old tariff rate. The effect of this proposal is to lessen the sum upon which duty is computed, and consequently to lessen the revenue. Has any estimate been made as to the increased volume of goods which by reason of this provision will be imported and thus affect the Canadian silk industry?


James Dew Chaplin: The minister has just told us that he could not furnish us with the information. I will undertake to furnish him with the information as to how it affects the silk industry in my district.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend did not allow me to reply, and he should not accuse me of not being willing to give the information.


James Dew Chaplin: I thought you said a minute ago that you could not give the information.


Charles Avery Dunning: Nobody could give exact information, but I can tell my hon. friend that on April 15, 1919, the then Commissioner of Customs issued a regulation that the special or dumping duty was not to apply in respect to foreign excise taxes or excise duties. That regulation, in the opinion of the law officers, was in effect without really having the force of law, I may advise my hon friend, until June of 1928 when it was cancelled with respect to goods purchased after that date and imported after August 1, 1928. Such experience as has been gained naturally has come since August 1, 1928 with respect to this matter, and my endeavours to get exact information as to the application of the change have bnn without avail.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I said applies
equally to rayon silk as to natural silk.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not aware of the
effect of excise duties in foreign countries on artificial silk.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Rayon is subject to an
excise duty in Japan.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, but I am advised
that the export of rayon from Japan to Canada is negligible. The other factor is
important. I am advised by the silk manufacturers that approximately S3,000,000 worth of silk is affected annually.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the minister state that the manufacturers of silk in Canada have been advised with respect to this change and have 'been given an opportunity to present their objections to him?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And no objections have
been received?


Charles Avery Dunning: I would not say that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My attention has been
direoted to this matter by several of the concerns more deeply interested, and they look upon this change with the greatest possible apprehension as to its effects upon their industry. This item should not pass until we have full particulars as to its effect upon Canadian industry and especially upon those Quebec industries which have been recently established.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the minister
speaks in reply I might say that I visited one of these factories. I saw the silk imported from Japan; I saw the price paid for it; I learned the amount that had been paid for wages in its production and I saw also quantities of silk being brought from abroad to be dyed1 in that factory. I saw the amount which they had learned, from actual inquiry, had been paid the workmen, and I say that if we are to remove that excise tax, under the present rates of customs duty, unless conditions have changed certainly you will make it impossible to develop that industry in Canada. That cannot be gainsaid. I could satisfy the minister on that point in a moment. All I was seeking to ascertain was whether or not there were such safeguards as would ensure against such a result. I am giving it to the minister just as I saw it myself. I saw the skeins of natural silk, and certainly the minister knows that artificial silk made from wood pulp, as well as celanese silk, which is made by the utilization of cotton waste through a chemical process, involve an entirely different condition from that which we have hitherto dealt in connection with the industry. I had hoped that we could be able to have the minister say with certainly that he had satisfied himself as to what would be the effect of the introduction of these commodities, produced certainly under conditions so vastly different from those prevailing in Canada in point of wages and hours of labour that we cannot possibly compete on even terms.
2152	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: I may say to my hon. friend that I listened to representations made to me personally by the silk people. Of course it is known to those who are interested in this question that the tariff at the present time on ordinary silk is 22i per cent under the intermediate tariff and 30 per cent on rayon. There is that much tariff in any case. Frankly, I was impressed with the idea that the factories concerned in Canada did carry on for a very long period until, in fact, the month of August, 1928, without having the dumping duty imposed because of the excise. I could not see, and no attempt was made to convince me, that conditions have so changed since August 1, 1928, as to make the difference which my hon. friend fears. I looked at it as closely as I could, and I felt that no injury was being done by establishing this general principle that under the intermediate and any more favourable tariffs, because people tax themselves in their own country, we should not add that tax to the value and also impose the dump on top of that when Canadians desire to import these goods. Frankly the consideration mainly present in my own mind was the fact that our Canadian factories had demonstrated over a considerable period of years their ability to deal with the situation without the excise duty having been taken into consideration in the imposition of a dumping duty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But the stress and strain of the last two years have been exceptional, and the competition has been very much keener than ever before. I should like to ask the minister who suggested this change with regard to silks. Has the Japanese government made representations with respect to it? Is the minister making a concession to Japan on that account, without regard to the interests of the Canadian manufacturers? I regard this as a hostile move against a very important Canadian industry, and we should have the strongest possible reasons for making the change in view of the disaster to Canadian industry which is impending if this change is made.


Charles Avery Dunning: This point did not arise specifically in respect to silks; it arose following the rescinding of the regulation to which I referred a few moments ago. Since August 1, 1928, importers of all lines of goods affected have been making continuous complaints, in some cases as to the impossibility of importing goods under the conditions set up by the rescinding of the former regulation which had been in force for some ten years. A general investigation of the whole subject was undertaken, by which we became con-
vinced that this is an unfair imposition by way of taxation on the people of Canada and further that its removal will not jeopardize Canadian industry. The silk factories to which my hon. friend refers, as I think I stated a few moments ago, have a 22J per cent duty in any case, under the intermediate tariff, and 35 per cent under the general tariff, while artificial silk pays a duty of 30 per cent under the intermediate tariff and 35 per cent under the general tariff. To impose on top of that a further 10 per cent excise levied in the country of origin and then to apply the dumping provision of our act certainly has made it very difficult to do business and has imposed a very serious tax upon the Canadian consumer.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I can say to the Minister of Finance is that if he will take into consideration the difference between wages paid in Japan and those paid in the province of Quebec he will find that his 22i per cent or 30 per cent will not offset the difference.


Peter McGibbon: Could the minister tell us if this matter has been considered by the tariff board?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I am advised by the tariff board with reference to the matter.


Peter McGibbon: Was this their recommendation?


Charles Avery Dunning: Recommendation is
scarcely the correct word. I have used as advisers the tariff board and all its works. It is a matter of consultation ra'ther than of recommendation.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister tell us if this excise provision will affect the sales tax imposed by France, for instance?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, the sales tax is an excise tax.


James Dew Chaplin: You are going to reduce it in the same way with Japan, as far as any of their exports to Canada are concerned?


George Halsey Perley: The minister
states that the importations of the articles he has mentioned have not been very large, but with this change in the tariff are we not going to have an increase in the importation of these artificial silks?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think so.


George Halsey Perley: Why not?


Charles Avery Dunning: If I read the items, my hon. friend would get my point. The first item reads as follows:
Woven fabrics wholly or in chief part by weight of silk in the gum, not degummed or

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
bleached, not less than twenty inches in width, imported for the purpose of being degummed, dyed and finished in Canada.
I am advised by the silk people that that is the chief item of import. The next item is:
Woven fabrics, composed in part of silk, n.o.p., knitted fabrics wholly or in part of silk, not to contain wool.
The latter item carries a higher rate of duty than the former, and I do not think we need anticipate any great change in the importations.


George Halsey Perley: What is the object then of making a change?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is speaking of silk?


George Halsey Perley: Artificial silk,
which is really of more importance than silk. The minister claims that we have not imported very much of this article, but it may be that with this change larger quantities will be brought into the country.


Charles Avery Dunning: The duty on artificial
silk under the intermediate tariff is 30 per cent.


George Halsey Perley: But what is the difference between the cost of production, the difference between wages paid in Japan and here in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer that.


George Halsey Perley: That is something which should be considered.


James Dew Chaplin: I am informed by the
manufacturers in my district that during the past two years the minister could have obtained an accurate idea of the difference in imports of these lines of goods. The manufacturers state quite definitely and positively that during the time this excise provision has been in operation the importation of flat goods has decreased quite considerably, which decrease has been to their advantage.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have the figures here.


James Dew Chaplin: Let us have the figures.


Charles Avery Dunning: The figures given are for the fiscal years, and in that connection it must be recalled that the regulation was changed on August 1, 1928, about half way through the fiscal year. In the fiscal year 1928 the importations were valued at S3,088,000, and in 1929 they were valued at $2,910,000. In 1928 the new regulation would be operative only from August 1 until the succeeding March 31, but it would be operative for the whole
of the fiscal year 1929. My hon. friends will notice that the decrease is very small as between the two fiscal years.


James Dew Chaplin: I did not expect that
these items would be under consideration tonight, and if given the opportunity I believe I can furnish the minister with more accurate information than he seems to have. I have seen the figures of the importations for a period after August 15, given by months, and they disclose a decrease of something like 200.000 yards per month. The minister should not be in a desperate hurry with regard to this particular item, and I would ask that it be allowed to stand over until I can secure the information which is in my office. I take strong exception to the decreased duties on importations from France. We have a treaty with that country which gave us a minimum tariff, and that has been changed three or four times on almost every article we export to that country. At this late date we are making further concessions and I do not think they are deserving of them.


Mr. LADNER:: Is there any trade arrangement or treaty with Mexico which would bring items imported from that country under the intermediate tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would like to know if gasoline would be affected under this item of excise tax. At the present time the tax is added to the price, and the question arises whether or not it will become dutiable.


Charles Avery Dunning: To my knowledge gasoline does not come to Canada from any country which would be affected by this amendment.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Except possibly Mexico.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have no treaty with Mexico.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I thought there was some kind of trade arrangement.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


James Dew Chaplin: I think this matter could be allowed to stand over. I am interested in the enterprise, in that it has been established in my city and it is a branch of one of the best English concerns. I have been told that the wages paid at St. Catharines are twice as much as those paid in the old country, and four times as much as those paid in Japan.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have been informed that the duty will not cover the difference in the wage scales of the two countries.
2154	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: It must be borne in mind that the companies affected bring in some of the items for further manufacture, such as silk from Japan. I have further figures which illustrate the effect of the change which was made on August 1, 1928. The total imports of silk of all kinds during the fiscal year 1928 amounted to $8,259,471. During 1929, when the present arrangement was in effect for the whole fiscal year-


George Halsey Perley: You mean the proposed arrangement?


Charles Avery Dunning: The arrangement which is now being rescinded-in 1929 the imports amounted to $8,145,000. The reduction as between the two years amounted to only $105,000 in a total trade of over $8,125,000. That is one of the reasons why I find it very difficult to follow the argument of my hon friend. The major item of imports is the one which is complained about by the silk people and the difference between the two years I gave in that connection a few moments ago. During half of one of the years the old arrangement was in force, under which arrangement excise was not taken into account; during the other half the arrangement was in force that the excise was taken into account and during the whole of the succeeding year it was taken into account. The difference made was only $100,000 in $8,250,000 worth of trade.


James Dew Chaplin: I will undertake to show
the minister some information I have that in respect to the goods complained of the difference is far greater than what he would lead us to believe it is. I have seen the reports as presented by the manufacturers and on this special line of goods for six months after the change was made the difference is $1,500,000 or $2,000,000.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: ' There is the further consideration that in this business the domestic consumption has been increasing; silk wear is becoming fashionable, but what this extra duty did was to prevent the Japanese producer from obtaining a larger control of the Canadian market. It was a restraining condition which enabled the Canadian producer temporarily to hold his own in spite of the fact that the wage scale in Japan is very much lower than that in Canada.


Peter McGibbon: Can the minister tell
us whether the duty is equal to the difference in the cost of production?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is quite impossible
for me to state that. *
IMr. Cahan.]


Mr. PECK:: This resolution is in very
general terms. Are there any other imports than silk and silk products which would be affected by it?


Charles Avery Dunning: There are a number of
minor commodities. Wines, in connection with France, would be affected, because we have a trade agreement with France, hence that country would come under the intermediate tariff. Germany at the present time is under the general tariff so that importations from that country would not be affected by the change. I may as well admit to the committee that a great deal of complaint has come from those who import from Germany, but after giving the matter consideration we are inclined to think this concession is one which should apply only to those countries with which we have definite arrangements.


James Dew Chaplin: That would include
Switzerland also. Switzerland comes under the French treaty.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, but not to a great
degree.


Edward Armour Peck: I think we should have a
little more consideration given to this so that we may know how far-reaching it may be. It may extend to many other goods that may not have been considered by the department or the tariff board.


Charles Avery Dunning: I might give a little further information with respect to our trade generally with Japan, because that trade has, I know, some significance to those who think in terms of Canadian trade. Our total imports from Japan for the last fiscal year were $12,900,000 and our total exports to that country were $42,000,000 so that the matter is of some importance from the general trade point of view. There is always the problem of adjusting Canada's general interest with the particular interest of an industry which is entitled to consideration. That is the point one has to weigh in considering all these matters. I have given it the best study of which I am capable and I think the arrangement is a fair one, especially as it is the identical arrangement under which these people operated prior to August 1, 1928. Then they got a species of windfall by reason of an interpretation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They got a windfall which
saved them from disaster.


Charles Avery Dunning: But which had the effect of reducing the imports from Japan by only $100,000 worth in these lines of goods.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Minister of Finance
is not making a fair deduction from that. He admitted a few moments ago he had not the knowledge to determine that issue.


Charles Avery Dunning: What issue?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The issue as to how large
the restriction has been.


Charles Avery Dunning: I give such figures as
are available.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But they are not relevant
to the issue. The real issue is that this difference prevented Japan from getting control and command of the Canadian market, and we wish now to maintain the Canadian producer, in view of the peculiar conditions affecting this trade, in as favourable a position as he has been for the last two years.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister quite rightly calls our attention to the fact that Japan is a good customer of ours, but there is one feature he must not overlook, and it is this: Japan is the largest and one might say, the only large producer of raw silk. She produces 85 per cent of the word's supply of raw silk, and we are already, through this manufacture in Canada, a customer of hers in raw silk. Now she wants to supply us with not only the raw silk but the manufactured article also. We cannot buy 'both. If she supplies the manufactured article, she cannot supply the raw silk too. I should like the minister to lay the matter over until we get a little more information. I want to present the figures I have from the manufacturers in reference to this matter.


George Halsey Perley: I think the
minister had better accede to that request. I understand our object in discussing these details in committee is for the purpose of getting all the information we can as to the effect of the changes. The minister himself says he does not know exactly what articles will come under the proposed clause. The department ought to provide a list of the articles that will be affected.


Charles Avery Dunning: From all countries?


George Halsey Perley: From all countries, and the different kinds of articles, so that we may see how many there are. The minister makes a change in the tariff in general terms and he does not know exactly how it will work out. If we had before us a list of importations from all the different countries which would be affected by the proposed change in the method of computing the duties, we could see for ourselves what difference this was going to make, what articles
would be affected, and to what extent. The object of this discussion in committee is to enable us to become better informed than we are now as to what the effect of this change will be on the revenue and an the manufacture of similar articles in this country. I should think the minister himself would want to have the artificial silk manufactured in Canada, provided that the people who make it did not exploit the public and obtain too large a profit out of it. Surely we can make artificial silk in this Dominion as well as any other country in the world. Then why should we facilitate the importation of it as the minister says we are doing under this particular clause? The minister has not told us yet at whose suggestion this change was made. What interests have asked for it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Very many importers
from all countries in connection with importations which in their aggregate value are small as compared with the whole trade of Canada. But as to finding out just what commodities from all countries are affected, my hon. friend can understand that was a natural question for me to ask a moment or two ago. And the answer is, when one thinks it out: This would involve a search of the customs and excise laws of all countries, some of which laws change very rapidly in these days, and then an endeavour to trace the extent to which the particular change in the particular country has been applicable to imports into this country since August 1, 1928. Perhaps it will help my hon. friend if I give the details making up the figure which I gave a moment ago. The impression appears to be abroad that we are importing more manufactured silk. I know that my hon. friend from Lincoln has in mind specific cases along that line. As to the aggregate difference between the two years during one of which the old regulation was in force, we are really seeking to restore what was the practice from 1919 to 1928.


James Dew Chaplin: That will naturally have
the effect of restoring the business to where it was before.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
bear with me, between the two years in question we have an exact comparison as to what happens when the regulation in force prior to the 1st of May is operative and when it is not. Take raw silk. We imported more raw silk in 1929 than in 1928; $1,200,000 in 1928, and $2,000,000 in 1929. Silk woven in the gum, which I am advised by the people to whom my hon. friend refers is the important item, came in to the amount of $3,088,000 in 1928, and $2,910,000 in 1929, or a
2156	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
difference of only $100,000 or thereabouts. Of silk fabrics we imported in 1928, $3,500,000, and in 1929, $2,700,000; silk clothing, $158,000 in 1928, and $261,000 in 1929.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The fabrics show a very
great reduction in 1929 below 1928.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then take silk manufactures. There were only small importations; $87,000 in 1928, and $76,000 in 1929; other silk goods, $160,000 in 1928, $155,000 in 1929
Those are all the silk imports from Japan, making up the aggregate totals that I gave before of $8,250,000 in 1928, and $8,145,000 in 1929. I give that just by way of information, hoping that it is the information my hon. friend wants.


James Dew Chaplin: I had that information
myself out of the returns. The information I have gives the monthly imports in the lines in which these people are interested, and shows positively that during the six months after the regulations were put into force there was a decided decrease in the importation of these flat goods in which we are interested. But I will admit that in respect to the whole year the amount given by the minister is right.
Mr, DUNNING:	That is the important
thing. My hon. friend knows that it is seasonal importation.


James Dew Chaplin: Seasonal importation? I
will show the minister what happened in one month of one year and in the following month of another year, and so on for the six months, and I will prove my contention to him. All I ask is an opportunity to do so.


Edward Armour Peck: The language used in this
resolution is very general. When you speak of exicse taxes on goods imported into this country, that might have a very wide meaning. What about Scotch whiskey, for instance, or Guinness' stout? Is an excise tax not collected on these articles before they are exported from Scotland or England, and would they not be affected by this resolution?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend forgets
that under the present law, which we are now amending, goods from the United Kingdom such as Scotch whiskey are already exempt from excise in the computation of their value under paragraph (b) of section 6 of the customs tariff. Goods of a class subject to excise duty in Canada are now exempt.
My hon. friend spoke of a devious way of doing this. If I had desired to do it in a devious way, all I had to do was to put an excise tax, however small, on silk in Canada, and then under the provisions of that subsection the same object would have been ac-

complished, but I preferred to deal with the matter -as a matter of principle. Also the complaint is made to me by importers that as far as possible the Canadian customs tariff should tell people what duty they have to pay on the goods they import. I think there is a great deal of merit in that contention, in so far as we can accomplish that objective.


James Dew Chaplin: You are not doing that in connection with the countervailing duties.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, we are.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: From the explanation made by the minister, it seems that this is a change made for the jobbers.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For those who are bringing in job lots.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit me, the largest importers in the country made -representations, people like Eaton's and Simpson's.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, but what are Eaton's but the -largest jobbers in the country? They are not manufacturers. They have no interest in production in this country. They h-ave no interest in the large employment of labour in this country. They are people who simply fatten upon the cheap wages of foreign countries, and then supply the Canadian consumer with the cheap goods from foreign countries with which the producers of Canada, who pay a legitimate wage and have reasonable hours of labour, cannot possibly compete.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Apparently the hon. gentleman never buys anything from Eaton's. I do not find them selling that kind of cheap goods.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Ah, don't you? Of course they do not sell them cheap; they make a profit. If the consumer profited by the jobber's control, I would have something to say in favour of this change; but the jobber makes a profit and the consumer never re-cives the advantage of a single one per cent, and Canadian industry suffers and is finally destroyed. This seems to me to be the most haphazard suggestion that could possibly be made. The minister admits that he does not know the extent of its application; he does not know to what countries it applies: he does not know to what imported commodities it will apply. Certainly in a matter of this kind which affects the vital interest of one great industry in Canada we should have more complete information, and the minister

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
might well hold this over for a day, at least until my hon. friend (Mr. Chaplin) has had an opportunity to obtain his statistics. If the minister insists on going on; we can easily talk it out for ten minutes; but we do not wish to do that.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not intend in any way to compel my hon. friends to talk out the item. I want to be as courteous as I can if they want the item deferred. I am sure my hon. friends want to cooperate with me in this rather heavy task.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We do, but this is a vital industry in the province of Quebec.


Charles Avery Dunning: It would, however, be
rather confusing, where there are such a large number of items, if we adopted the practice of leaving some of them over. I am anxious that there should not be errors in the final conclusion of our work, but in this matter I shall try to meet my hon. friends.
My hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George has said that the minister does not know what will be the effect, and so forth. May I repeat that Canada established definitely, by regulation of the Customs department in 1919, the policy which I am now seeking to have embodied in the law. It was discovered only in August of 1908 that what I now contend should be law was not the law, after ten years' experience. So far as I know, no one asked for a ruling bringing into effect the condition which should have obtained since August of 1928 until to-day. The test of experience of the degree of complaint during that ten year period is surely evident that on the matter of principles we are on sound ground. It is, as my hon. friend states, virtually impossible to search the excise laws of all countries just to find out what commodities, if they did come into Canada, would be affected by this provision. I can only say that by this provision Canada goes back to exactly the position she occupied prior to August 1. 1928, and during all those years no one, as far as I know, in this house or outside of it ever made any complaint as to the manner in which the provision was administered. There is just a legal technicality upon which the change was made. I will let the resolution stand, Mr. Chairman, and pass along to the next one.


George Halsey Perley: Might I suggest
that the minister endeavour to get as much information as he can as to what articles will be affected by this change?


Charles Avery Dunning: Between now and tomorrow afternoon I will get as much information as is available. I cannot undertake that it will be complete, because to search through the excise laws of all countries would involve a very great deal of work.


George Halsey Perley: Might I suggest
that the resolution stand until Monday if my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) is to be here when it is further discussed. '


Charles Avery Dunning: When there are so many items to be dealt with it is hardly fair to ask that they stand over while hon. members are absent. However, we will let the item stand now, and I will try to meet my hon. friend's convenience to the fullest extent.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I would suggest to the
minister that to-morrow he come prepared to give the house this information:	What class
of importers made the request for this change? Are they confined entirely to the silk industry, or do they include others? What countries will be affected and the amount of trade involved?


John Frederick Johnston: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the numbers have been carefully checked, and there are two typographical errors. After the figure 109 in the fourth line of figures insert the figure 139; this was dropped by the printer. Also, over the page, after the figure 502b insert the figure 502c; this again was dropped by the printer.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will all the items referred to in these different tariff numbers be covered in the new schedule?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In other words, does the
new schedule omit some of the tariff items which originally stood under the headings of these particular tariff items?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, everything is covered. Certain items are before the committee of ways and means because of the fact that it was necessary to change the numbers, and the simplest way to get it before the committee was to wipe out the old numbers and start with the new schedules; but I can assure my hon. friend that everything covered in the items to be wiped out is being dealt with in the new proposals.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: If, for instance, any particular article were imported under No. 10, how are we going to find out under what number in the new schedule that article is being imported?


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will look at the manner in which the tariff changes this year are set out in the booklet,-which I think he holds in his hand-he will find two sets of three columns each, the first three columns being the present tariff proposals, and the second three the old tariff items. The old tariff item numbers are there given and the rates. So he will be able to get any information as to any item by referring to the list. This year I arranged to have the list incorporated in Hansard so that there would be easily available to every hon. member a comparison between the old and the new.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Do I understand that every item stricken out will be found in some place?


Charles Avery Dunning: Every commodity in the previous items is dealt with, yes.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I have before me a letter from a music publishing firm in Toronto-a copy of which was sent to the minister-asking that item 475 be extended to the music printing industry, because at the present time [The Chairman.]
only a very small part of the music used in Canada is printed here. This would encourage the printing of music in this country.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may say that I have the letter before me, but it would help a lot if the discussion could be on the item itself.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Shall the resolution
carry?


Charles Avery Dunning: Carried.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Chairman,
this resolution covers pages and pages of items. If we say the resolution is carried, that will include all the schedule. I presume we shall take the resolution item by item.


Charles Avery Dunning: When I said "carried" I referred merely to that part of the resolution which rescinds the various tariff items there enumerated.


George Halsey Perley: All these schedules are part of resolution 3.


Charles Avery Dunning: So all we have done is to carry the first part, the deleting part of the resolution.


George Halsey Perley: Quite so. Now we start with the schedules.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I think the usual practice i3 to carry each article separately and finally the complete resolution. I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Before the committee rises, may I ask the minister if there is any objection to laying on the table representations made by Canadian silk factories in reference to this change proposed in the second resolution? Are those representations confidential, or may they not be published?


Charles Avery Dunning: Some are, but I know of no reason why such representations as we have should not be tabled; although I may tell my hon. friend there are reams and reams of correspondence about these various tariff items.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am dealing simply with resolution No. 2 as to excise duties or excise taxes.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend desires the correspondence I will try to see that he gets it, so far as it is not confidential.
Progress reported.


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

Private Bills
Friday, May 16, 1930.