1930-05-13

RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski), presented the first report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.
Sir EUGENE FISET moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. THOMPSON (East Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of the Secretary of State to a question passed as an order for return on April 9. This question covered three points, while the return made on April 28 dealt with only one. I would like to have information regarding the other two points.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I will look into this matter and give
my hon. friend a reply tomorrow.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, on May 9 the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) gave what was supposed to be an answer to a question which I had asked regarding the application of the
Canadian Pacific Railway for a broadcasting licence. In his answer the minister did not make clear the position of the government in this matter, and I would like to ask the government if it is their intention to grant this company the broadcasting licence applied for.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I shall have to ask my
hon. friend to allow the minister to answer this question. I will direct his attention to it.
FREIGHT RATE APPEALS On the orders of the day:


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, I received this morning a telegram from Mr. J. E. Armishaw, president of the United Farmers of British Columbia, inquiring if it is the intention of the government to give a favourable decision in the freight rate appeals made by the farmers of that province.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am unable to state
whether that decision will be favourable or unfavourable. I wish I could state definitely when the decision will be given but there is a lot of evidence to be considered and I cannot at the moment make a definite statement.
CIVIL SERVICE COUNCILS On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) has not been in his seat for some days, I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether the order in council recently passed with regard to the establishment of civil service councils means that these councils will be set up in the near future.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister); I believe the order in council makes provision for the meeting together of different civil service organizations with the representatives of the government in order to draft a constitution. Until a constitution is drafted and approved it is impossible to say what will be the official form of the council.



FOREST FIRES IN NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the government regarding relief to be granted to the sufferers in Nova Scotia, particularly in the county of Queens, from the series of forest fires which have occurred there. As I stated yesterday, in the county of Queens
The Budget-Mr. Manion

alone over 150 people have been rendered homeless. The provincial government has made a substantial grant and contributions have been solicited, and I was wondering if the government would be prepared to make a donation. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) promised to bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Upon inquiry I find that
two day ago the Department of National Defence took steps to see that assistance would be given in the form of supplies and men. At the present time the government is making inquiries as to the nature and extent of the losses. I cannot say more than this at the present time.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 12, 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).
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, in the forty minutes at my disposal I do not intend to offer any useless compliments to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in regard to his budget, but I will say this, that in bringing down this budget he has done a service to the Canadian people, because by it he has rung down" the curtain on the last act of the farce which the present government has been presenting before the people of Canada for the past nine years. A farce is usually funny, but in this case it has been somewhat of a tragedy for the Dominion and it is well that the end is near. In the minds of most thinking people everything is over for the government but the election. For nine years the government by its un-Canadian policy has to a serious extent been doing damage to all our industries, the cattle industry, the dairy industry, the fruit and vegetable industry and the manufacturing industry, and by damaging those industries it has driven our workers and wage earners to the United States instead of providing work and wages for the people of Canada.
To prove that fact, all one has to do is to quote the figures of importations from the United States since the present government came into power. If hon. members will look
CMr. Ernst.]
them up they will find that the first year the government was in power we imported from the United States $516,000,000 worth of goods and last year we imported $869,000,000 worth, or almost double the former figure, an increase of nearly $400,000,000, 60 or 70 per cent of which could have been produced in this country had we had a proper Canadian policy. Our attitude throughout those nine years has been that we should have such a policy. This attitude we have put on record by resolutions moved in the house, by amendments moved to the budget, and by our leader in speeches that he has delivered before the Canadian people. Our attitude in short is one of "Canada first," one by which we shall produce in this country all those commodities which we can economically produce, utilizing in the process our own raw materials and bringing them to the finished product here instead of elsewhere, at the same time giving work and wages to the Canadian people instead of to people in foreign countries.
The reply of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) last year was the final summing up of the attitude of the present government when he assumed the position that we must "do nothing to provoke Washington." That was merely the final summing up, because for some years the government had been taking the same attitude. In the last three elections hon. members will find, if they look up the preelection proclamations of the government, that they have been proclaiming a free trade or low tariff policy. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), who spoke yesterday, made that great proclamation of the "death-knell of protection." The Prime Minister not once but dozens of times in his speeches has emphasized the fact that the tariff is a tax on the people and therefore should be reduced. He has said in many speeches that a tariff fosters trusts, combines and mergers. He has bewailed what he called our "brick for brick" tariff policy. He has declared that the Tories try to shut out imports and in his Edmonton speech he said that imports do no harm. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar), the late Minister of Immigration, Mr. Forke, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) are all out-and-out free trade supporters. But no later than this session when we introduced our amendment dealing with the New Zealand order in council, the government repeated its attitude, and its followers, notably the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) and the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn), took the position that the order in council should stand, that it would do no good to change it. The government finally moved a want of confidence motion in them-

The Budget-Mr. Manion
selves and carried it, making this want of confidence in the government almost unanimous throughout Canada.
The Minister of Finance at Regina as late as February 6 last, or about three months ago, emphasized the fact that he was "a low tariff man." He said:
I stand for a tariff as low as possible having regard to the interests of consumers, producers and industry generally.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Some hon. members say " hear, hear." As everybody belongs to one of those three groups and nearly everybody belongs to all three, this means merely having regard to the interests of everybody, but having regard particularly to the interests of the government. That was the real object of the speech.
In 1920 things became bad and a climax was reached by conditions brought upon us by the government. Industry became so depressed and unemployment so rampant that demands came to the government for assistance. Deputations waited upon the Prime Minister and the members of the government asking for relief. The only answer, however, that they got was a petulant statement by the Prime Minister that they were exaggerating conditions, and some hocus-pocus about unemployment insurance which he recanted as soon as he came into the house. When the session began with business depressed and unemployment rampant, there was an opportunity for the government to show some of that great statesmanship which they so modestly admit they possess, but everything that came up in the house was negatived by them.
The hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) introduced a resolution in regard to highways, but the government voted it down. Then the hon. member for Yegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) introduced a motion in regard to technical education, and while it did not come to a vote the government turned it down. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) introduced a motion relating to unemployment insurance, but in the classical words of the Prime Minister, not one five-cent piece would be given. The opportunities were great, but the government was small. It was as useless and helpless as a ship without a rudder or an engine or a pilot or a captain. The members of the cabinet were not those statesmen that they boasted they were. They were merely effigies of statesmen. They claimed prosperity, prosperity, when no prosperity existed in the country. They seem to think if they cried it loud, often and long enough, the hungry would think their stomachs 2419-128
were full and the idle would think their hands were busy. They showed no leadership, no policy, no courage and no Canadianism.
The people began to get tired of the fact that Canada was being treated largely as a hinterland of the United States and of a government which on all policies dealing with the United States, acted like an offshoot of the Washington government. They began to realize what a miserable failure the government had been. In other words, the government had been found out, and the people were getting ready to turn them out, the government themselves and many of their followers admitting defeat in private conversation. They decided they had to do something radical, startling, spectacular, or they would not have a chance at the next election. So they put their heads together and concocted this budget scheme, or budget hoax, caring nothing for past principles which they had espoused in the years gone by, caring nothing for the rather awkward and somewhat humiliating attitude of standing on their heads so far as their tariff policy was concerned, and caring nothing for the indecent recantation of policies for which they had stood in other days.


Mr. HEPBURN:: What did the hon. member stand for in 1911?


Robert James Manion: I was under thirty years of age in 1911 and I have gained a little sense since then, but I do not think my hon. friend has.
So they worked up 'this budget scheme; they took a few of our proposals which they had previously opposed and ridiculed strenuously and hilariously in the house; they took a few countervailing duties to please the agricultural section; they put some protection on iron and steel and then, fearing, apparently, that these three changes might help Canada, they introduced, or at least so they claimed, an extension of the British preference as a sop to the low tariff men of the west. Then making a complex rearrangement of all the items so that ndbody could understand the budget anyway, they added a lot of humbug and hurrah and they offered that as a policy for Canada. There is in medicine an unscientific type of practitioner who when he does not know how to diagnose a case takes ten or a dozen drugs, jumbles them together in a prescription and offers it to the patient, hoping that if one therapeutic bullet does not hit the disease, another may. That is what is sarcastically called a " gunshot " prescription. This budget is a "gunshot " budget, the government hoping that if one political bullet does not bring down what I may call the prey, another bullet may do so.

The Budget-Mr. Manion

They lack the intelligence to work out a scientific Canadian tariff, and they lack the honesty to admit that they lack the intelligence. So they have brought in this budget, and they hope to keep the people from choking and gagging as they swallow it by giving them free tea with which to wash it down.
There are three outstanding features of this budget with which I intend to deal very briefly in the short time at my disposal, those being the iron and steel duties, the British preferential duties, and the countervailing duties. In regard to the iron and steel tariff, we imported last year, largely from the United States, about $340,000,000 of iron and steel products, sixty or seventy per cent of which could be manufactured in Canada under a proper tariff. I am giving the figures of the Minister of Finance himself, who unfortunately is not in his seat. He said with respect to these iron and steel items that he had increased the rates under the general tariff on forty items and reduced the rates on sixty-six items; that under the intermediate tariff he had increased the rates on twenty-four items and reduced them on eighty-six items, and that under the British preferential tariff he had increased the rates in eight cases and decreased them in one hundred and fifty-two cases. Adding them together, he has increased the duties on seventy-two items and decreased the duties on three hundred and four items, or more than four times the number of increases. So if you take it mathematically, and that is about the only way one can take it, you do not find much encouragement in this budget to the iron and steel industry as a whole in this country. How much less iron and steel shall we import from the United States under these new rates, and how much more shall we import from Great Britain? What will be the general effect of these changes? Nobody in the world knows what the general effect will be, and least of all the Minister of Finance himself. In the last forty-eight hours, an outstanding business man, the president of a big business in Canada, stated within the precincts of this building that his company had built a $1,500,000 plant in this country which had not yet been opened, and due to the increases in the British preference made in this budget that plant would never turn a wheel. In this budget, tariffs have been raised and lowered in such a way that nobody can tell for a year or two at least what the general effect will be. That is probably one of the reasons why the Minister of Finance did not make an estimate of his income for the coming year, and a second reason was probably that any accurate estimate would have to show a deficit.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Why talk of
something you know nothing about?


Robert James Manion: I have as much right to
speak on what I know nothing about as this government has to legislate on what it knows nothing about.
The second feature of the budget with which I wish to deal is the countervailing duties. There is a list of sixteen items on which the budget places a fixed duty, and then there is a provision that if the United States or other countries, but it is largely the United States, raise their tariff on any of these items, we shall raise our tariff accordingly, and if they lower their tariff on any of these items we shall lower ours accordingly. As my leader said, we are taking that part of the tariff from Washington. It is another version, I suppose, of the Prime Minister's " Don't provoke Washington" tune.
Let me examine these sixteen items a little more closely. Our imports of these items last year amounted to between nine and fifteen million dollars. I have heard various estimates. I estimate it myself between twelve and thirteen million. But I will take the highest figure that I have heard and assume that we imported fifteen million dollars of goods under these items last year. That is a mere bagatelle compared with our imports last year from various countries. Suppose that this budget keeps out S10 000,000 of those imports, which is very unlikely by the way, and that the increase in the iron and steel duties against the United States will keep out another $40,000,000 worth of iron and steel products, which is still more unlikely, because most people estimate that they will not keep out five per cent of the present importation, which would be only half $40,000,000. Adding those together, we get $50,000,000. Suppose, on the other hand, that the increase in the British preferential duties on agricultural products and iron and steel lets in $40,000,000 worth of those goods from the British Empire. That is only an estimate, but one guess is as good as another, and you can only guess in regard to this budget. That would leave a credit balance of $10,000,000. Suppose you double or treble that amount and say S20,000,-000 or $30,000,000. Compare that with the $900,000,000 worth of imports that we got from the United States last year, or with the $1,270,000,000 that we got from the whole world. Where is the work and wages for the Canadian people in that budget? Where is the increased prosperity for this country in that small change? What the government has done is to give with one hand and take away

The Budget-Mr. Manion
with the other, and what the effect will be nobody in this world knows. They have attempted to mix in the same budget free trade and protection, which are just as mix-able as oil and water. A business friend of mine, after reading this budget, said to me, ''I have carried on under protection in Canada, and I might be able to carry on under free trade, but I cannot carry on under both free trade and protection at the same time." Why did not the government take the courageous Canadian attitude and adopt a made-in-Ottawa policy, placing Canada first under all circumstances, instead of bringing down this weak, puerile imitation of a tariff which, even if it were conscientiously carried out, has little or nothing in it for the workers of this country? With the exception of a few items which this government has taken from us and incorporated as their own, after ridiculing and opposing them in this house, there is no resemblance in this budget to a real Canadian policy such as has always been advocated by us.


Mr. MILLAR:: How did the government
come to get a Conservative budget from Washington?


Robert James Manion: I did not say that they
nave a Conservative budget. I do not consider that they have. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that at the next election these western free trade members, such as my hon. friend, will find it more difficult to get votes than the government will find it difficult to get anything from Washington.
Let me show how differently the United States government has dealt with its tariff since this government came into power in 1921. According to the Commercial Intelligence Journal of April 26 last, a publication of the government here at Ottawa, the United States imported from Canada in the six months of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1921, agricultural products or products manufactured from agricultural commodities to the value of 8130,000,000. Then the United States put up the Fordney tariff and other tariffs. They did not impose countervailing duties. They were not worrying about what we were going to do. They put on straight duties of their own, with the result that for the six months ending March 31 last they imported from us, not $130,000,000 worth of these goods, but $24,000,000 worth, or $106,000,000 less in the short period of six months. They are now increasing their tariffs against us to keep out another $70,000,000 or $75,000,000 worth of agricultural products. That is the American method of legislating for themselves. Let us 2419-1281
be Canadians, just as they are Americans, and let us treat them in the same businesslike way that they treat us.
I wish for a few moments to deal with the British preference. I would not like to pass that up, for in this budget which consists of a great deal of make-believe there is more fakery, sham, and eye-wash in the British preference section than in any other part. What kind of mentality must the Minister of Finance and the government have when they give a long list of 589 free items which they boast of as furthering British preference when, not dozens or scores, but hundreds of these items will not make one bit of difference in the imports that we receive from the rest of the British Empire. To make the whole thing still more obscure the Minister of Finance has rearranged the whole classification in a complex way, changing ad valorem duties to specific and specific to ad valorem, and taking percentage rates and making them dollar rates, and vice versa, to prevent, I suppose, the unravelling of this strange patchwork of economic humbug. What will be the result? No one knows, least of all the Minister of Finance. I can assure this house and our western friends particularly that the results will be far from what the Minister of Finance claims so far as the British preference part of the budget is concerned. There will be little resemblance to the pretense. These British preference reductions were put in for the purpose of appeasing the west and humbugging them into getting their votes. That was the whole purpose, and it is an insult to their intelligence.
What must one think of a government which adds scores, yes hundreds of items to the free list, useless free items, and pretends to western Canada that that is free trade, and then puts a tariff of 42 per cent on furniture, which one of its own cabinet ministers manufactures. To avoid being told that I am mistaken, I hold in my hand the order by which the tariff was raised from 30 to 42 per cent. It was tabled at my request the other day by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). It is signed by R. W. Breadner, Commissioner of Customs, and was issued no doubt upon the order of the minister. This is the order:
Ottawa, April 28, 1930.
Subject; Importations of Furniture
Sir.
All importations of furniture from North Carolina, Virginia and other southern states are to be appraised at an advance of not less than 40 per cent on the invoice value, without dumping duty, pending investigation and further instructions from the department.
Yours truly,
The Budget-Mr. Manion

In other words, they raised the valuation of the furniture 40 per cent, which makes the duty 42 per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: By order in council?


Robert James Manion: Not even by order in
council, but by a circular issued by the Commissioner of Customs on instructions from the Minister of National Revenue.


An hon. MEMBER:: For the benefit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Robert James Manion: I do not say it was for
the benefit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but it has a rather strange appearance 1 must confess.


Mr. EULER:: Does the hon. gentleman say ihat the rate on furniture has been increased?


Robert James Manion: I say the valuation has
been increased 40 per cent, which absolutely increases the duty to 42 per cent.


William Daum Euler: Surely my hon. friend does
not pretend that the rate should not apply on the proper value. That is all we are trying to establish.


Robert James Manion: I do not know what the
minister is trying to establish; but the fact is obvious that the duty on furniture at this moment is 42 per cent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not question that there is something good in this budget; it would be a strange budget that did not contain some good items. The good items in this budget are the proposals which we have made for years past and which the government ridiculed as worthless. What is good in this budget I support. What fosters empire trade I support, so long as it does not damage Canadian industry of any kind; but, sir, when it does damage Canadian industry I shall just as strenuously oppose it. The Canadian working man who loses his job to a British or a West Indian working man is not any happier for having so lost it than he would be had he lost it to a working man in the United States or some other foreign country. Canada is just as much a portion of the British Empire as is Britain or the West Indies- and charity begins at home. Just as a chain is no stronger than its component links; so this empire is only as strong as its component parts. Canada being one of the outstanding parts of this empire, the best way for us to build up the empire is to build up Canada into a prosperous Dominion. When I am forced, as I am in this budget, to choose between my land and its people and some other land and its people, I unhesitatingly align myself with my own country and my own countrymen.

But, sir, to deal with the general question of preference, this Liberal party has been claiming for years that they were the only simon-pure advocates of the British preference. They have been boasting throughout the country that they were the ones who were giving the preference to Great Britain as against all the rest of the world including of course the United States. We on this side have learned never to accept any statements by this government without proper investigation, because they are the greatest bunch of boasters and braggarts that ever got into power in any country.


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I ask the hon. gentleman, who is a very able parliamentarian, not to use the word "bunch" in speaking of any party. I heard it employed yesterday.


Robert James Manion: If I used the word I made a mistake, Mr. Speaker, and I substitute for it the word "group." I say, sir, that they have been claiming since the 1890's that they were the only simon-pure advocates of the British preference. But I made it my business to look into this and I find that their claim is not in accordance with the facts. For example, I find that on the total imports for the year 1928-1929, both free and dutiable, the average duty on United States goods was 14.1 per cent as against 20.6 per cent on United Kingdom goods, or a difference in favour of the United States of almost 50 per cent of the duty on American goods. Where is the preference in that, I should like to ask, for Great Britain? In case some hon. gentlemen may say that the United States imports into Canada include iron, cotton, oil, coal and a lot of other free goods, which is true, I also took the average on dutiable goods only, and I find that on our importations from the United States the average duty was 23.4 per cent, as against 25.9 per cent on dutiable goods from the United Kingdom, or more than 10 per cent higher against the United Kingdom than against the United States. The more you investigate, Mr. Speaker, the worse it becomes for I find also that between 1911 and 1921, when the Conservatives were in power, there was not one year in that decade when the average rate of duty on goods coming from the United Kingdom was so high as during the last two years under this government. I find that the rates during those ten years averaged from 15.3 to 19.6 per cent, except in 1915 when they touched 20 per cent. Comparing those percentages with the average percentage during the last two years of 20.6, I should like to ask this government and its followers, where is the great British preference over the United States

The Budget-Mr. Mnnion
in that form of treatment? What has brought this about? I do not know, nor do I know whether it was done consciously or unconsciously, but I do know that on practically every occasion when this government deals with the United States the Prime Minister seems to have a slant favourable to that country and he drags his followers along behind him. To ensure the accuracy of my figures I checked them up with the report of the Department of Statistics for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929, and it absolutely bears out the facts that I have brought to the attention of the house.
We cannot trust the statements of this government with regard to past preferences to the United Kingdom. Therefore it is very difficult to trust their statements with regard to future British preferences. I would warn my low tariff friends in the west whose opinions have been so flagrantly flouted by this government, in spite of their having kept it in power, that they had better look out or they will be handed another gold brick by this government which for the last nine years has bamboozled not only the west but the whole Dominion. I am sorry that I have not much more time to investigate the budget, because the more it is investigated the more sham, deceit, and humbug you find it contains. This budget is a queer mixture of free trade and protection, of British preference and American preference, of tariff stability and tariff imbecility, and it is offered to the people of this country by the Minister of Finance. He is smiling at it. I do not blame him.


Mr. DUNNING:: I am smiling at you.


Robert James Manion: It is offered to the people of this country by the Minister of Finance as a cure-all for the different ills that this government has brought upon the people of Canada. This budget is offered to the country by a group whose whole tariff history is a record of deception, trickery and vote-chasing; by a group whose endeavour at this moment is not to help the people of Canada, but to catch their votes; by a group who next year would just as unhesitatingly throw over the free trade or the protectionist side of this budget, as they have in this session thrown over all the principles and policies which they espoused in the past; offered by a group, sir, whose lack of Canadian policy has put Canada in a position from which she will take years to recover.
Now, I might be asked, what is the object of a budget salad of free trade and protection such as this? The object, of course, is political. It is a political shield with two distinct sides, the protectionist side for the east and the free trade side for the west, with no doubt a
strong recommendation whispered to the government supporters not to show the two sides in any one part of Canada during the election. In other words, the object of this budget is to get the votes of both the protectionist and the free trader by deceiving the one and betraying the other. It is no wonder the Minister of Justice the other day at Woodstock made a speech in which he said:
This is not an eastern budget, nor a western budget, nor a farmer's budget, nor a manufacturer's budget, nor a workingman's budget.
Of course it is not, it is a political budget; that is what it is.
The people of Canada are tired, sir, of a government which has shown no leadership or initiative, no consistent policy or principle, no frankness or courage, and no real Cana-dianism. They are tired of a government which has shown by this budget that it is nothing more or less than an " organized hypocrisy." They are tired of a government which after nine years of power has placed this country in a worse condition than it has been in at any time previous to this year. The sooner we are rid of a government which by its policies has taken away the work and wages of the fathers, sons, brothers and husbands of this country, and thinks that it can gain the support of the women voters by a pound of tea, the better for Canada. The sooner we see the end of a government which by this feeble gesture has endeavoured to keep out twenty-five or thirty million dollars' worth of imports from the United States, yet allows the other nearly nine hundred million dollars' worth to pour in, the better for the workers and wage earners of Canada. The sooner the low tariff people in the west who have kept this government in power realize that they have been betrayed, victimized and used as cheap pawns on the chessboard of power, the better for western Canada. What Canada needs, sir, is not a crazy-quilt policy, as outlined in the budget, but a consistent, courageous, Canada-first policy which will build up on the northern half of this continent not only a great, prosperous and progressive Canadian nation, but a worthy portion of the British Empire.
Mr. E.-C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) :	Mr. Speaker, Mr. Solomon Buckley
Harris, a journalist on the staff of the Springfield Republican, remarks in his memoirs that "the art of politics is to obtain results". The history of our own country is proof that, notwithstanding the many changes effected in our political outlook, we have arrived at positive results. In keeping with the times, our governments are aware that they must have re-
The Budget-Mr. St-Pere

course to up-to-date methods, adopt a new "modus operandi" to keep up with the needs of the day, and this with the aim of governing the country for the greatest welfare of the majority.
An arbitrary deed committed years ago, threw' nations into disastrous conflicts. Two plenipotentiaries thrown out of a window was the cause of the thirty years war, and England unsheated the sword against Spain because some Iberians took a fancy to cut off the ears of the captain of a sea trading vessel. Things have changed since then. Countries, to-day, are more sensitive to the attacks launched against their foreign trade than to the affronts which caused great conflicts in the past. Turning to more contemporary times, let us note that one of the causes of the Great War was the promulgation of a tariff on hogs. And what is happening now? Are not the South American republics and Europe leagued together in unanmous protest against the new tariff of the United States.
It is useless, sir to suppose for an instant the withdrawal of Canada from the economic world. It would be idle works to maintain that we could escape from the changes which have taken place everywhere. It would be but vain boasting, to say that our country could prosper, without adapting our economic life to those conditions forced upon us by an almost general confusion of international affairs.
By its resolution of September, 24, 1925, the Council of the League of Nations asserted its conviction "that economic peace will greatly contribute to maintaining the security of nations". The desire of all good Canadians is that this peace may come as soon as possible to promote the healthy state of the economic world and the conditions which would help the expansion of civilization. Any national policy which is narrow in its outlook is detrimental, not only to the nations which endorse it, but also to the others as a whole. The economic conference has further noted, that the after-war experience prove that the prohibition of imports and exports, arbitrary regimes, disguised discriminations which result, sudden changes in customs duties and the high tariffs prevailing in many countries have fatal results on production and trade.
The United States are, at present, passing through a crisis of upward revision of their customs duties. Certain countries have been fretful of this recourse to autarchy by the United States in order to make sure of their economic independence. It is the Argentine Republic, the country of the teachings of Garvo and Calvo, that voices the most serious

threats of tariff retaliation and boycotting of United States products. The New York World on February 24, 1930, published the following articles..
Antagonizing a Neighbour
Offhand it may seem a small matter to most American protectionists that Argentina is seriously disturbed and offended by the impending upward revision of our tariff. The newspaper La Razon is interviewing eminent citizens; many of them are declaring for retaliatory measures; the Rural Society representing 4,000 ranch owners, is calling for a boycott on American goods and the purchase of British imports; and a majority of the Agrarian Federation, composed of small farmers, favours increased duties on our farm machinery, automobiles and household appliances. But what of it? Argentina is a remote, thinly populated and imperfectly developed country, isn't it? The population is still under eleven millions, isn't it? It is all very well to talk of the great markets offered by it and by Canada, another country so seriously disturbed by our tariff plans that the Conservatives are talking of a party campaign for high counter duties. But cannot the 120,000,000 American people shape their own economic policy without bothering to consult these minor nations?
This article shows without further comments, that high protection tariff does not receive unanimous approval in the neighbouring republic.
The United States, contend the partisans of its high tariff, must have recourse to this upward revision of customs duties for the following reasons; the dumping of goods coming from countries having a depreciated currency, the desire to maintain old or recently created industries to a certain level. If such a stand was not taken they could not survive, or protect invested capital. They are masters in their own country, and we have nothing to say against this attitude of our neighbouring legislators.
Canada must conclude, sir, that it is indispensable to its security to develop in an ever increasing way the means to support itself. Without going into the respective merits of the theories of free trade and protection, without going back to ponder over the contentions of Gladstone, Blaine, Mills, Cartwright. Carnegie, Lloyd George, Balfour, Chamberlain, Beaverbrook, Baldwin, Scullin, and all the economists whose works embellish the shelves of the library of parliament, may I state that the budget introduced by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is a conception of our times and for our epoch. Tt contains no threats and its subject matter answers to our present wants.

The Budget-Mr. St-Pere
Two items please the public especially, viz., the British preference and the countervailing duties.
"Hands across the sea," such was the appeal of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he granted the British people preference. He did this because England was the only country where Canadian products were admitted free of duty. The Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King made the following statement at the 1926 Imperial conference:
The same satisfactory position as to total inter-empire trade is indicated by an analysis of trends in Canada. In the past four years, our imports from the British Isles have increased approximately from 117,000,000 dollars to 163.000.000 dollars, and from 15.7 per cent of our total imports to 17.6 per cent. We would wish that British imports formed a larger proportion of our purchases, but in view of increasing competition from other countries, and particularly the advantage which the United States exports derive from close proximity and knowledge of Canadian requirements. it is striking to find the share of British exports on the increase. I think it will be agreed that but for Canada's extension of preference to Great Britain in 1897, the starting point of the present intricate inter-imperial preferential system, and further developments such as the grant in our budget of 1923 of one-tenth additional tariff preference to British goods entering by Canadian ports, the position would be far from as satisfactory as it is to-day. It may further be of interest to note the very high percentage of manufactured goods in these imports from the British Isles, 87 per cent in the last fiscal year, or more than half as great again as in the case of imports from the United States, from which we derive a good deal of our raw materials. In the same four years the rate of duty levied on dutiable imports from Britain declined from 24.8 to 22.1 per cent.
Great Britain was last year our best customer; it has alternated in this position of late years with the United States. Four years ago we exported to Great Britain 300,000,000 dollars' worth of Canadian products; last year, over 500.000,000 dollars. Yet the percentage of our exports taken by Great Britain fell during these years from 40.4 to 39 per cent, a fact which reflects the growing diversity of our export trade and the increasing amounts taken by Continental Europe and Asia.
During the past four years our trade with the other members of the British Commonwealth has shown marked expansion in totals, and a slighter increase in percentage of our whole export and import trade.
This took place in 1926. In 1930, Canada increases this preference on many items. Our country in no way desires to have the artisans of England; it wishes to see them find at home the prosperity and happiness they enjoyed when the vessels of Albion carried the products of the United Kingdom across the seven seas of the world. Sir R. Gillen, once stated that preference was a measure of safeguard
for certain products of the empire. The right hon. Mr. Snowden is not without knowing that our wheat needs an outlet, that the next crop is growing and that, for the Western farmers as well as for the manufacturers, to restrict production always entails smaller revenues. The United States have forged ahead in trade exports, since 1914, but England certainly can regain the lost ground, if she generally responds to the offers which come from various parts of the empire. Without going back to the Corn laws the United Kingdom cannot be satisfied with extending her thanks for the advantages that Canada procures to her exports.
The budget brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance does not go beyond the limits, as a number of manufacturers of our country have entirely approved of it; that is, the items enjoying British preference will help to increase production, to create new wealth, more stable employment and better remuneration for a great number of unemployed that modern machinery has temporarily thrown out of work. Canada wants economic peace. Her representatives at Geneva proclaimed it to the world. Our Finince minister by putting the countervailing duties in the budget, will first have recourse to thit economic expedient as means of negotiation, reserving later their application against those countries which, dealing with us, refuse to abolish certain tariff regulations harmful to our exports. The fundamental notion of this countervailing tariff will not vitiate in an? way the normal course of competition by putting in danger the essential supplies of certain nations as well as the outlets no less indispensable of others. It is to attain the reestablishment and future development of the world activities, to succeed in improving the respective positions during trade negotiations, in eliminating that desire of retaliation against foreign tariff measures which are very injurious, etc., that this countervailing duty was proclaimed. It holds no threats: still less do they imply retaliation measures synonymous to high protection. It is properly speaking, a simple measure of an economic order creating no special privilege.
The Liberal party realizes that disorganization would result from the abolition of a tariff wall. It refuses to believe, like those who complain of "the theft of their exaggerated protection", that it is always more advantageous to decrease the imports than to increase the exports. We must note that if exportation increases, production, the wage3 of workers and the national revenue increase proportionately; if importation decreases,
The Budget-Mr. St-Pere

owing to too high customs duties, the level of the articles increased lowers not only the possibility of exportation but also the consuming capacity of the country. It is to the conquest of new markets that we must turn. We have already done so with success; we must reach higher. Canada is an exporting country. Let us produce rationally and let our industries never be in such a position as to create temporary unemployment, because of our production which must compete with that of the United States on other markets.
A tariff for the people, enacted by a government which realizes that the state is for the people and not the people for the state, such is the policy that the King government proclaims in its budget of 1930.
It is a difficult thing to fashion a tariff capable of satisfying a whole population. The Conservatives demand a tariff which would protect national industries by establishing equilibrium between the cost of production of imports and the products of our domestic industries. The Liberals are in favour of a tariff for revenue by establishing fair competition between domestic productions and imports. If we were to judge by their programs in economic matters, the two parties would seem to have the same object in view, but it is in the practice that the chasm appears. The Conservative tariffs are always higher than those of the Liberals.
For years, there was a question of withdrawing the control of the tariff from the political arena, so as to make it a national question instead of having it decided by local interests. Tariff being so to speak the expression of a fiscal policy, how can it be withdrawn from political control? On the other hand it could never become a science by remaining in the field of politics.
In order to obviate to all this, it was considered best to create a tariff commission, which has already justified its existence. After having heard the requests and objections of a number of industries, farmers and consumers, it sent to the Minister of Finance its report which embodied what Mr. Thomas Walter Page, Chairman of the United States Tariff Commission from 1920 to 1922, qualified as " the only method capable of bringing about certain reforms in the tariff systems." The farmer is not, thank Heaven, this ferocious m^n described by LaBruyere:
" black, livid, sun-tanned individual held down to the soil which he digs and turns up with an invincible stubbornness." If he no more leads that extraordinary hard existence that Massillon, Saint-Simon and Arthur Young

have described under the most gloomy colours, we must admit that he had a right to have his grievances adjusted. Although not favouring him with exceptional advantages at the expense of the consumers, the King government gives him the opportunity of getting more from his land and retaining those who too often forsake it to seek in the mirage of our large cities that happiness to which they aspire but which deserts them most of the time.
The merchant and manufacturer buy in the course of business certain commodities with a view to disposing of them under a more or less modified form. They know pretty well %vhat the cost of production has been and are thus enabled to set a sale price which will ensure a certain margin of profit. Competition among them is regulated by professional skill, technical ability and resources in manufacturing; the vastness or moderation of their desire for riches. Should the profits anticipated fail to materialize, they have as a rule the alternative of storing their products until a better opportunity offers of selling them. When they sell at a sacrifice, it is for considerations well known to them: the desirability of retaining their help or their customers or of paying off a debt. Besides, they are in a position to limit their losses, or to make up for them by increasing their gains in some other lines of their business. In a word they have the upper hand at every turn.
The farmer is in a totally different position, he has no control either over the cost of production or over the sale price. His raw material is a manufactured product in the acquisition of which he is bound to submit to the demands of his_ purveyors. As regards his implements, he is in the same position, while, as regards labour he is met with exigencies as great as those -with which the manufacturer or merchant is confronted. Besides he must put up with atmospheric conditions: a late frost, a sudden storm may imperil the fruits of the labours of the year; the sunny days which hasten the ripening of his crops, may also blight his hopes. When he starts work and goes into expenditure which rapidly increases as time goes on in order to secure a far off result, he is unable to foresee what will be the outcome j he is at a loss to tell what profit he will derive from an uncertain venture. And the extent of his risk is gauged by the despair of that farmer m the "departement de Gers" who having obtained for his cow one-half only of the price expected, hanged himself on reaching home.
It will not be seriously contended that farmers are responsible for the high cost of living. It is a worldwide phenomenon, the causes of which are too evident and well known to dwell upon.
The Count of Paris believed in the formula: "Institutions have corrupted men," but is it not proper to admit some truth in the reverse formula: "Men have corrupted institutions?" Indeed, it was the day after the putting into force of the new seasonal tariff,

The Budget-Mr. St-Pere
that jobbers and profiteers thought it wise to increase the price of commodities still under the duties "ad valorem," contending that this new tariff system was responsible for it. Lies, added to mercantilism which deserve the contempt of all honest people. "Coveant con-sules!" Let those who govern, watch!
The economic tendency of Canada, for the last five years, has tended upwards. Thanks to abundant crops in the Canadian west, the purchasing power of the farming community has greatly increased, and that period of the seven fat cows has given us a series of favourable trade balances which helped us to liquidate successfully the current obligations of Canada abroad. Trade, industry and finance reached new heights in 1929. The volume of industrial production exceeded by more than 14 per cent that of the previous period, during the first nine months of 1929; the volume, as a whole, of business, expressed in dollars and cents, as well as the general level of investment have greatly exceeded the figures mentioned in the schedules submitted by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
As we must admit that events cast their shadows before them, two noxious features intervened during the autumn. The wheat crop showed in 1929 a falling off of 300,000,000 bushels, and the competition of the wheat trusts on the markets of Europe brought on a reaction which was generally felt in all fields of activity and contributed greatly to unemployment. The reaction of the crash on the exchange market equally created an economic uneasiness from which Canada will shortly recover. Our favourable trade balance suffered from the falling off in our exports since last June, following the slowing down of the grain shipments, especially wheat.
It would take too long to give the details of all our statistics, but let us be optimists when realizing that the visible wealth of Canada is $27,000,000,000 and that the total sum of all our economic activities represents $5,500,000,000.
Since the war the outstanding feature in the situation has been the considerable importation of capital from the United States; in 1913 United States capital investments were probably around 650 millions; to-day they approach 3} billions. British investments in Canada have in the meantime slightly declined.
In spite of the large importation of capital from abroad, Canadian capital probably controls at least 60 per cent of the securities of all enterprises located on Canadian soil. Foreign capital investments as a whole are not greatly in excess of 20 per cent of the national wealth.
It must be pointed out in addition that Canadians have large amounts of capital invested abroad. The Bureau of Statistics estimate of
this amount in 1928 was $1,579,074,000 divided as follows:-In Great Britain $131,915,000; in the United States $874,626,000; and in other countries $572,533,000.
Capital investment by other countries in Canada, 1913 and 1929
1913	1929
United	States.	.	$ 650,000.000	$3,400,000,000Great	Britain.	.	2,500,000,000	2,210,000,000Other countries.	.	175,000,000	250,000,000$3,325,000,000	$5,860,000,000
A young nation like ours cannot dispense with outside help, and if England in return for the preference that we grant her, wishes to show herself practical and grateful, let her invest with us some of her capital to create industries, as she did during the period extending between 1900 and 1912. Our untouched natural resources await a response to this appeal. The industrial development of Canada first rests with the work of her sons, and secondly, England's help.
Our total trade exceeded $2,000,000,000, in 1929. Canada draws its supplies from everywhere and its trade relations extend to all countries. We must bear in mind, that our industries import a large quantity of raw material, a sign of prosperity. Enough as regards to statistics. The forty minutes allotted to me do not allow me to give any more.
The King government will soon be asking the Canadian people for a renewal of its mandate. Its history, since 1921, is that of a return to prosperity, the reduction in the national debt, a considerable expansion in industries and exports, the reduction and even the wiping out of many taxes, the enacting of many social measures, aiming at the prosperity and welfare of all classes and provinces in the Dominion.
A government which has so well managed the affairs of Canada since 1921 cannot possibly lose the confidence of the public; and the wisdom of which it gives proof by not increasing the British preference on textiles will certainly assure it the gratitude of thousands of workmen depending on this industry, in my riding, as well as in many other localities of the province of Quebec. Let the manufacturers respond to this generous act by increasing the wages of those who contribute to the prosperity of those industries. It would be a proof of well placed altruism.
The Liberal party is rational and not swayed by traditions in its undertakings. It avoids mere routine when it is more or less out of touch with the requirements of the time; it puts logic above sentiment, fairnes0 toward?
The Budget-Mr. Stirling

the people above the holding of power, and it prefers experimenting to plodding in the narrow ruts of the past. Liberty, justice, equality, local autonomy and uprightness are ideals from which the Liberal party must never depart. A great American poet wrote that:
" Freedom, from her mountain height, Unfurled her standard to the air."
Let our Canadians never forget that freedom united to progress must ever be found on lofty heights.


Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, there is a feature in regard to the proposals of the government concerning the schedules on fruits and vegetables in which they appear to be departing from the principles they have been supposed to follow all these years; apparently they have grasped at protection and gone crazy. In a great many instances it will be found that they are proposing further protection than that for which the fruit and vegetable growers have asked, and if the Liberal doctrine be true that of necessity an extra duty means a higher price to the consumer, then the consumer will have to pay more for his fruit and vegetables in the future. Certainly he must be careful no't to put the blame for that increase on the producer; he must not say to the producer, " This is what you have been clamouring for all these years. We knew what would happen; the price has risen to us, and you are to blame."
I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that an examination of these schedules will show that the proposals of the government in a considerable number of instances go further than the producer asked to have them go. For years past, in his divisional organizations, the fruit and vegetable grower has been discussing the amounts of duty to which, in his opinion, the specific rates should be raised in order to give him that protection he considers to be his due. These discussions have been carried on in his provincial organizations; they have been taken up by the national organization and presented to the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation ever since its inception, through the medium of the Canadian Horticultural Council. The basis of the producer's plea always has been that we can produce the quality and we are convinced that we can produce a much greater quantity, displacing some of the importations of those commodities from other countries, if we are given reasonable facilities for so doing, but the producer always has had in the back of his mind the position occupied by the con-

sumer. It has not been the wish of the producer to initiate such high rates of duty as of necessity will perturb the consumer, for if the consumer is too severely handled in this matter he will buy less and we shall have a smaller distribution. In the working out of the problems which confront us, both fruit and vegetable growers look for a greater and more perfect distribution through the markets of Canada than we have attained as yet.
In connection with certain highly perishable commodities such as peaches and strawberries the proposition put forward by the producer has been that the specific tariff should be increased. That tariff should be applicable during the period of our production, but before and after certain dates which may be set by the minister the tariff is no intimate concern of the producer. However, examination of these proposed schedules will indicate that in a great number of cases the producer has been given the amount of specific duty for which he asked not only during t'he time of his production but during the whole year, and in addition he has been given something more for which he did not ask. In many cases the specific rate of duty has been raised to the amount asked for by the producer, although not in all cases; this is to be kept on the year round, so that when Canadian production has ceased and there are no Canadian fruits and vegetables on our markets which would tend to stabilize prices, the tariff will increase, the price will rise and the enhanced price very probably will be passed on by the trade to the consumer. Over and above that, however, the producer has been given something further for which he did not ask. The present proposal of the government is that in addition to these specific duties there shall be an ad valorem duty which shall be alternative to the specific rate, and whichever is the higher shall be collected. The ad valorem rate on vegetables is 30 per cent; the rate on fruits is 25 per cent, and the duty which is higher, as between the ad valorem and the specific, will be collected. I think the way that would work out would be as follows: when Canadian production is moving on to the markets in full volume, the price would tend to be low and the specific duty would be higher; when Canadian production is over the price would tend to rise, and it would then come under the ad valorem duty. I am persuaded that the higher price will be passed cn to the consumer. The revenue of Canada will benefit, but the consumer will pay more for his necessities and it is hard to understand how t'he grower will benefit thereby.

The Budget-Mr. Stirling
My main objection to the government's proposal is the fact that once more it has turned a deaf ear to the growers' request for something in the nature of an emergency tariff. Foreign countries with surplus production of certain fruits and vegetables endeavour to keep that production off their own markets because the price, there, would be broken. They look around for some unprotected spot to which they can send their perishable commodities, and in this particular instance Canada is next to such a neighbour. The surplus production of the United States is tipped into our markets at various times. When the glut is coming into the Canadian market the price is so low that the ad valorem rate is not the higher, and the specific rate is insufficient. So far as I know, the grower has never asked that the specific rate shall be raised to such a height as would make the price such as to prohibit the foreigner marketing his products in Canada.
Two winters ago the producers of British Columbia sent a delegation through the western provinces in an endeavour to meet the opposition which they were prone bo believe existed in that part of the country. That delegation met associations of farmers; it met representatives of labour; it met the press; it met the cooperative societies; it met responsible individuals, and it was careful to explain that its mission was not to discuss a general rise in the tariff-that part of the case had already been submitted in detail bo the tariff advisory board-it was there to meet supposed opponents and make sure that the view of the producer was correctly explained. The members of the delegation returned home to British Columbia with renewed hope because of the kindly feelings which had been expressed toward their view.
As I said before, the government has once more refrained from doing anything which will be of the slightest assistance to the producer in taking care of the glut in importations. At the present time nothing stands between the producers and these importations except what one might call the toy clause of the Liberal government. That clause was inserted in the Customs Act in 1922 and requires the passing of an order in council bo make it operative, which order in council this government has never passed. An order in council was passed in 1926, which this government proceeded to use when they returned to power. Subsequent orders in council were passed which provided some effective protection, but when the fanatical free trade supporters of the government blew up all those orders in council were rescinded. We are now in the position in which
we were before. It seems to me to be quite unreasonable that we should be expected to rely on that impotent clause of the Liberal government, precious to them because it replaces one which they repealed and which had been put into effect by their predecessors. That previous clause took some cognizance of the costs of production. However, the Liberal government said: to consider the costs of production is unworkable, and they ignored the fact that that clause had been in operation with satisfactory results. The Liberal government has not in the past shown any desire to pass the necessary orders in council, and it seems to think that recantations at this late date will appeal to the fruit growers.
One of the reasons for repealing the orders in council in 1928, was a letter Written by the Department of Justice. This letter stated as an opinion, but not as a ruling, that it was improper to use the dumping clause on articles carrying a specific tariff. A few days ago a despatch from Ottawa appeared on the front page of the Vancouver Daily Province which stated that now that the government had imposed an ad valorem duty on fruit it would be possible to use the dumping clause in the future for the assistance of the apple grower. I cannot imagine the apple grower believing that this government would pass an order in council to help him in view of the way it has flouted him all these past years. When the glut importation of apples is entering Canada, the price is low and the ad valorem duty is not the higher. The specific duty is insufficient, but, it is not to apply because of the letter from the Department of Justice saying that it is improper to impose the dumping clause in relation to articles carrying a specific tariff.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: That is not what it said.


Grote Stirling: Does the government
really think that the fruit and vegetable grower is such an arrant ass as to believe in these late protestations of assistance? The thought passing through the mind of the fruit and vegetable grower is quite different; it is similar to that couplet written many years ago:
The devil was sick, the devil a monk would be,
The devil was well, the devil a monk was he.
These gluts to which I have been referring do not occur every year, nor in succeeding years do they occur in regard to the same fruit or vegetable nor even in the same variety
The Budget-Mr. Stirling

of any fruit or vegetable. Last year, so far as I am aware, there was no glut trouble with regard to apples, but there certainly was with regard to prunes. Let me read two or three short extracts from our own inspectors in some of the markets in Canada. This is from Edmonton:
Very few British Columbia prunes have come into the city of Edmonton, although considerable quantities have been handled in country cars. The city and the adjacent towns were supplied with Washington prunes that were bought at 30 cents or 35 cents and were laid in here at from 4 cents to 10 cents per package less than British Columbia stuff could be. In the single week from September 9 to 14 there were 13 cars of the Washington prunes sold in Edmonton; and the total for the season must be over 30 cars. The British Columbia prunes moved in country cai*s partly because the rates direct to country points made the delivered cost lower than on American prunes reshipped from the warehouses here and partly because they were needed in the country cars to make weight and provide a reasonable assortment.
J. M. Cassels.
This is another one from Regina:
The British Columbia Italian prunes were subject to the same competition as in the past years, namely the early importations of Washington prunes. The Washington prune deal this year started off at very low prices and the market declined to even lower levels before the deal was over. The same conditions existed in respect to Washington prunes that have been noted in past seasons. The fruit was packed very immature and on arrival at destination did not have the proper sugar content to give it a good flavour, or to make it desirable fruit for canning purposes that the Italian prune is when properly matured. The consumers purchased the Washington prunes in large quantities on account of the very cheap price. I did all that I could to discourage the imported prune deal, stating that this would not be satisfactory on account of the fruit being immature, but cannot say that I had any measure of success.
J. W. Dilworth.
This is from Vancouver:
We have not received a single car of prunes this season; up to date we have received around 20 cars of Yakima prunes which has killed the sale of plums. Some retail stores selling as low as 60 cents a box.
N. E. Peters.
So prunes were entering Canada from the United States at, say thirty-three cents for a twenty-two pound box. The duty that was being levied was nine cents. Nine added to thirty-three makes forty-two and prunes cannot be produced at forty-two cents a box. The present proposals would raise the duty byseven and a half cents. Seven and a half added to forty-two is forty-nine and a half. Prunes cannot be produced, packed and ship-

ped at forty-nine and a half cents a box. In 1926, when the minister had the right to set fair market values, the figure which he set was sixty-six cents a box, and I think the opinion of the producer, the trade and perhaps the consumer, would confirm the fact that sixty-six cents a box was by no means too high a figure.
What the grower has asked for has been a measure of assistance which shall be there on the shelf, ready for use, when an emergency occurs, and which will at least tend to raise that very low price to the figure which he considers is a fair market price in Canada. Prunes we grow in abundance. We certainly could grow a sufficiency to take care of the fresh prune requirements of Canada and we could go a long way towards producing sufficient prunes to take care of the dried prunes needed in Canada. Only the other day I received some dried prunes, processed by the Dominion government at Summerland. They were excellent; I have never eaten a better imported prune. What is the use of one department of government carrying on these experiments helpful to the fruit grower, if another department of government by its inaction makes it well nigh impossible for the fruit grower to continue to exist?
On apples the grower has not asked for any increased duty. He has asked for assistance in times of glut. The specific rate proposed by the government leaves that amount as it was before, namely, thirty cents a box, and merely clarifies the wording. Alternate to that is an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent on the value of the importation. When Canadian production is over or all but over, the price certainly tends to rise. The ad valorem duty will come into effect. It is extremely probable that the trade will pass the extra duty on to the consumer. The consumer will pay more for his apples and for the life of me I cannot see in that case just how the producer is going to benefit. In times of glut neither of these two methods of handling the duty on apples will be of assistance. In times of glut, apples may come into Canada at sixty cents a box and the ad valorem rate will then certainly not be the higher. The specific rate of thirty cents a box will be insufficient so far as the producer is concerned.
I cannot go through every item in these schedules, because that would be wearisome and the time would not be sufficient, but I desire to refer to one or two, taking them more or less at random. Let us look at the case of grapes. Production of grapes in the

The Budget-Mr. Stirling
Niagara peninsula produced the wineries. British Columiba is producing more and more grapes for table use and also for the supply of wineries. Of recent weeks, perhaps running into months, California has increasingly been importing into Canada crushed grapes, grape-juice, and more deadly from our point of view still, concentrated grapejuice. The grape grower considered that with that competition it would indeed be difficult for him to survive. He therefore came to the tariff board and put forward his proposals. He asked that crushed grapes might be included in the item "grapes," but he did not ask for any increased tariff on that item. He asked further that grapejuice might come under a tariff of twenty-five cents a gallon and that the density of that juice might be subjected to the Boehm test. The government has not acceded to any of his requests.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend say that the latter request was made before the tariff board?


Grote Stirling: That is my information. This concentrated grapejuice comes in at a four to one strength. A given gallon at an increased price, will, when water is added, produce four gallons of grapejuice.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend say that this was developed before the tariff board?


Grote Stirling: That is my understanding. I am subject to correction. All that the government has done with regard to that tariff is that grapes are to be allowed to come in free in future under the British preference; the intermediate tariff has been reduced; the general tariff remains where it was, and the duty on crushed grapes and grapejuice has not been altered so that they will continue to come in under the old item. The minister shakes his head. As I understand it, after giving the matter some thought, that is the situation.
Canada also produces peaches. Peaches are grown in Ontario and British Columbia. A good many go to the canneries. The peach grower, realizing that the old tariff of one cent a pound was quite insufficient for his purpose, considered the matter first in his district organizations, then in his national organization, and coming with a united front before the Tariff Advisory Board, suggested that that one cent be raised to H cents a pound. He suggested that figure because in his opinion it was the minimum amount of duty under which he could survive, and that H cent a pound duty which he suggested was
to apply during the ten weeks of his production. The proposal of the government is that the one cent a pound duty shall be raised to 1-J cents and that it shall apply all the year round, and that alternate to it there shall be a 25 per cent ad valorem duty; so that when Canadian production is drooping and there is no Canadian produce to temper the price, the price tends to rise, with the result that I have indicated previously.
In July of last year there entered Canada from the United States all but 1,500,000 pounds of peaches. Many of the peaches find their way to the canneries, and even there they find sorrow because the Canadian canneries are chock-a-block with canned peaches largely brought about by an immense increase in the importations of canned peaches from Australia. That is a fact which undoubtedly will be taken into consideration by the canners when they come to make up their figures both as to price and pack for the canned peaches of 1930.
Let me put on record the importations of canned peaches from Australia in the last few fiscal years. Canned peaches, which enter Canada under a tariff of half a cent a pound came into this country in 1926 from Australia to the amount of 166 pounds, a mere nothing. In 1927, the importation was rather over half a million pounds; in 1928. a little over 200.000 pounds; in 1929, over 1,000,000 pounds, and in 1930, over 2,500,000 pounds. That amount of peaches entered Canada under a tariff of half a cent a pound under the Australian trade agreement-one instance which I remember we on this side of the house pointed out to the government in the debate in 1925 on the Australian trade agreement, when the gov ernment were so certain that the items contained in that treaty would not bear heavily on the farmer and when we pointed out to them, and we have been proved correct, that every benefit that Canada receives under the trade agreement is paid for by the Canadian agriculturist.
Onions may be cited as yet another case. The old tariff on onions was 30 per cent ad valorem, or half a cent a pound with the price at $35 a ton. The grower came to the tariff board and asked for a specific rate of three-quarters of a cent a pound to apply during the period of his production and the subsequent period during which economic storage is feasible. The government has put-forward the proposition of three-quarters of a cent a pound all the year round, and as an alternative 30 per cent ad valorem, and whichever is the higher will be collected.
The Budget-Mr. Stirling

It is interesting to note that the United States tariff against our onions is 2 cents a pound, and now they propose to raise it to 24 cents a pound. Our tariff against their onions, as I have just stated, is three-quarters of a cent a pound. The grower is being continually advised by officials in the department and by the government to do more in the way of storing his produce rather than rush it on to an unready market in its glut-to be in the position to feed the market as the market requires the goods. In the city of New Westminster recently there was built a cold storage plant, probably the last word in cold storage plants. It was largely assisted by a Dominion government grant and you may be sure, Mr. Speaker, that in their relations with the producer the government has lost no opportunity of instancing this as one more evidence of its intense desire to do everything it can for the producer-not of course in their unregenerate days by doing anything with the tariff, but rather by cold storage. In December last the associated growers of British Columbia placed twenty-seven carloads of Okanagan onions in that cold storage building, onions excellent in quality, in prime condition to serve the spring market. They had incurred storage costs, which are by no means light. They were held for the very reasonable figure of $40 a ton f.o.b. Around the first of April there was unloaded at the coast 130 tons of New Zealand onions, which entered Canada free under that order in council which the government flipped across the ocean to New Zealand five days after the Woodstock speech, receiving nothing in exchange therefor. What is the good of advising us to store our onions if we are to be met by unfair competition, as we think it, even from the dominions? Following that 130 tons, at a later date came another 50 tons, and we have to market our onions, which have incurred cold storage costs, in competition with onions entering this country free. Australia has a tariff against our onions of $40 a ton. New Zealand's tariff is considerably less than that. But our doors are open, and the government now, with a magnificent gesture, opens the door to onions from the British possessions, which in future may come in free.
In passing, let us notice cauliflower and celery. Cauliflower is not a commodity which lends itself readily to storage. Celery can be stored, and is stored to a certain extent. The grower asked for a specific duty of 2 cents a pound on these two vegetables. That is the amount which he has been given. But he asked for it during the time of his production and during the time of economic 
storage. The duty is to be there all the year round, and it is to be subject to an alternate ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, and both these vegetables, so far as they can, may come in from British possessions free.
Lettuce arrives in boxes. If it arrives in prime condition those boxes contain ice in between the layers of heads. The producer asked for a specific duty of 2 cents a pound for a certain period. He has been given it all the year round with an alternate 30 per cent ad valorem duty, but the producer never for a moment imagined that the ten or twenty pounds of ice contained in that box would also be subject to 2 cents a pound duty. The minister again shakes his head. My evidence is pretty strong on that point, and if the minister will examine it he will find that that is what has been happening since t'he second of May.


Charles Avery Dunning: My advice is to the contrary, but if my hon. friend is correct I can assure him that that will have to be fixed.


Mr. BENNETT:: Good. The fixing process has begun.


Grote Stirling: Now, will the minister go one step further and fix the emergency tariff? There is another item with regard to strawberries. The grower asked that the rate on strawberries be raised from 2 cents to 3 cents a pound during the eight weeks of his production. The rate has been raised to 3 cents a pound; it is to be in effect all the year round with an alternative 25 per cent ad valorem. The grower fully expected that, as in the past, the thin baskets, the immediate container of the strawberries within the box, would be included in weight for duty. So they are. But he never imagined that the wooden box outside the baskets should also be subject to 3 cents a pound. Those boxes weigh 11 pounds. The trade having to pay 33 cents per box on strawberries for the pleasure of passing that rate on to the consumer, the consumer, when he realizes these little jokers in the budget, must in fairness to the producer not lay the blame on him.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: This was to be an "orderly" tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps some of the
lumbermen over there will have something to say about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The lumber comes from the United States.


Grote Stirling: These illustrations I use to make my point that the government in its latter day has set aside its free trade principles

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
and in accepting protection has gone crazy. When these results are known and are resented, the consumer, the press and the public of Canada must not in fairness to the producer attempt to put the blame on him.
When a bricklayer's labourer lays to his hand a trowel and starts to build a wall, he slobbers the mortar over himself, over the wall and over the passers-by. His job has not been to use a trowel, but to fetch and carry bricks. Sometimes he drops a brick, just as this government does. The Prime Minister dropped a brick when he made his "five-cent" speech.


Robert James Manion: It lit on his head.


Grote Stirling: He dropped another brick just two years ago when in addressing a tense and anxious collection of farmers who crowded into the railway committee room he based his argument in reply on what was an absolute misstatement of fact. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not asserting that the right hon. gentleman rose to his feet with the deliberate intention to say what was not true. Rather do I believe that that galloping tongue of his ran away with him. Although his attention was drawn to the fact in the subsequent debate which ensued in this house, so far as my knowledge goes he has not corrected it, he has not withdrawn it, he has not substantiated it, and I am quite sure he has not apologized for having made it. But he based his case on it. Those who listened to the Prime Minister's reply to the grievances which the farmers laid before the government were but the ears of a far greater multitude scattered throughout Canada, and that incident, I can assure this house, has neither been forgotten nor forgiven. Like the bricklayer's labourer, this government has in its latter end taken into its hand a new tool-a tool which in the past it has condemned as useless, pernicious, provocative, a tool that it is unaccustomed to use, and the first piece of work that it has turned out with it is this amateur budget, this piebald suggestion. Throughout Canada during the campaign and on election day the people will be turning over a thought in their minds, "Can we trust this government?"


Robert James Manion: No.


Grote Stirling: So far as the fruit and vegetable grower is concerned, he has already answered that question, "No, I cannot." For years past the government and their supporters have been vaunting their principles and deriding ours; they have been misconstruing our words and taunting us and disbelieving what we said in relation to this matter; they have put forward their own principle as something which is just and upright and on which a great Canada can be built; they have derided ours as a snare and a delusion. Now, when their tide is ebbing, when power is slipping from them they have grasped at this elusive protection, they have attempted to make use of it, and they have produced a fiscal jumble which will yet be their undoing; and if they blow up in this house without passing the budget, they will go into the campaign with the horrid thing tied to their tail; but if with their disconcerted majority they put it through they will have to push it before them in every riding throughout the Dominion. I have a strong impression, Mr. Speaker, that were a tense silence at this moment attainable, one's ears could catch a sort of gentle rushing sound as of a multitude in motion-a sound of the swing of the pendulum.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the criticisms we have heard this afternoon of the budget brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), the favourable impression made by him on the first day of this month has not been dissipated during the days that have passed. In fact, the impression that it is a good budget has been confirmed from day to day. W e have heard this budget analyzed by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). The country has had an opportunity of reading the analyses made by the two first-named hon. gentlemen, and still we find that the papers throughout Canada are endorsing the budget.
After the budget speech was made by the Minister of Finance, that good old, outspoken, Tory paper of the city of Toronto, the mouthpiece of the Conservative party throughout the Dominion. The Mail and Empire, had this to say:
The Dunning budget does not vary from the tvpe with which the King government has made the country familiar. It is centred, as were its predecessors of Mr. Fielding's and Mr. Robb's framing, on the avowed object of cheapening production.
Another item from the same editorial:
Though the government is worrying about its future it shows little sign of repentance. It still leans to the free trade principle for which, almost in its purity, Mr. King and his party declared in the convention of August, 1919.
That same paper does not applaud the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, but those are statements which were contained in the editorial. A large portion of the press ce Danada has been favourable to
The Budget-Mr. Bothwell

us and the Minister of Finance has been congratulated from one end of Canada to the other on the step he has taken in the development of the British preference and in the furtherance of unity among the different parts of the empire. When General Smuts visited Canada in the early part of this year he referred to the fact that the past ten years have been spent in elaborating the status of the individual parts of the empire, in developing the freedom of the dominions through their respective constitutions, and in bringing about their recognition as equals in the empire and in the world. His appeal was for unity in imperial relations and he expressed the hope that the next decade might be devoted to giving reality to that unity. He referred to the fact that Canada had taken the lead in the development of dominion status and appealed to Canada once more to take the lead in the new program. Canada has now taken the lead. She began to do so in 1897, and she has taken a further step at this time with the intention of further moulding the empire.
Hon. members on the opposite side of the house have frequently said during the progress of this debate that there are many items in the budget brought down which will not benefit Canada, and that there will be given in reality no additional preference to British products. That is quite true and the Minister of Finance, when delivering his budget address, referred to them in these words:
There have existed in our tariff, for years, many items carrying rates of duty in the British preferential column, but relating to commodities in which none of the various British countries has been an effective trader.
Hon. members of the opposition seem to take great delight in referring to the item of hay. In listening to the addresses of those hon. gentlemen I have been reminded of the fact that a drowning man grasps at a straw; apparently that is what hon. members are doing in this particular case when they refer to the items of hay and straw in the tariff schedule. I wonder if it is more absurd to have hay and straw come in free of duty from England than it is to have those commodities set out in our tariff as bearing a duty of 75 cents a ton.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the point.


Charles Edward Bothwell: It is quite true that
we never expect to import hay and straw from Great Britain or any other part of the British Empire, and there is no reason for having a tariff of 75 cents a ton.
In connection with the budget and the tariff schedules in particular, I think the min-
ister is to be congratulated on the fact that the changes made by him have been made after an exhaustive study by the Tariff Advisory Board. The Financial Post in its issue of May 8 takes the opportunity to congratulate the minister, in the following words:
Possibly the most significant feature of the tariff changes is the indication it gives that Mr. Dunning will rely more largely than his predecessor upon the advice of the Tariff Advisory Board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Mr. Robb appointed the tariff board but paid little attention to it, leaving the impression that it existed _ chiefly as a buffer between himself and claimants for tariff changes.
I might mention that the tariff board was only in existence a short time, and many of the items which came before it for investigation were never disposed of during the lifetime of our late lamented minister.
But the Tariff Advisory Board is no pigeonhole for Mr. Dunning. From the changes announced one can see that many eases brought before the board have received careful consideration. The importance of this to Canadian business cannot be exaggerated.
No one who followed the sittings of the Tariff Advisory Board will deny the fact that there has been exhaustive investigation by that board. Any person who was interested in the work of the board and who had an interest in any application before the board was entitled to appear there and to be heard, and the board gave consideration to representations made before it. No person will deny that the Tariff Advisory Board has been a great addition to the departmental features of our government. Many hon. members opposite have for the past few years been concerned very much with the operations of the Tariff Advisory Board and particularly with the work of the Consumers League. Questions have been asked in this house and they have been answered; yet it does not appear from the questions which are asked that hon. members opposite have taken the opportunity to find out what the Consumers' League stands for. When the Tariff Advisory Board was first formed it was the belief of many people throughout Canada that there was the possibility of highly organized associations, such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, appearing before that board and presenting only their side of the case. The facts in connection with various applications which might be made by such associations would be peculiarly within the knowledge only of the firms represented. The idea behind the formation of the Consumers' League was to have

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
someone present to cross-examine the witnesses who were applying for increases in tariff, and possibly to cross-examine those who were applying for decreases. The Consumers' League was not formed as a free trade organization; nothing in its articles of incorporation would indicate that. For the benefit of members of this house I wish to place on Hansard the objects for which it was formed:
1.	To consider and discuss all applications made to the board on tariff, taxation and other related matters, otherwise known as the Tariff Advisory Board, and to oppose and resist any applications which may seem calculated to so change the tariff laws that the public generally will be detrimentally affected.
2.	To procure information concerning tariffs and the effect of same on industries concerned, and the public generally, and for such purpose, and in order to lay such information before the Tariff Advisory Board, to maintain representation before such board at all its sittings.
3.	To consider, originate and submit applications to the said Tariff Advisory Board for changes and adjustments in the tariff laws, vhere such changes or adjustments are deemed to be in the public interest.
Representatives before the Tariff Advisory Board appearing in behalf of the Consumers' League have admitted that there should be increases in tariff in some particular cases, because it was necessary to grant such increases in order to equalize the items with the other tariff schedules. When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) took occasion to analyse the budget he referred to articles written by R. J. Deachman, the representative of the Consumers' League before the tariff board. He took delight in referring to the Liberal government as walking up to the penitent bench, but there are certain words in the same article which he did not stress. They are:
Minor upward changes may take place. In trying to adjust a tariff downward it would be remarkable if there should not happen to be odd items which called for the reverse process. The general trend of the budget, however, will he downward, not upward.
And again:
There may be items in a Liberal budget to the cold eye of the observer which may have a Tory shade. Possibly the reverse might happen in a Conservative budget.
The article goes on to say:
The Conservatives accept the idea of increased preference to Great Britain. They would apply it exactly as Australia has applied it. That is, they would raise the tariff against the United States, against Europe and even against Great Britain. The idea would be to make a wall over which Great Britain could not climb, and then erect one over which the rest of the world could not see. All this, remember, in a spirit of devotion to the manufacturers of Canada.
Behind that wall our manufacturers, in a large measure controlled by American capital, would exploit the Canadian. The extent of this exploitation would be limited only by the capacity to bear.
I want to say at this time, Mr. Speaker, that the articles written either on behalf of the Consumers' League or by Mr. Deachman personally are not the main object of the organization, which is to bring out facts upon which a reasonable and sensible kind of tariff can be imposed. We realize that it is very difficult for the tariff board to get at all the facts, and we know the same difficulties exist in other parts of the empire.
The opposition in this house seem to have only one panacea for all ills; that is, increased tariffs. Australia tried that policy and the result has been that Australia is not prosperous; debts are increasing and trade has declined. To-day Australia is in the worst financial position of any member of the British commonwealth of Nations. The government of Australia, realizing where they were drifting, in 1927 appointed a commission of economists to report on the tariff situation there, and that report is well worth reading. One of their conclusions is:
The interests of the government itself are apt to tempt its members and supporters to acquiesce in some dubious extensions of protection because of the revenues gained incidentally .... Each industry should be required to show cause from time to time for the protection it enjoys, and should establish beyond question the fact that it is not receiving a greater subsidy than it needs. Every other means of promoting new industries should be exhausted before recourse is made to the tariff. The present costs of protection are dangerously high.
They say further:
The tariff has increased the proportion of customs to total taxation beyond the limits economically desirable. As the tariff grows, its cost6 overtake its benefits. It has stimulated the demand-never latent in Australia- for government assistance of all kinds. Further increase may threaten the standard of living. Therefore, no extension of the tariff should be made without the most rigorous scrutiny of the industries concerned and the costs involved.
With regard to wages and protection it points out that high labour costs may be due to bad organization as much as to high rates, but the only standard of living that a tariff can protect is one which the resources of the country can provide. Again and again the report urges that full information of costs and profits should be available to the board.
Our situation in Canada is much the same as that in Australia. As I said a moment ago, it is difficult to get all the facts before the tariff board. If manufacturers in Canada, who

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell

are now enjoying protection at the expense of the rest of the people, were compelled to carry out the recommendations of that Australian commission, we might have a different story to tell; that is, each industry should be required from time to time to show cause for the protection it enjoys and to establish beyond question the fact that it is not receiving a greater subsidy than it needs.
Coming again to some features of the budget and particularly with regard to the extension of the British preference. As I said a moment ago this feature of the budget has apparently been appreciated throughout Canada from coast to coast. The history of the Liberal party in Canada has been one of continued advance in the exchange of trade with other parts of the empire, and it only took the situation in connection with our grain crop last year to bring home to us the fact that we need to find markets other than those of Canada, and that we need to cooperate with our best customers and to deal with other parts of the empire. The president of the wheat pool applauded the budget in these words:
The Saskatchewan wheat pool organization has been on record for some time as being in favour of any steps which would result in a larger interchange of products between the United Kingdom and Canada, and, naturally, the increase in the British preference would appear to be the most effective means of giving promise of development in that direction. The United Kingdom is the biggest single market we have for our western wheat, and if the increase. in the British preference will result in a larger amount of buying of British goods it should be in the interests of both countries.
We also have the following words of Mr. M. J. Coldw'ell, a member of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Political Association:
From a cursory glance at the budget, the downward revision of the tariff rates is a move in the right direction.
Then we have also the Ottawa Journal, apparently the official organ of the party in the Capital:
While the budget in the main must be necessarily controversial, one feature of it, the Journal believes, will receive pretty general commendation. It is that feature which removes the duties from fruits and vegetables imported from the British West Indies. This is not merely something of promise for the Canadian consumer. It is a step, a very substantial one, in the direction of something that has been supported in past years by all parties, namely, the encouragement of mutual trade between Canadians and the people of the West Indies.
And again:
What is now done, we believe, will tend greatly to further increase trade between the two countries, and. incidentally, heighten the chances of success for the recently inaugurated steamship service of the Canadian National Railways.
We also find these significant words in the Ottawa Journal of this afternoon:
Trade of U.S. Hit Hard Blow by New Tariff American Official in Ottawa Send Report on Budget
Will Cut Trade About $225,000,000
Canada's new tariff will affect American trade with the Dominion "adversely in most instances" to the amount of $225,000,000, it is estimated in an analysis of the Dunning budget from the United States point of view, which has been forwarded to Washington by Lynn W. Meekins, commercial attache, and A. H. Thiemann, assistant trade commissioner of the United States in Ottawa.
In connection with the fruit and vegetable schedules, dealt with at some length by the hon. member for Yale, I want to correct some misstatements which have been made in the press during the last few days. A despatch appearing in the Toronto Star of May 9, 1930, has this to say:
Raise In Vegetable Prices Has Come with New Tariff.
The article continues to quote the prices of different commodities as of May 1 and as of May 9, as follows:
Retail Price May 9 10 cents bunch 15 cents head 30 cents dozen 15 cents each 30 cents pound 30 cents head 25 cents-30 cents quart 20-25 cents bunch 10 cents bunch 10 cents bunch 30 cents dozen
Commodity
Carrots	
Head Lettuce.. ..
Bananas	
Grapefruit	
Tomatoes	
Cauliflower	
String beans	
Celery	
Beets	
Asparagus.. ..	..	.
Spanish oranges.. ..
Retail Price May 1
3 bunches 25 cents 10 cents head 25 cents dozen 10 cents each 20 cents pound 25 cents head 15 cents-20 cents quart 15 cents bunch 3 bunches 25 cents 3 bunches 25 cents 25 cents dozen
In looking over these items and Comparing Spanish oranges have not been changed in them with the tariff schedules we find'that the any way, but apparently someone took ad-rates on bananas, grapefruit, string beans and vantage of the fact that there was a new

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
budget in order to raise the prices to the consumer. In connection with cabbages, on which there is a specific duty of one cent per pound, the increase in price would amount to about two-fifths of a cent a bunch or roughly two cents on three bunches, but the *rice has been raised five cents. On cauliflower it would mean an increase of a little less than 3 cents and they have raised it 10 cents; on celery it would mean an increase of | of a cent per bunch, and they have raised it 5 to 10 cents; on tomatoes the same ad valorem duty is in effect, and there is absolutely no change; on spinach there is an increase of i of a cent per pound, and on that particular date, May 10, the price of spinach was 50 cents, whereas on the day before it was $1.25; on head lettuce it meant an increase of f of a cent per head, and they increased the price 5 cents, and on asparagus the price was increased from 3 bunches for 25 cents to 10 cents a bunch. The latter is approximate because I was not able to obtain an exact quotation on asparagus.


Mr. SPENCE:: What is the hon. gentleman quoting from; what newspaper did he get that information from?


An hon. MEMBER:: None of your business.


James Houston Spence: There is not a word of
truth in the whole thing.


Charles Edward Bothwell: This is obtained from the Toronto Daily Star.


James Houston Spence: I just thought of the Star.


James Dew Chaplin: Good night!


James Houston Spence: There is not a word of truth in the whole thing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Order.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Those are the facts.
There is other evidence in addition to that offered by the Toronto Star. The hon. member will have an opportunity of hearing witnesses at any time he desires, because they are here in the house. Those witnesses have made inquiries as to the increased prices asked, and have also figured out the difference in prices.


James Houston Spence: There is not a word of
truth in the whole statement.


Charles Edward Bothwell: In figuring out the"
changes, we have taken into consideration the changes made in the tariff. Besides the quotation I have used, there are other facts which can be presented to show that these increases were suggested by the trade.
2419-129J


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Did I understand the
hon. gentleman to say that there was no change in the tariff schedule on tomatoes?


Charles Edward Bothwell: No, I said there was no change on the 10th of this month. On that day tomatoes were quoted under the ad valorem rate, and there has been no change made in that rate.


Milton Neil Campbell: The tariff provides that the rate shall not be less than 2 cents a pound; that is a large increase over the old tariff.


Charles Edward Bothwell: On the 10th day of this month the specific duty on tomatoes was 2 cents per pound, and the shipping value of a case of tomatoes is $3. A case weighs 40 pounds, and the specific duty would be SO cents while the ad valorem duty would be 90 cents. The ad valorem rate is 10 cents higher than the specific rate.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does that rate include crates?


Charles Edward Bothwell: That rate includes
crates. The specific rate may be too high in some instances, but I have no doubt that we will have an opportunity of discussing that matter when the resolutions are brought before the house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I am quite sure that if the necessary facts are presented to show that these specific duties are too high, changes will be made.
In discussing the countervailing duties, I intend to deal with only one item. I was very much surprised to find that last year the province of Ontario imported from the United States 1,430,413 bushels of wheat, and 3,396,248 bushels of oats. There, is a considerable surplus of wheat in western Canada and no difficulty would be encountered in supplying the markets of Ontario, but apparently some time during the past year they were able to purchase American wheat plus the duty at a favourable price over the cost of western wheat. I do not know why they were purchasing in the United States.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Because they were loyal.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Possibly too loyal, but the fact remains that they purchased about 1,500,000 bushels of wheat and about 3,500,000 bushels of oats. With the countervailing duties in force, those grains will now come from western Canada.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: That is protection for you.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is doing some good, anyway.
The Budget-Mr. Bothwell


Charles Edward Bothwell: The budget has not only reduced the tariff, as was referred to in the article appearing in the Mail and Empire, which I read previously, but it has done many other things. I have dealt already with the increases in the British preference. It has exempted cooperative marketing organizations from the payment of income tax; a 50 per cent reduction has been made in the sales tax, and a further reduction of some $44,000,000 is shown in our national debt with the consequent reduction in interest commitments. Why would not a budget of that sort appeal to the people of Canada? I was rather amused in reading in the Ottawa Citizen this morning a report of a statement made by the hon. leader of the opposition at a convention in Guelph. This statement is as follows:
Was Canada, he demanded, likely to trust "novices" with their newly adopted policy? The judgment of the Canadian people could be trusted. "Whenever you have any convert doing something he has not been brought up to do he will always make a mess of it."
The hon. leader of the opposition seemed to be afraid that this government would not administer the tariff on fruits and vegetables or any other tariff which might be imposed. He must have known that during all the years this government has been in power it has made a more successful use of the facilities at hand than had any other party. During the past five years this government has put Canada in the position of being able to reduce the capital debt by some $257,000,000, which debt was largely imposed by the hon. gentlemen on the other side when they were in power. The statement of the leader of the opposition is more amazing when one considers the time and place at which it was made. If I remember rightly, and I think I do, the convention was being held for the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr Guthrie) who is a rather recent convert to his side of the house. In listening to-day to the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) I was reminded of the fact that he is another convert of recent years.


Mr. YENIOT:: They cannot be trusted.


Charles Edward Bothwell: That wonderful peroration which was delivered this afternoon and which seemed somewhat volatile-I thought it would disappear in thin air-made me think that perhaps his leader had better watch out or this convert would out-Herod Herod.
With the changes which have been brought into effect by the budget; with the changes which have taken place in the tariff, applauded as they are from one end to the other of Can-

ada; even the Conservative press of Ottawa and the Financial Post-never too favourable to this government-applauding certain features of the budget, and the Ottawa Journal stating it will divert some $225,000,000 worth of trade to other parts of the British empire rather than to the United States; with the reductions that I have spoken of in the national debt and with a reduction in the sales tax, I feel satisfied that the people of Canada will insist on retaining in power a government that has been able to make the showing that the present one has during the last five years.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take any time to deal with the remarks of the last speaker, because I want to do something unique, and that is to give my conclusions in regard to the budget at the beginning of my speech rather than to fail to give them at the end for lack of time. So far as I have been able to study the budget, my conclusion is that it has been born in ignorance, as I think I shall be able to prove later. It is a budget disturbing to trade and merchandising. There are already in it too many specialized items which are causing our merchants and others a great deal of trouble. A man in business to-day who buys sprayers must secure from everyone to whom he sells them certificates that they are to be used for agricultural purposes. In the same way in regard to some of those small items of iron and steel, people who are doing business to-day will find that their burdens are only beginning.
In the third place this budget will meet with many amendments before it is put into full operation and I believe the number will be very considerable before the minister will dare submit the budget to the country at large. In the next place it is a budget that gives an impracticable British preference, throwing open lines of trade which will never be taken advantage of and leaving out lines in which Britain could be given exclusive advantage. Next, it is a budget the effect of which will be to give employment to other than the white races in different parts of the British Empire in preference to the white farmer and the white farmer's assistant in Canada. Whether this trade is in the West Indies or in the United States, the Canadian agriculturist suffers if vegetables are bought in the West Indies; others from fireworks, fire-[DOT] crackers and eggs brought from Hong Kong. The whole budget is a window dressing, a renumbering of houses which have already been renumbered in previous budgets. It is a consummation of things that have been done in the past, now brought before the

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
Canadian public with the intention of misleading them into thinking that this is being done for the first time. The protective features of the budget, in regard to butter and coal, have been squeezed from the government by the opposition benches; they have not been granted voluntarily. The government have had practically to be throttled before they could be made to grant these advantages in the case of the duties on butter and coal. It is a budget foretelling a bad financial position which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is afraid to show. It admits nine years of misrule. It is a climax of flimflam-ming government.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the meaning of
" flimflam"?


Arthur Edward Ross: It is a budget consisting of flimflam and more flimflam. It is an admisison that for nine years the government has been destroying industries in the Dominion, thereby causing the migration of thousands of our Canadians, and now they pretend to wash their hands with a little British preference and protection. I am reminded of the words of Macbeth:
Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand?
I have said that this is a budget born in ignorance. The truth of that statement could not have been more amply demonstrated than it was yesterday by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), when he tried to point out that many of these articles, which he named in his speech, were, as he believed, new, being given for the first time to the people of Canada. Yet in different budgets prior to this all these articles have been named. In the budget of 1929 all the printing apparatus mentioned by the Minister of the Interior is named, being admitted free. Many of the things to which he has referred have been dealt with in former years, and so I say that the budget is nothing more than a window-dressing, a renumbering of houses, a taking down of old signs and putting up above the shop the name of Dunning. At the same time we were shown the great interest taken by another member of the government when the Minister of the Interior was speaking. We saw the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) sprawled all over his desk, sound asleep; he was not able to be disturbed.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I take exception
to that. I often see members in the house putting their heads down who are not asleep and the Minister of Railways was certainly not asleep.


Arthur Edward Ross: It was a very
peculiar attitude for a minister of the crown to assume in the house. It might be good enough for some of the rest of us, but in the house and on a serious matter it was not a dignified position for a minister of the crown.


John Warwick King: That is pretty
small politics.


Arthur Edward Ross: In budget speeches the Minister of Finance always refers to and bases the features of the budget on his interpretation of the general condition of the country. For years past we have listened tc explanations of the prosperity of the Dominion. This was claimed to be due to a benign Providence smiling upon his favourites sitting on the government benches, but the absence of this will be noted in the present budget. I would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the lack of the spiritual effect of the budget. Is it possible that a benign Providence has lost confidence in the government and is no longer smiling upon it? This seems to be the case even if we have no other evidence than the circular which has been issued by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), through his deputy minister, drawing attention to the fact that Canada is no longer an exporter of agricultural products and trying to waken up the agriculturists because they have lost their interest and because the industry has been injured by the government in different ways and is suffering.
We have now started on a new year with what looks like a deficit, so much so that the Minister of Finance has refused to complete the budget, but such figures as he gave show a deficit of at least $14,000,000 for the coming year. I shall not attempt to refer further to matters of debt and so on, because they have been thoroughly dealt with from this side of the house.
I should like to call the attention of the house to a strange spectacle that occurred on May 1, when a Liberal Minister of Finance rose and delivered a budget containing features of a character inconsistent with the former pledges, policies, speeches, prayers and denunciations of each and every member on the government side. We noticed with what eagerness the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) rose and shook hands with the finance minister on that occasion, and I can imagine that the words he uttered were, "Thank you for not touching boots and shoes." Next came the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) to congratulate the finance minister, and I can imagine him saying, "Thank you for not touching furniture. Touch anything else, but
2038	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
nlease leave furniture alone." Surely, Mr Speaker, Laurier, Cartwright, Paterson and other outstanding policy makers of the great Liberal party now beyond the vale must have felt a great roll given to their bodies when they found the Liberal party had in a small measure come to the policy of protection. The members of that party who on May 1st last listened to the budget speech of the Minister of Finance and applauded must have hurried to destroy past Hansards containing the record of the speeches which they have been delivering in this house during the last nine years, but they can never be wiped out. The record will always stand.
There are three features of this budget with which I should like to deal. First is the change in the complexion of the government's policy and the introduction of a small measure of protection in the budget. Many across the way have so often made declarations that they were low tariff men or men who believed in no tariff at all. Again and again the hustings have resounded with such declarations from the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft), the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward), the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen), and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien). Now they fold their arms and bow their heads. Perhaps they may be doing the same as the Minister of Railways and Canals. It does look to us as if they were praying for light or mercy and for something to blot out their past record as they look on that great increase in the duty on cast iron pipe and on vegetables brought about by this budget. When there was a likelihood of tariff increases in past years, how vehemently they opposed and ridiculed the idea. Listen to what the Minister of Railways and Canals said in 1922, when he was the head of a group of sixty-five members on this side of the house:
There are those who have said that if the United States raises the tariff against our wheat and against our live stock, we should raise our tariff against them by way of retaliation. What an absurd policy!
What is being done to-day? Thai very thing, except that the word "retaliation" is hidden behind the less commonly used term, "countervailing duties." He went on to say:
I am convinced that the principle of protection is not suited as a fiscal policy for this country, and this country will never develop as long as protection is embedded as the guiding principle of our fiscal policy.
What does this budget do? The Minister of Railways and Canals, as one of the guid-

ing spirits, has led the great exodus across the floor of this house and there they sit on the government benches quite happy no matter what their past declarations may have been. Will anyone with a knowledge of parliamentary history and practice explain how an honest man can lend himself to such abject humiliation without one word of explanation or apology? And yet the Minister of Railways and Canals, with that large group behind him in 1922, used the words which I have just quoted. Can a Prime Minister steeped in knowledge of constitutional history and legislation demand such incomparable abasement of his ministry? Can a man who has been head of one of the greatest organizations in this country be so indifferent to public opinion as to stultify himself in this way for the sake of office?


Mr. CANTLEY:: Bring him in so we can
see him.


Arthur Edward Ross: What an absurd
policy, said the Minister of Railways in 1922. If it was absurd in 1922, is it not absurd in 1930? If it is absurd on one side of the house, is it not absurd on the other?


Mr. HANSON:: Bring him in. Let him
face the music.


Arthur Edward Ross: If the Minister of
Railways is not aware of what is expected of public men, I would like to refer him to the words of the Hon. George Brown, the great leader of the Liberal party, who expressed himself in this beautiful language; which may bring back the Minister of Railways to a realization of public opinion. The Hon. George Brown said:
If, sir, a public man avows certain principles, agitates these principles, and seeks to overthrow the government of the day and establishes those principles, and if when he attains power, he laughs at his principles and casts his professions to the wind, he is aiming a blow at public morality.
There are other statements that I should like to quote. We have the words of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard) which will be found at page 1302 of Hansard, 1929:
High protection is a menace to our farming class, and even to our national unity.
And yet there are duties in this budget higher than anyone ever anticipated. I would also call attention to this beautiful sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Lisgar:
If farmers accept protection of three or four cents a pound on butter, these protectionists would howl for joy, and there would be no occasion for farmers then to send representatives to parliament to express views similar to mine.

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
Are those words prophetic? Step by step the Prime Minister has made use of these members, and now that their usefulness is terminated there only remains for them to swallow the hemlock, like Socrates, and die. IV here are they now? Have they, like Achilles, all gone to their tents to sulk?
The hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) stated that a long list of congratulatory telegrams had been received from all parts of this country congratulating the government and the Minister of Finance on the budget. How many came from the west? I am certain that voices from the west are coming down through the gloom to the ears of the government, asking: Are the words that you spoke in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929 all bunk? Or is the budget speech of to-day all bunk? You cannot be right in 1922 and right in 1930.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: It is still a
quarter to six.


Mr. STEVENS:: No courtesies.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Call in Crerar.
Bring in your minister.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is only twelve
short months since an amendment was introduced pleading for an increase in the British preference. Every one on this side of the house supported that amendment, but there was a great deal of opposition to it from the other side. They simply said: We have been considering the question. To-day we have the introduction of the British preference as the second feature in this budget. Like many others, I thought the budget contained some meat, that there was something really worth while in its gesture to Great Britain of the extension of the British preference, until I began to analyze the items. I am now going to give to the house a list of the articles set out in the budget, from which it will be apparent to every hon. member how eager this government has been to extend the British preference by their selection of the articles to be so treated.
In his speech yesterday, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) mentioned certain articles on which the extension of the British preference would confer a benefit to the housewife, to the farmer and to all other Canadians. Among those articles he mentioned milking machines. Now, let us take the trade returns and find what has happened in respect to
milking machines. In 1925 Great Britain sent us S3,300 worth; in 1926, S327 worth; in 1927, $653 worth; in 1928, $345 worth; in 1929, $401 worth. As against these small importations from Great Britain, we imported from the United States $21,041 worth in 1925; $19,682 in 1926; $40,470 in 1927; $47,147 in 1928; and $61,464 in 1929.


Mr. MALCOLM:: If there was no business to transfer there would be no purpose in extending the preference.


Arthur Edward Ross: If the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce will listen a little longer he will get my point. The Minister of the Interior also mentioned pasteurizers. In 1929 Great Britain sent us one of a value of $338, while the United States sent us 144 representing a value of $110,391. Then let me take ploughs: Great Britain sent us $lo3 worth in 1925; $170 worth in 1926; $708 worth in 1927; $163 worth in 1928; and only $93 worth in 1929; while the United States sent us ploughs to the value of $613,756 worth in 1925; $1,123,324 worth in 1926; $1,648,462 worth in 1927; $1,731,330 worth in 1928; and $2,151,498 in 1929. Let me take fanning mills: Great Britain sent us 2 in 1925, 1 in 1926, none since; but the United States sent us 1,891 last year in spite of a 10 per cent duty. Now, rollers-and I should like hon. members to note this: in 1925 Great Britain sent us $408 worth and in 1929 $715 worth with a 5 per cent duty against her; but the United States, despite a duty of 10 per cent, sent us in 1925 $884 worth and in 1929 $10,177 worth. Next I take spraying machines: in 1929 Great Britain sent us $3,646 worth; but the United States sent us $331,233 worth. Nuts and bolts: Great Britain sent us $836 worth; but the United States sent us $155,376 in that year. And the same disparity is apparent in containers for fuel, skates, safes, bath tubs, cream separators, rakes, childrens' carriages and sleds, wheelbarrows and buggies.
Now, let us take the second class of items where the duty has been reduced. The first item is typewriters: in 1929 Great Britain sent us 19, valued at $1,171; the United States sent us 20,832 valued at $1,112,228. Calculating machines: Great Britain sent us 3 in 1929 valued at $104; but the United States sent us 9,895 valued at $1,268,644. Electric fixtures-and here is one of the greatest inconsistencies of this budget. If the Minister of National Revenue can tell us what electrical parts are made in Canada and what are not, then he has a knowledge of this budget that a great many other people lack. But the point I want to make in regard to these figures is that the government for nine long years

The Budget-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
have been building up a trade with the United States amounting to millions of dollars, and now they say that by just a piece of paper, or a gesture, they can divert that trade to Great Britain. But to carry out their purpose they have chosen articles which Great Britain does not send us, or at best sends us in small volume, and I shall refer to them again before I sit down. I am now going to deal with articles on which, had they chosen, the government could have given Great Britain a substantial preference. Why did not they check up the schedules and find out the articles which Great Britain was exporting to Canada and then given her a preference on those articles as against the United States? Instead of doing that, as a mere gesture, as an attempt to do something that they spoke against and voted against last year, they now come forward and say, "Here is what we are going to do for Great Britain; here is our extension of the British preference on articles that we can never bring into this country from Great Britain." Why did they choose a number of articles-and there are over a dozen; I will specify them later-on which to give a preference to Great Britain and thus increase her trade with us?
I shall refer to the item of countervailing duties. The word "countervailing" signifies a retaliation or protection, and to my mind it is unfortunate that the minister has picked out a name for this particular kind of duty which so many people do not understand and about which they have to consult the dictionary. At this point I am forced to refer again to the Minister of Railways because he was the leader of the party which has kept the present government in power. I shall make special reference to his words as they appear in Hansard of 1922:
I venture to predict that within a few years the United States will have its face set definitely against the principle of a protective tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Page Mr. Crerar.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is six o'clock.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Speaker will
no doubt remember the time when he sat down here and he will appreciate how the minister is qualified for his position. To continue with the words of the minister:
We, of the Progressive party, stand unalterably opposed to the principle of protection-
I wish to make that as clear as I can make it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Page Mr. Crerar.


Arthur Edward Ross: At a later time
he asks:
What use is protection to the Canadian dairymen who are producing far away and beyond what can possibly be consumed in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not now, though.


Arthur Edward Ross: And at a later
time he states:
I have said that the budget is protectionist. I want to point out to the house that in 1919 I left the government of the day because it brought down a budget that was very little different from the one that is submitted now. Under these circumstances, sir, I cannot support the budget proposals of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.
And yet cast iron pipe is 100 per cent higher than it was proposed to be made at the time he left the government.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 136, respecting the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company-Mr. Young (Toronto)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Former limitations repealed.
Mr. ADSHEAD:: I do not seem to have
the reprinted bill, but I should like to ask the sponsor if there is to be any money expended on construction this year?


Edward James Young: I think I can
assure the hon. member that very material progress will be made and that a great deal of money will be spent along the line of railway by allied companies in the development of coal areas. The provisions which are repealed would be nugatory if they operated, because more money has been spent in the last two years than is required under those provisions. The intention is to go right ahead.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. YOUNG (Toronto) moved the third reading of the bill.

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile
Herbert Bealey Adshead: There is one other question I should like to ask the hon. member. Is there anything in the bill in connection with the fair wage clause? I do not see it here.


Edward James Young: When this bill
comes before the Senate committee to-morrow the principals of the company will be there and I think they will give my hon. friend ample assurance that the fair wage clause will be observed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin), moved the third reading of Bill No. 31, respecting jurisdiction in proceedings for divorce.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on the second reading
of this bill I gave my views in connection with it and my objections to it. As I stated then, this bill is a departure from the well-known principle of British and international law which provides that the test of jurisdiction in matters of divorce is the domicile of the parties, which is the domicile of the husband so long as the marriage bond exists. I do not desire to repeat what I then said, but once more I wish to register my objection to this bill.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Adshead,
Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Bancroft,
Barber,
Bell (Hamilton West), Bennett,
Bird,
Black (Yukon),
Bock,
Brown,
Campbell,
Cayley,
Chaplin,
Charters,
Coote,
Crerar,
Donnelly,
Esling,
Euler,
Evans,
Fansher (Last Mountain),
Fansher (Lambton East),
Fraser,
Garland (BowRiver), Gershaw,
Glen,
Gray,
Hall,
Harris,
Hay,
Hepburn,
Ilsley,
Irvine,
Jelliff,
Johnston (LongLake), Kaiser,
Kellner,
Kennedy,
King, Mackenzie (Prince Albert), Ladner,
Lawson,
Lovie,
Lucas,
McLean (Melfort), Macphail (Miss), McDiarmid,


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.



GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Guerin for the second reading of Bill No. 39, respecting government contracts.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) desires to be here while this bill is being discussed. Would it inconvenience my hon. friend to have it stand over?


Mr. GUERIN:: I am very anxious that this bill should pass, as it will have considerable effect upon labour, especially in so far as Montreal is concerned. It will affect the con-
2042	' COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Boss (Kingston)
tracts which have been given in connection with the building of the new Canadian National railway terminal. Demolition now is going on and the rule still prevails that young men only are to obtain work. I wish either to see the bill go through, or to have some guarantee given that action will be taken which will ensure people obtaining employment independent of their age. The system prevailing at the present time is very bad, and unless something is done the session will close without action being taken.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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).
Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Speaker,
when the house rose at six o'clock I was dealing with what I considered to be the third feature in this budget-countervailing duties. The word " countervailing " frequently is used instead of the word " retaliation " or " protection." I was referring to some remarks made by some of the members who led that great exodus from this side of the house to support a government which they believed to be a low tariff government. I was reminding some of those members of the statements which they had made in the house in former . days, and I have one more to which I would like to refer. The following statement, made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) will be found on page 1012 of Hansard of 1929. In dealing with the matter of retaliation, he said:
In closing I wish to say something on the doctrine of retaliation as preached by the Conservatives. I heard with dismay the other night the astounding proposal of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), that the government be given authority to make immediate tariff changes to meet any fiscal changes that may take place in the United States. I can hardly imagine that any responsible member on the Conservative benches would support or even countenance a proposal so preposterous. Let me say to the hon. member that I cannot understand how under any conceivable circumstances any western member would delegate to any government such an exclusive parliamentary privilege in connection with so contentious a subject as the tariff.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Marquette how he can be so inconsistent as to delegate to the government by means of his vote that same kind of privilege.
The next point I would like to discuss is in connection with the figures I quoted this afternoon and w'hich showed that the government had followed for nine years a policy of trade w'hich they now intend to destroy on the assumption that that trade would be turned over to Great Britain. I pointed out the fact that in many of these articles there was no possibility of the trade being turned over to Great Britain. I might be asked the question: Well, what would you do? And I would reply that in these schedules there are certain articles which might be taken up and on w'hich the duties might be so arranged that Great Britain might have the exclusive trade in them. For instance, I find that Great Britain is at present supplying nearly all the anchors required in Canada, but this article is on the free list. Why not make it free for Great Britain with a tariff against any other country that might compete? Another article is fish-hooks, w'hich w'ere made free by the government a year or two ago. I find that Great Britain is supplying 820,000 worth and Norway 819,000 w'orth of these articles. This is another commodity which might very well be handed over exclusively to Great Britain, because evidently fish-hooks are not made in this country and we are not trading in them with the United States.
According to the trade returns, table knives, forks and spoons are articles that Great Britain wishes to trade in with us and arrangements might very well be made to give her the preference in that regard. As for pins, $58,000 worth come from Great Britain and only
836.000	worth from the United States. Why not give Great Britain a preference on this commodity, and the same with needles,
8146.000	worth of which come from Great Britain and $193,000 worth from the United States? These exemplify certain articles mentioned in these schedules which the government could reasonably take in hand and by arrangement give the trade to Great Britain, but as regards many of those I have mentioned this afternoon there is no possibility of their coming from Great Britain.
But that is not our policy. Our policy is this, that all these articles should be made in Canada. Let me point out certain other articles that are mentioned, and ask the house

1'he Budget-Miss Macphail
if there is any reason why they should not
be made in Canada? These are the articles: Articles-	Importations
Piano parts	 $ 185,000
Trunks	 314,000
Toys	 2,250,000
Soaps	 1,160,000
Picture and photo	frames.. ..	194,000
Tube pipe union fittings	 3.208,000
Ship repairs	 221,000
Spectacles, knife frames, eyeglass frames	 182,000
Lead pencils	 933,000
Just think of it: these lead pencils can be made in Canada, and yet every lead pencil supplied to the members of the house comes from outside of this country. I shall not take up any more time in dealing with the list, but it can be enlarged three or four times. If the government were alive to the situation all these articles could be made in Canada, thus providing work and preventing for all time unemployment in the Dominion.
The statement has been made this afternoon that Canada for the first time has been giving a lead in strengthening the ties that bind the British Empire. Whoever made that statement has misread the history of this country of nearly 160 years. Canada has never failed the empire; Canada has led the way; Canada has spent millions of dollars to encourage trade within the empire. She has done this by the construction of the Canadian Pacific steamship lines and the Canadian National steamship lines. She led the way in the great war, when the name of Canada was put on the map. Canada has led the way in providing millions of dollars for steamship lines to the West Indies. Surely in doing that we might be excused from taking the vegetable trade away from the white farmers of this country and sending it down to the West Indies.
This afternoon we had the apology of the consumers' league or at least, a statement from the president of that league. But will anyone say that these few members have provided all the financial assistance to enable Mr. Deachman to present these cases before the tariff board? No, I am afraid a good deal of that has come from the party across the floor. They advocated the same policy for years, and they provided the means in this indirect manner, as they did not want to do so openly, to bring these cases before the tariff board. Just twenty-four or forty-eight hours before the great betrayal of the consumers' league, Mr. Deachman was addressing a women's Liberal meeting in the neighbouring village of Westboro, and only twenty-four or forty-eight hours later he learned of the great betrayal; that all his years of work and teaching before the tariff board had been
destroyed, had passed away and had been thrown into the scrap heap by the party opposite.	.
We have heard from the consumers' league. There is however, silence from the Minister of Railways, who moved this amendment in 1922:
That the Liberal party having been returned to power, the budget proposals of the finance minister now brought down, based as they are, mainly on the principle of protection in respect to the tariff, are wholly inadequate to implement such pledges by legislation.
That while recognizing that changes in fiscal policy should be made in such a way as to give industries affected a reasonable opportunity for readjustment, this house is of opinion that the principle of protection as a basis for fiscal policy in Canada is unsound and not in the best interests of the Dominion.
How can the Minister of Railways come here now in 1930 without giving some explanation of what he meant in 1922 and what he means in 1930?


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: Mr. Speaker, the few remarks that
I intend to make should really not be dignified by the name of address or speech, but I felt that one could not vote for or against the budget without saying something about it. As a matter of fact, one vote on this budget is no good; one would need half a dozen votes in any case. It is impossible with one vote to say whether one is in favour of or against a budget that ranges all the way from A to Z, from black to white or white to black, whichever way you wish to take it
The budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on the first of May is quite clearly designed to catch votes; I would call it a vote-getting budget. If it does not get the votes, it will certainly disappoint its parents. It is a budget that can be easily picked to pieces. Some parts of it look very attractive to certain sections of Canada. For instance, one can imagine supporters of the government waxing eloquent in the east on the iron and steel protection; in the west they could make a very good speech on the British preference, both what is real and a larger portion of it that is only apparent. The protection on vegetables and fruit will go well in British Columbia in spite of the speeches that we had this afternoon, though it may be that they would like best to have the Conservatives bring down the protectionist policy. In the Niagara district the same protection on fruits and vegetables will, I suppose, sound well to the ears of those who want it.


James Dew Chaplin: It will not get the Liberal party any votes.
The Budget-Miss Macphail


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do not know about that. We shall learn that after the election. As regards the bean growers, someone who represents a bean-growing constituency and is a government supporter can make a splendid speech about what care the government is taking of that particular industry. The dairy farmers throughout Canada are to be pleased by the abrogation of the New Zealand treaty and the women are to be made happy by cheap tea and dishes. What I want to ask the Liberal party is this: Do they think that public confidence is won by a budget like that after all the talk that we have heard about the Liberals being a low tariff party and all the pleadings that we have heard on the hustings in the years gone by to come into the Liberal camp and not divide the low tariff forces? The thing that I have been asking myself since this debate began on the 1st of May is, where are the low tariff Liberals?


Mr. THORSON:: Where are the low tariff Progressives?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not a Progressive. I am a United Farmer, and I am low tariff. Has the severity of party discipline silenced every one of the low tariff Liberals? I can just imagine some of the sage old Liberals in the country-there are still a few of them in my county and in others-asking themselves, where is the Liberal party going? I had difficulty enough to tell one of the major parties from the other before the 1st of May, but now I find it quite impossible. They are just two groups of friends divided by the green carpet, one sitting to the right of the Speaker and the other to the left. If the great betrayal of Liberalism was begun in 1806, I would say that it was completed in 1930.
I am a member of an economic group. I was elected as a United Farmer and I did not change my name after I was elected-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: My political name,
and I am willing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am willing as a member of an economic group to change my position on the tariff at any time if I believe that changing my position will make things better for the people whom I represent. I think that that is a sound position. It is the one that I have always taken; I have not changed. But I do not believe that protection will benefit agriculture, and I shall deal with that more fully in a moment.

Agriculture is in a bad way this year. It is in my county, and I suppose it is throughout Canada. If we could protect agriculture so that it would get back some of the money it has to pay out for the protection of other industries I would be ever so willing to do it, but I do not see how it is to be done. Take, for instance, the farmer in my riding of Southeast Grey. By the time he has paid for the protection on iron and steel, on fruits and vegetables, beans, to speak only of the protection afforded by this budget, suppose he gets protection on his butter and eggs, and suppose that that protection works in the direction of raising the prices of his butter and eggs, how high would those prices have to be raised in order to reimburse him for the amount that he has to pay out for the protection of other people? The prices of butter and eggs would have to be raised very high indeed before the farmers in my constituency would be benefited by the budget of this year. After all I represent them, and for that reason I am not enamoured of the budget. I would say that the eggs coming from British Columbia have more to do with the breaking of the price of eggs in Ontario than eggs coming from any place outside of Canada, so if the government is going to do something for Ontario in regard to eggs, it will have to get this magic tariff to work inside Canada and keep British Columbia eggs at home.
The New Zealand trade agreement is to be abrogated in October of this year. Some years ago when the Australian treaty was before the house I voted against it. The provisions of that treaty were extended by order in council to New Zealand. I voted against the Australian treaty because I felt that the effect of the treaty on agriculture was not really considered. The object was to get a market for automobiles, and pulpwood, and the interests of the farmer were not considered either one way or the other. The effect of the Australian treaty and of the New Zealand trade agreement on the farmers of this country has been bad, but it has been bad psychologically rather than materially. I doubt very much if the farmer has suffered so much from the treaty as he thinks he has and as the Conservative party has helped him to believe he has, but he has got it firmly placed in his mind that he has been very badly used. No doubt farmers everywhere in this country think that. The creameries in every province have been sending word to their patrons with every cheque that the Australian treaty and the New Zealand trade agreement have lowered the price of butter and that it is a very bad thing for the farmer, and so the farmer has had that

The Budget*-Miss Macphail
idea firmly placed in his mind, and the only way to make him happy is to abrogate the treaty. I congratulate the government for doing that, though the reason they do it and the reason why I want it done are not quite the same. Still, I am glad that they are taking that action. Suppose that after the treaty is abrogated the price of butter does increase. The production of butter will also increase, because I have noticed that farmers always speed up production when it pays them to speed it up. So if the price goes up they will produce more butter, and when production gets to the point where we become exporters of butter, we must meet the world price for butter, and down the price goes. So I would say to the farmers of Canada, if I may presume to do so, that they want to be very careful not to sell themselves into the protectionist camp for something which they think will be of real benefit to them but which really will not be, because they will have to pay out so much more than they get that they will be paying too much for their protectionist whistle.
Possibly the best proof that protection does not make the farmer prosperous is the condition of the American farmer. The proof that the tariff is not the fundamental thing in the economics of agriculture that we once thought it was is found in the fact that the farmer of the United States, where they have very high protection, the farmer in Great Britain, where they have free trade, and the farmer of Canada, where we have high protection, low tariff and free trade all in the one budget, are all in a very bad way.
The government is bringing in countervailing duties. While it may sound better to call them that, I agree with the Conservatives that it is really a brick for brick policy, so far as the bricks go; at least, it works out that way. But if we are going to have countervailing duties between Canada and the United States, why not include in the list of commodities to which the countervailing duties are going to apply, not only agricultural products, but industrial products? Why not apply the countervailing duties all along the line, apply them to everything that we trade in with the United States? Then if we really are low tariff in our sentiments, let us take off the specific duty, so that when you get the countervailing duty coming down it goes down all the way, just as well as when it countervails up it goes all the way up.
I do think Canada has very much to gain by the extension of the British preference. And may I pause here to say that I have been exceedingly amused and almost edified by the change of the respective flags that each
party waves. It used to be that the Liberals -well, we may start with the Conservatives, since	they	had	more	of	the flag	thantheir traditional opponents-the Conservatives waved the	Union	Jack,	and	sometimes youcould	not	tell whether	there was a	Conservative in its fold or not, but usually there was.	The	Union	Jack	was	certainly	their
flag. As to the Liberals, if they had a distinctive party flag it might be said to be the Canadian ensign. But if I am to believe what I have heard, in the days since the first of May the two parties have swapped flags, and now the Conservatives have appropriated the Canadian ensign, while the Liberals have taken over the Union Jack,
I do think, however, that it is clear to all of us that Great Britain buys from us very much more than we buy from her, and that we buy from the United States very much more than they buy from us. For instance, in 1927 our exports to Great Britain of agricultural and vegetable products amounted in value to $330,000,000; during the same year we exported these products to the United States to the value of only $60,000,000. In the same year we exported to Great Britain animal and animal products to the value of $68,000,000, and to the United States $75,000,000 worth. In 1928 we exported to Great Britain agricultural and vegetable products to the value of $310,000,000, and to the United States only $56,000,000 worth. In the same year we exported to Great Britain animal and animal products to the value of $49,000,000, and to the United States to the value of $92,000,000. Therefore so far as agricultural and vegetable products are concerned-made up, I dare say, largely of wheat, but still Canadian farm products-we exported to Great Britain a great deal more than we exported to the United States-not only a great deal more, but many times as much; and we can scarcely expect Great Britain to want to continue to absorb our products unless we are willing to take the goods she has to sell. The Western Producer in its editorial of May 8 in dealing with this point said:
The prolonged crisis in the grain market has forced the western wheat grower to give some attention to European conditions. He has discovered, if he did not know it already, that Britain is the heaviest purchaser of his wheat. He has discovered also that Canada does not import nearly so much British produce as she might.
So when we are dealing with the British preference it would be very wise indeed to put on the list for preferential treatment those things that we are likely to buy from Great Britain. While I know it makes a very imposing list to include a large number of

The Budget-Miss Macphail
things that we do not buy, or are not likely to buy, or buy very little of from Great Britain, such a list, although imposing, is not of very much use when one is trying to arrange an exchange of products. If Great Britain does buy our agricultural and vegetable products to the value that I have named, then we in return must buy large quantities of her goods. Consequently I cannot understand why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) if he was honest in his endeavour to extend the British preference, to build up trade between us and Britain, did not give preferential treatment to British textiles and British boots and shoes, commodities that we are likely to buy from Great Britain. Because while I realize that there is an extension of the British preference-I have not gone through the schedules myself, but I have talked with those who have-1 believe time will go to show that this extension of the British preference is at least as much apparent as it is real, and maybe it is more apparent than real. And if all that this extension of the preference to Great Britain amounts to is vain show, it can serve no good purpose in increasing the exchange of trade between ourselves and the motherland. But for the degree of British preference effected by this budget I am glad, and if I could divide the budget into half a dozen bits I would vote for that piece of it.
There is one other angle from which I wish to discuss the tariff just for a moment or two; that is, its bearing on international relations. Last year in the course of the budget debate we had a very excellent speech from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who when he is discussing international relations always makes most excellent speeches. He dealt quite fully with the work of the economic conference of the League of Nations. This conference met in Geneva in 1927 from early in May until the 23rd. It consisted of 194 delegates and 226 experts representing fifty states, so I think it will be generally agreed that it was a most important gathering. This conference placed itself on record in these words, and I am now quoting from the speech by the Minister of Justice as to be found on page 1335 of Hansard of last year:
In view of the fact that harmful effects upon production and trade result from the high and constantly changing tariffs which are applied in many countries;
And since substantial improvement in the economic conditions can be obtained by increased facilities for international trade and commerce;
And in view of the fact that tariffs, though within the sovereign jurisdiction of the separate 
states, are not a matter of purely domestic interest but greatly influence the trade of the world;
And in view of the fact that some of the causes which have resulted in the increase of tariffs and in other trade barriers since the war have largely disappeared and others are diminishing;
The conference declares that the time has come to put an end to the increase in tariffs and to move in the opposite direction.
This was the decision of experts. They were not there to cater to any element in their respective countries, they -were there to express their considered views. This year the tenth assembly of the League of Nations realized that this economic conference was serious in its recommendations, and so the Kight Hon. Mr. Graham of the British board of trade moved a resolution, seconded, I think, bv the French representative, which read as follows:
States should agree not to increase their protective tariff above the present level for a period of from two to three years or to impose new protective duties or create new impediments to trade. It is understood that this undertaking should not lead to any relaxation in the efforts which states are making to reduce their tariff to the greatest possible extent by autonomous or bilateral action in conformity with the recommendations of the World Economic Conference.
All of us know that the world is becoming a smaller and smaller place, that is, that we are becoming more and more interdependent, and that what used to be a national policy is now coming to be international policy, inasmuch as the policy of one country affects so greatly the action of another country. For instance, if we are to credit the reports in the newspapers, the introduction of this budget had a great deal to do with the result of a recent by-election in Great Britain. That is a small example, but after all it is an example of the effect that the fiscal policy of one country has on the fiscal policy of another.
I think all hon. members will agree with me -though all will not admit it-that high tariffs do not lead to good will, that they are one of the obstacles that stand in the way of permanent world peace, and that if we are really serious in desiring permanent world peace we must be serious in striving to remove the economic causes of war, in which high tariffs are an important factor.
I have come to the conclusion, first, that in the main agriculture in Canada will not be benefited by the tariff; and, second, because it is not conducive to the peace of the world,
I am opposed to the protective principles as brought down in the budget. I think the Liberals themselves, if they were free to

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
admit it, would say that the budget is more protectionist than otherwise. To my mind it is a very peculiar budget. If we in this section of the house vote one way or the other we could not be blamed because no person in his right mind could agree to all ' the items contained in the present budget.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Nor could hon. members conscientiously disagree with all the items contained therein. I believe that in Southeast Grey it would be easier to explain why I voted against the budget than why I voted for it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In rising
to address the house at this stage of the debate I wish to say to the representative of Southeast Grey (Miss Maophail), who has just taken her seat, that I entirely agree with many of her statements; in fact I have never found myself quite as much in agreement with the hon. member as I find myself to-night. In connection with the subjects upon which we disagree I have no doubt that a little friendly discussion would bring us closer together.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am willing to
try. The hon. member represents a rural constituency; so do I. While the hon. member takes one view of the effect upon her constituency of the Australian treaty, I take another. I agree with the hon. member that some damage has been done by the operation of this treaty and that to some extent it is psychological. There has been the material damage and there has been the other damage. I suggest to the hon. member, however, that you cannot in one year put on the Canadian market 35.000.000 pounds of imported butter, three pounds for each man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada, without materially affecting and injuring the market for Canadian butter within the Dominion.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does my hon. friend include in that the amount of New Zealand butter imported into Canada?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, I have not
stated the exact amount that has been imported and sold in Canada, but I think it would go as high as 40,000,000 or 42,000,000 pounds.
The budget has always constituted an interesting feature in each session. It should be a complete and comprehensive statement and review of all our affairs. My hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) has pointed out that in some respects this budget is lacking and that it
does not go the whole way in placing before this house and before the people of Canada the expected results of such a budget. I suggest to the minister that in future it might be well to have in the budget a more comprehensive and complete statement of the affairs of the Canadian National Railways The people of Canada own these railways; we are interested in them and we are financing them for capital expenditures and to some extent in other ways. We are very proud of the measure of success which they have attained. I do think however that it would be in the public interest if a detailed statement of the finances of that corporation were included in the budget.
Y hen I read the budget I am reminded of a certain act which I have witnessed at the circus. A juggler would come on the stage and he would attempt to keep three balls of different colours and sizes in the air at the same time. Sometimes he would succeed but if he continued his performance long enough it generally ended in failure. In this budget I see an effort to put before the Canadian people at the same time measures of free trade and protection, and an effort -to improve the failing fortunes of the government. I" do not think those three things can be done. If the government had only to put the present budget through this house, they might succeed. However, if they succeed in getting it through the house they still have to place it before the people of Canada, whereupon it will be thoroughly dissected and analyzed, appreciated and understood. A considerable length of time will be required for the performance of the task which they have undertaken.
Proceeding to the statements in the budget respecting trade, hon. members will notice" a decline in our exports to the extent of S244.-000,000. in round figures. Hon. members wiil also notice an adverse trade balance of $103,000,000, and that our estimated revenue for the year 1929-30 is $447,000,000 as compared with $462,000,000 for the previous year. The latter figures would indicate a decrease of approximately $15,000,000. Perhaps if the effect of this budget were analyzed and its expected operation in the coming year made public we would come to the conclusion that our revenues will not show a surplus; the fear is that they will show a deficit. The ordinary expenditures for the current year 1929-30 were $360,000,000, whereas in the prior year they were $351,000,000. Hon. members will notice that while ouir revenues are falling our expenditures are increasing.
This government has a peculiar record in regard to taxation. After the change of gov-

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
eminent in 1921 the then finance minister took advantage of the opportunity that presented itself to increase substantially the taxes imposed upon the Canadian people. The sales tax was increased; the stamp taxes were put on; our excise taxes were increased, and it was perfectly clear that in putting on these taxes he had in mind the production of substantial surpluses for which he could claim credit. For a number of years that program succeeded and the government now claims that it has been reducing taxation for several years. It may be that there have been reductions of rates here and there; there have been changes and adjustments, but I contend that as long as this government takes from the Canadian people as a whole a larger sum of money year by year it cannot successfully contend that it is reducing taxation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The population of Canada has remained at about the same figure during the term of office of the present government, and if we take year by year a larger sum from the same number of people I submit it is perfectly clear that taxation is
aot being reduced.	I asked the Bureau of
Statistics to furnish certain information along this line covering the years 1925 to 1929, and I find that the total amounts collected by this government in customs duties during	
those years were:	
1925			 $108,146,871
1926			 127,355,144
1927			 141,968,678
1928			 156,985,818
1929			 187,206,332
So you see, Mr.	Speaker, that during all
these years the amount of money taken from the Canadian people in customs duties has	
increased year by	year, notwithstanding the
fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has contended that the tariff is a	
tax. We have the	same record in connection
with excise taxes, following:	which amounted to the
1925			 $38,603,489
1926			 42,923,549
1927			 48,513,160
1928			 57,400,898
1929			 63,684,954
The income tax amounted to:	
1925			 $56,248,043
1926			 55,571,962
1927			 47,386,309
1928			 56,571,047
1929	 		 59,422,323
The amounts collected in other war taxes were as follows:
1925		 $ 90,916,115
1926		 101,724,358
1927		 108,781,125
1928		 93,748,040
1929	 85,607,419
The total amounts collected in taxation were as follows:
1925		  $293,914,518
1926		 327,575,013
1927		 346,649,272
1928		 364,705,803
1929		 395,921,028
Then there were other special revenues, making the total amounts during those years as follows:
1925		 $351,515,392
1926		 382,893,009
1927		 400,453,480
1928		 429,642,577
1929		 460,151,481
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have been told about the expenditures, and we find that during these years the total ordinary expenditures were:
1925		 $318,891,901
1926		 320,660,479
1927		 319,548,173
1928		 336,167,961
1929		 350,952,924
So you see the record of this government is upward in the matter of total taxation and upward also in total expenditures. During his speech my leader referred to the increases in the sales tax, and if hon. members turn to page 1815 of Hansard they will find there have been increases in that tax during all those years. So, Mr. Speaker, when we analyse the contention that taxation has been reduced we find that the record of the government does not support that claim.
There was one reference in the budget speech which to me was rather surprising; I refer to the remarks of the minister concerning the tourist trade. The government would appear to suggest that it is entitled to some credit in respect of the great advantage accruing to Canada through the vast amount of money spent in this country by the tourists. What has this government done to encourage the tourist trade throughout this country? It has two opportunities to extend some aid in the construction of highways, and everyone knows that highways are the first requisite, the first attraction and the most important element in the development of tourist traffic. On two occasions this government emphatically rejected the opportunity to assist the tourist trade in this way. Undoubtedly the provinces are aware of the advantage of this

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
trade and are looking after it, but they are doing so at their own expense, on their own account and without any assistance or encouragement from this government.
The sales tax is now reduced. If the government had accepted the resolution presented from this side of the house the sales tax would have been wiped out entirely. It is just as much trouble and expense to business to collect the amount of tax now imposed as it was to collect the larger amount, and it seems to me the government would have been well advised to do away with this tax completely. It is more or less a nuisance tax; it is an encumbrance, an obstruction to business, and the effect of wiping it out would have been borne equally and fairly by all the people of Canada. When the government took off the tax on luxuries, sleeping car tickets and the like, they were doing something for a particular class of people, but had they taken off the sales tax entirely they would have done somthing for every class throughout Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to the customs tariff, and it is here that the government seems to have gotten into difficulty and become inconsistent. There are both increases and decreases in duty, and the minister says the increases under the general tariff are small and that the material reductions in the British preferential rates are larges. It would be difficult at this time, and without further analysis, to say just exactly what will be the effect of these changes. The minister himself was not very definite or specific in that respect. These tariff items have been scrambled; they have been mixed up and re-arranged, and it will require some considerable time and the work of an expert to find out exactly what has happened. It is extremely difficult to unscramble eggs, and I think this government will have great difficult in unscrambling some of these complications which they have brought about. Some of the increases are very marked and some of the reductions are rather trifling.
I am particularly interested in the budget as it relates to agricultural products. We have had the case for the fruit and vegetable growers presented very fairly and completely by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), and I do not propose to go over the ground which he covered so well. It does appear, however, that the government has missed an opportunity to do something for this industry and has given it something which will not really help it. What these people really desired was a seasonal tariff or a rigid application of the dumping duty, and this does 2419-130
not appear to have been given them. However, I wish to deal very briefly with the Australian and New Zealand treaties, which materially affect the constituency which I represent, in which the dairy industry plays a very important part.
I am glad to recall that when this Australian treaty was discussed in this house I voted against it. I voted against it because it was clearly pointed out by my leader that its effects would be detrimental to agriculture, that while there would be some advantages to the manufacturing industry, agriculture would be called upon to pay for those advantages. The warnings then given, however, were disregarded, and it was not very long before the treaty was extended to New Zealand by order in council. That extension was made with disastrous results to the dairying industry of Canada. The operation of this treaty has destroyed the confidence, and the initiative of this industry; the industry is discouraged and downhearted. Every reason which exists at this late date for the termination of this treaty has existed and must have been well known to the government for many years. Why this delay and this tardy action? The action taken cannot give any benefit to the dairying industry for at least six months. After an industry has been damaged for six years, it cannot be rebuilt in six months; it will take years to bring it back to where it was at the time this government embarked upon the policy which wrought such havoc and which has brought such disaster to this industry. The government seeks now to take that action which it has been repeatedly requested to take.
The countervailing duties are a comparatively new feature in the customs tariff. Heretofore Canada has had the courage and the initiative to make her own tariffs, and parliament in making those tariffs has done so in the best interests of the Canadian people, without in any way playing second fiddle or waiting for the action of any other country. The adoption of this principle will result in confusion and uncertainty. The United States have a tariff law under which the president may on the recommendation of the tariff commission increase or decrease the rates of duty. This is called the flexible provision, and we shall have to follow that country up and down the whole scale from day to day if we are to put into force the countervailing duties referred to in the budget. Not only will there be changing rates from time to time with respect to the United States, but it will apply to other countries



The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
as well. The member for Southeast Grey points out that this countervailing feature applies only to sixteen items; and I wonder why it was not extended to a much larger number of items. During the past seven years the flexible provision in the tariff of the United States has been extremely detrimental to Canada. Canada has felt the effect of an increase of from 30 to 42 cents per bushel on wheat; from 75 cents to $1.04 per 100 pounds on flour; from S cents to 12 cents per pound on butter; from 1 cent to 14 cents per pound on onions; from 2J cents to 3-f cents per gallon on fresh milk; from 20 cents to 30 cents per gallon on cream, and increases on many other commodities. Every reason which has existed for the raising of the duty on these items has been in existence for the last eight years, ever since the Fordney-McCumber tariff was introduced in the United States in the year 1922. In spite of that, this government has slept and has allowed these changes to work to the detriment of Canada. At this late date, on the eve of an election, it comes forward with this feeble and futile effort in the hope that it can satisfy the agricultural industry and the people on the farms of Canada. I suggest that it is long too late and that the government will be disappointed in the results obtained. What is required in Canada is a protective tariff of agriculture and industry generally determined by the Canadian people and in the interests of agriculture, industry and labour. In its tariff provisions the budget makes an attempt to travel in two opposite directions at the same time. That has been tried in the past by statemen and politicians, but it has always met with failure and I predict that failure will be the result in the present instance.
From the information I have been able to obtain, I have come to the conclusion that the number of items to be included in the British preference has been exaggerated, with a desire to make it appear that larger reductions are being made. Why was it necessary at this late stage to deal with this matter? We are to have an eoonomic conference this fall, and would it not have been well for Canada to enter that conference with free hands, with this whole subject open for discussion and for negotiation? Then we could hope to obtain preference for preference; we could hope to receive some advantage- countervailing advantage if you like-for the reductions which we offered. The foundation of trade and commerce is mutual advantage, but that seems to have been disregarded in this instance'. The object of this gesture is to give the government a little flag to wave 
in the coming campaign. It is not a big flag and it is not going to be large enough to carry the government through, because side by side with it has to be carried the stars and stripes.
I was very much interested in the speech delivered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at Woodstock. The hon. minister always makes a good speech, and with much of that speech, as reported in the Toronto Globe, I agree. He said that the Dunning budget was not a western budget-I agree with him in that statement. He said it was not an eastern budget-I am inclined to agree with him there. He said it was not a manufacturers' budget-I concur in that statement. He said it was not a farmers* budget-he is right. It was not a workingman's budget-he is absolutely right there. He said that it was a national budget with the great policy of British preference as its foundation-with that sentence I disagree, for the reasons I have already stated. It is not a national budget because it fails to give proper consideration to national interests. It is not determined entirely by the Canadian people; it is uncertain and variable in its action; it is, I suggest, a King government budget by the King government and for the King government and its whole object is to put the government out of the bog of despair and difficulty of its own making, in which it has landed itself and for which it has been heading for the last six or seven years.
Generally in matters of this kind we have uniformity, unanimity of opinion among the different members of the cabinet. We have sitting in that cabinet the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar), and I have sat in the house and heard him session after session denounce protection as unsound, vicious and injurious to all classes of the Canadian people. How can that man remain a member of a cabinet or government that repudiates, that denies the truth of all the statements which he has ever made when he was in the house with respect to the Canadian tariff? We have the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who has taken a similar position. How can he vote for the budget? He has not explained the reasons or whether he has any reasons why he has changed his opinion. The Minister of Finance himself has scarcely given us any good reason for his remarkably sudden conversion in this matter. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) ridiculed a brick-for-brick tariff, ridiculed the contention that the Australian and New Zealand treaties were doing any injury to the agricultural industry of this country and said

The Budget-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
that it would be folly to raise duties. How can he vote for the budget? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) not long ago in discussing this matter in the house announced that the effect of raising the duty on butter would leave the farmer in a worse condition than at present. How does he justify the duties that are imposed and the countervailing duties that apply in this respect?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has always said that the tariff was a tax and he has frequently proclaimed in the most vehement terms that the policy of his government was a downward and still downward revision of the tariff. He has taken the opportunity in other budget debates to show the progress that has been made along that line and he fervently pledged himself and his government to continue along those lines. But to-night we find that he has reversed that position and he is now proposing to the house an increased measure of protection. With further reference to the statement of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) with regard to what occurred at the peace conference as to the reduction of duties, may I read from Hansard of 1928 the statement of the Prime Minister in the budget debate;
May I say just one further word in regard to the method by which the government has proceeded in the matter of tariff revision. I doubt if the government's method could be better described than as set forth in the resolution which was passed at the inter-parliamentary conference held in Paris on August 25, last year. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred to a resolution adopted by the League of Nations. That resolution laid stress on the importance of nations reducing rather than raising their customs tariff. We are proud of the fact that Canada stands out as the one country in the world that has pursued the course which was there advocated by all of them. In connection with the inter-parliamentary conference-which I understand is an inter-parliamentary conference of all the nations in the world-the following resolution was passed:
The twenty-fourth inter-parliamentary conference regrets to note a general tendency among the states to raise their customs tariffs. It recommends that the national groups shall endeavour to arrest and to reverse that tendency.
Another of the Paris recommendations completes this one by expressing the wish "that methods of abolishing, or at least progressively and gradually reducing customs duties, be made an object of study in all countries	"
The report goes on to say that such annual reduction could be sufficiently slight not to cause a crisis and to permit the different national industries to adapt themselves to the new conditions.
That was the position of the Prime Minister a year ago. Hs was commending a reduction 2419-13ti
of tariff. To-day by his budget he must approve the raising of the tariff. That, however, is perhaps not difficult for him and he must justify his own position.
My time is almost up and I propose to give some reasons why I am going to vote against the budget. I will vote against the budget:
1.	Because a vote for it is an endorsement of hypocrisy and deception in political policies, and hypocrisy and deception are no more excusable in matters political than in others.
2.	Because it does not accurately and fully disclose the national finances or the prospective revenues for the current fiscal year.
3.	Because the extension of the British preference on the eve of an economic conference of the empire is premature, inopportune and possibly detrimental to the promotion of inter-imperial trade on the sound basis of mutual preference.
4.	Because the adoption of countervailing duties introduces uncertainty and instability into the tariff and will result in frequent changes, complications and inconsistencies in our tariff schedules.
5.	Because the record of this government on fiscal matters is so unstable and inconsistent that it cannot be relied upon to carry out in full measure the features of the budget which may appear to be commendable.
0. Because it is really a deathbed repentance and repudiation of its former pledges and policies.
7.	Because it does not afford sufficient protection for the textile industries.
8.	Because the measure of protection afforded to the branches of agriculture and dairying is belated and inadequate.
9.	Because it does not contain provisions for promoting the manufacture in Canada of a larger amount of our own natural resources.
10.	Because it does not contain ample provisions to afford relief for unemployment.
Then we have the amendment which was moved by my leader and which will be found on Hansard at page 1834. It reads:
That 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 ease, to the interests of consumers, it is of opinion that the proposals which were submitted by the Minister of Finance on May 1st, 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 Budget-Mr. Bock

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.
With every sentence and every sentiment there expressed I wholly agree, and I will vote for it because it exposes the defects and weakness and inconsistency of this government on its own record and its failure to discharge its whole duty to the people of Canada.


Mr. W. G. BOCK (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I would be somewhat remiss if I did not contribute a few remarks to this budget debate. I wish in the first place to tender my hearty congratulations to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) both on his presentation of the budget and on the manner in which he has grappled with our tariff problems at a time when a man in his position might well have hesitated to take such courageous steps.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) in his address the other evening mentioned having presided at a meeting which the present Minister of Finance attended a good many years ago, where the hon. member for Mackenzie claimed to have prophesied at that time that Mr. Dunning had a great future ahead of him. His remarks recalled to my mind many occasions in the early days of the grain growers' association in Saskatchewan when we as delegates attended our annual convention of the organization, which was usually held at Regina, Moose Jaw or Saskatoon. The present Minister of Finance was always on hand at those meetings, first as a delegate, and later as a director and vice-president of the organization. Often when the subject under discussion seemed to be going round in circles, with amendments aud subamendments and so on, and when it seemed to be heading up a blind alley with everything in a mess, as Amos and Andy would say, the chairman or one of , the delegates would suggest that Charlie Dunning come in and unscramble the situation and put the assembly on their feet again. He was always able to clear the air, and the debate would be once more off to a good start. This was back in 1910 to 1914, when the present Minister of Finance was on the board of directors of that organization. Later he organized and had mflch to do with the direction of the destinies of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Elevator Company. This was an outstanding organization, and at the time of its purchase by the pool it had become the greatest grain handling firm on 
the continent. The hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Finance was always able to take care of any situation in which he was placed. It was sometimes said that he seemed to be a pinch hitter who was sent to bat whenever a tough situation cropped up. Later, when he became a member of the Saskatchewan legislature, he acted at different times as Minister of Railways, Provincial Treasurer, Minister of Telephones, Minister of Agriculture, and finally as Premier of the Province of Saskatchewan, and made good in every capacity. In 1926, when the federal department of railways was in need of reorganization, the Prime Minister sent him to bat when there were two down and the bases full. He got a three-bagger that time, for he had studied the Nelson terminal proposition. He switched the terminal from Nelson to Churchill, completed the line, and last year for the first time in the history of our government-owned roads, made the system pay. Now, once again we find him going to bat on the eve of an election, as Minister of Finance, in the second half of the last innings with the bases full and the score tied, and what does he do? Does he fall down? Nol He knocks the Hawley-Smoot pill, with its fancy tariff curves clear into the gulf of Mexico with a British preference bat, and I fancy I can see the fans sitting on the corral fences out west, reaching for their bull durham and saying, "Yes, Dunning made another home run."
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), referred to the budget this afternoon as spectacular. I think it was in order to term it spectacular as it was introduced by a very spectacular Minister of Finance. We westerners, of course, naturally feel proud of our Minster of Finance for we "saw him first", before he went into the big league, and I am confident that the western farmers who through the old grain growers' association helped him to acquire his economic education are still pulling for him as strong as ever, and when the Dominion championship series opens-it won't be long now-and the electors go to bat, they will judge the two great parties by their box score records of runs, hits and errors in the past, and there will be no doubt in their minds that they may safely trust the destinies of Canada to the party which has had the courage to face situations as they arise and readjust our tariff structures as changing world conditions may warrant, in spite of the howls of the opposition about losing their policy.
It is reassuring to note in this budget that there is a surplus of $44,500,000 and that about

The Budget-Mr. Bock
$80,000,000 is wiped from our national debt. This sets a new record and cuts the interest charges by over $4,000,000, and this in the face of increased expenditures of approximately $25,000,000 on capital account for taking care of such projects as the new Welland ship canal, the Hudson Bay railway, the St. Lawrence channel, harbour work at the lake heads, and public buildings in the city of Ottawa. So apparently there is nothing seriously wrong with this government.
One feature of our trade balance which was criticized by hon. gentlemen opposite was that Canada as a nation, like many of our citizens in the west as well as in the east, bought more goods than she sold this year, by about $103,000,000; and as our grain exports to the United Kingdom declined by $138,000,000 and our exports to Europe declined by $81,000,000, it only emphasizes the importance of our grain exports in maintaining favourable trade balances, and the urgent necessity of securing and holding the good will of all wheat importing countries of the world. We should then so arrange our tariffs as to make for freer interchange of goods for our grain and flour, and in my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, the sweeping tariff reduction contained in this budget in the ratio of four decreases to one increase, particularly as they affect the British Empire, should go a long way towards restoring the good will of our best customer for Canadian grain.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) the other evening in his speech referred to the Minister of Finance as a Santa Claus unloading his bag of parcels which were not to be opened until after Christmas, or after the election. I may say that when the minister was enumerating the many items made free under the British preference, I also saw a picture of a Santa Claus with a pack as big as a load of hay; but I did not get the drift of the hon. member's remark "not to be opened until after the election," for with the tariff schedules and the trade statistics before him the hon. member could at least have opened some of them on the spot. Some of the parcels I think had their wrappers off when they arrived, and certainly there was one that was wide open. I refer to the tea package, because the very next day after the budget was brought down I saw in two Ottawa newspapers advertisements in big black letters that the price of tea had dropped 15 cents per pound.
The opposition members accused us of being bullied by the United States. They also talked about adopting red-blooded tactics. I think either the hon. member for Fort William or the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), or perhaps both of them, last session wanted us to remain here until the United States had come through with their tariff revision program in order that we might enact retaliatory measures. To-day in one breath they tell us we are inconsistent in introducing countervailing duties, and in the next breath they tell us we have not gone far enough in that direction. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said we ought to apply these countervailing duties to the tariff as a whole, that there were only a few items to which they were applied and these were not nearly enough. In fact, he referred to the limited number of items covered by the countervailing duties as the gesture of a school boy. I am sure if the genial member for Fort William prescribed a tablespoonful of castor oil to his colleague from Vancouver Centre, that gentleman would not insist on taking a whole quart of the medicine until he had found out how the first dose affected him.
Some of the Progressives appear to think that we have gone too far; the Tories think we have not gone far enough; but it appears to me as if we had sort of struck the happy medium, because when both hostile parties are dissatisfied in that way, from one extreme to the other, I think the Minister of Finance is not very far out in his proposals. As world conditions change it is necessary for governments to make alterations in their policies from time to time, to meet emergencies as they arise, that is, if we are going to make progress. It is said that if a man were to follow a beaten path continuously he would soon get into a rut. Well, there is only one difference between a rut and a grave -the rut has no ends to it.
There is a strong possibility, Mr. Speaker, that the United States government, after they have studied the effects of these countervailing duties on their own producers and consumers, may not hesitate very long to make some reductions in their tariff structure. In fact I think they have already made reductions in duties on shingles, lumber and potatoes, following the budget announcement. Press reports state that President Hoover is being deluged with requests to veto the tariff bill now before the congressional committee. So we may be pleasantly surprised by the effect that our countervailing duties may have on the tariff policies of our neighbours.
Taking the different factors into consideration, then, we have on the one hand Uncle Sam's attitude of closing his doors to many of our products by the proposals contained
The Budget-Mr. Bock

in the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill; and on the other hand we have a good market in Great Britain for our commodities, but. she is reluctant to purchase them unless we take in exchange those articles which we have been purchasing in the United States. When the Hudson Bay railway is in operation, which will be in the near future, it will have the effect of lowering our freight rates, thereby reducing our cost of production, which is one thing we should not lose sight of; and the trade diverted from the United States to Great Britain should help to provide cargoes for the wheat earners returning to Fort Churchill. So it seems to me that this budget is piecing those problems together like the parts of a jigsaw puzzle. The Minister of Finance has been a good solver of puzzles in the past, by the time he gets through with this puzzle there will be no pieces left over for my hon. friends opposite to play with.
Fundamentally I have always been just as much a free trader as my friend from Rose-town (Mr. Evans), but there are times when certain things cannot all be done at once owing to extraordinary conditions. If our natural north and south channels of trade nre obstructed, we can blame Uncle Sam and his tariff measures. If he thinks it good business to lose a few hundred million dollars worth of Canadian trade annually it is his own affair. And if his prohibitory tariff machine backfires too much on him, he will probably take it to the garage to have it overhauled; apparently he has changed the timing on his potatoes, lumber and shingles. I believe in the feasibility of the Hudson Bay railway as a grain shipping route, and I think our present difficulties will be removed with the opening of that route; and with the progress made by this budget towards free trade within the empire, it should only be a few years before the last barrier to imperial free trade has been removed.
I am convinced that the record of the present administration, together with the budget now under discussion, which appears so effectively to meet the peculiar trade conditions to-day, should return this government to power with an increased majority at the coming elections. The opposition apparently have no policy to offer that would deal effectively with the situation. They criticize every action of the government, but after listening to their speeches it is pretty hard to arrive at what the majority of them really favour. Some of them are of the opinion that the increased British preference would put our manufacturers out of business; some of them 
claim it has not gone far enough; in the opinion of others it should have come sooner. The same diversity of view exists with regard to the countervailing duties. In a word, the opposition have no clear-cut, definite policy to offer to the country. They may make an issue of having their shirt stolen, for they always have a slogan, something easy for the people to remember. I recall in 1011 they had the slogan "No annexation, no truck or trade with the Yankees;" in 1921 the slogan was "blue ruin"	in 1925 they
had another "blue ruin" slogan; in 1926 they had some more "blue ruin" together with the customs scandal. But this time they will not be waving the flag so effectively as they did in 1911. In Saskatchewan they are apparently raising a religious issue. It seems a pity that an election cannot be fought cleanly on a national policy without introducing questions of race, language or religion, for these appeal mostly to those who are little concerned with the real welfare of Canada. In this connection, sir, I should like to read an extract from a verbatim report of a speech made by the editor of the Regina Daily Star, which appears in the issue of his paper of May 2. The meeting was held in the town of Shaunavon which is in the Maple Creek constituency that I have the honour to represent. On that occasion a Conservative candidate was elected to contest the coming election, and the Hon. Mr. Bennett was chosen honorary president and Hon. Mr. Anderson honorary vice-president of the local association. I shall not attempt to quote the speech in full for it is rather lengthy, but it contains some passages which I feel it my duty to bring to the attention of hon. members. Among other statements made on that occasion by Mr. Cowper, the editor of the Regina Daily Star, are the following:
Canada to-day is facing a conflict between the two races. Only folly would blind one's eyes to it, and cowardice seal one's lips. The Quebec movement thriving on the liberty accorded to the Quebec people by the act of 1774 and generous concessions since extended to it by Canadian leaders has now reached a point where it seeks to effect the mental conquest of all Canada. In has put six ministers into the King government; it has utilized its solid bloc to control the Liberal caucus and party, so that to-day its minority in the house is in control of Canada. It has abused its power thus obtained to flout the constitution and is now actively using the departments of government and the federal civil service in a campaign to overthrow the British conceptions of democracy and freedom in Canada, to block the wrork of those who wish to weld all the peoples of Canada into a homogeneous Canadian nationhood. It is using its control of the

The Budget-Mr. Bock
post office, the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and other departments of the Ottawa government to force the French language on the peoples of the British provinces.
This is not an issue of this man or that; it is not a fight between the ins and the outs. The Quebec French movement by its control of the present government of Canada has thrown down the challenge to the people of the western provinces. The future destiny of Canada, the character of its democracy, the treasures of mental and spiritual liberty, are bound up in the issue. They constitute a clarion call to all lovers of mental liberty and national freedom to unite and defeat the King government, and keep the Quebec movement from riding roughshod over the heritage of our dearly loved British liberties.
That would seem to outline the main issue in the coming campaign in the section of Saskatchewan from which I come. This represents the opening gun which was fired at the nomination meeting of the Conservative candidate in the constituency of Maple Creek. As the hon. leader of the opposition has been named honorary president of this Conservative organization, I am sorry he is not in his seat, but I wonder if he agrees with the report which I have just read. I wonder if he endorses the statements that were made at that meeting; I doubt very much if he does. I do not believe that the hon. leader of the opposition is the type of man that will endorse the sentiments contained in this article. It is rumoured in Saskatchewan that the leader of the opposition has either directly or indirectly some financial interest in the Regina Star, from which newspaper I have just read. I do not know whether that is a correct statement or not, but at some future time I would like to have an answ'er from the hon. member. Judging from reports which I have seen in newspapers as to the stand taken by the hon. leader of the opposition in connection with stirring up religious strife, I believe he is too big a man to countenance that sort of thing. I would like to read an article which appeared in the Western Producer in its issue of July 5, 1928. The newspaper heading is as follows;
Hon. R. B. Bennett speaks of policies of Tory party to French Canadians.
This address was delivered at Magog, in the province of Quebec, and in part is as follows:
He who makes appeal to prejudice, racial or religious, is a foe to Canada. Let by-gones be by-gones; study matters for yourselves, and when you go to the polls do not go as men and women driven by passion or prejudice, but strike a blow for the preservation of your country and its institutions, and an opportunity for development.
In dealing with the manner in which the hon. gentleman was received, the report is as follows:
"You receive me like a son just returned home," laughingly remarked Mr. Bennett in reply to the applause which greeted him when he rose to speak. He went on to talk of the necessity of not thinking only in terms of one province, but of all Canada, and preached his doctrines of peace and unity. As to appeals which have been made in Quebec against the Conservative party, he said the party would prefer defeat rather than deny the rights of minorities. "This party will go into ignom-inous defeat and cease to exist before it will tolerate doing away with any of your rights," he declared.
On June 24, 1928, at Laprairie, Quebec, Mr. Bennett paid tribute to the work of French Canadians in building up Canada and regretted he could not deliver his speech in the beautiful French tongue. On that occasion his speech was reported as follows by the Canadian Press:
"We must respect the rights of the minority whether in this province, Prince Edward Island or any other province," Mr. Bennett declared in recalling that the Conservative party under Sir John A. Macdonald had suffered defeat in protecting the rights of the minority.
"This Canada of ours must go forward without any dividing line of race, creed or religion, and in this course lies our salvation," he declared. The British North America Act which protected the right of the French minority could not be lightly set aside, he asserted.
These two articles do not very well coincide; they would seem to correspond about as well as the triangle and the circle, if I might be permitted to use that example. I hope that if the leader of the opposition has any control over the Conservative organizations in Saskatchewan he will put the brakes on that particular brand of politics.
I was pleased to note the remarks of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) as they appear in Hansard on April 29. On that occasion he took exception to newspaper editorials and clippings from the Regina Daily Star containing attacks on the Roman Catholic church, and apparently he was very much concerned with these newspaper articles. I am heartily in accord with him in his condemnation of that disrupting and un-Canadian style of politics. At this time I would like to read a few remarks of the hon. gentleman on that occasion. He said:
I have a considerable number of constituents, probably one-half, who are of the Roman Catholic faith, and a considerable number of those are of the French Canadian race. I find circulated amongst those people newspaper editorials, small excerpts reprinted from the Regina Star and other papers containing
The Budget-Mr. Bock

attacks upon the Roman Catholic faith that I, from my training, breeding and education, could certainly never endorse. I find those being circulated in my constituency among my electors, as providing a reason why I should not be returned to parliament from that constituency, simply because I am alleged to be in some sort of a conspiracy with the Saskatchewan government, of whose very composition I am ignorant, to wipe out the Catholic church and to make the Ku Klux Klan supreme in that province. I say to the right hon. gentleman and to those of his supporters who manipulate such propaganda, that if that is continued I am prepared to go throughout the length and breadth of the province of Quebec and tell the people, as I am telling him to-day, that the restricted rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic minority in those prairie provinces are in a large measure due to the terms of the constitutional acts of 1905 which were amended in committee by the government of which Sir Wilfrid was leader, in order to gain for his government an increased support in the English speaking provinces in which the Protestants had a majority. I now say to my hon. friend that if we are to avoid these discussions in my constituency and in the surrounding constituencies, they must at least avoid attributing to me any persistent hostility to the Roman Catholic faith-


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
British preference?


William George Bock: To get back to the question of the British preference, I must say that I listened with considerable interest to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). I noticed that he seemed to take very keen delight in abusing and ridiculing everything in connection with this budget and the Liberal party generally. I was much impressed by the vigorous manner in which this hon. gentleman unloaded his logic. Probably I should use the word language rather than logic. While I had previously held the opinion that the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) was entitled to the belt for rapid-fire oratorical efforts, I am afraid that hon. gentlemen had better look to his laurels because in my opinion the hon. member for Fort William almost eclipsed the record of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest. It would be interesting to have an endurance contest staged between these two hon. gentlemen. I would suggest that Mr. Speaker might donate an oratorical challenge cup to be competed for in open competition. I would venture to say that if my hon. friend the leader of the opposition did not win it himself it would be captured by either the hon. member for Fort William or the hon. member for Toronto Northwest. In the opening remarks of the hon. member for Fort William he stated that he could not understand anything contained in the budget, yet he followed that remark by a criticism which was more 
extensive in character than the criticisms of any other half dozen members combined. His remarks reminded me of a character in Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn." Huckleberry Finn's father was said to have been the champion cusser of the entire neighbourhood, and hi3 devoted son "Huckleberry" being very proud of his old dad, boasted that his parent could cuss faster and more effectively thant any other man in the community. He elaborated upon his father's ability by saying the the elder Finn could begin by cussing his closest neighbour, and from that point would include all the residents of the village, cussing them individually and collectively in a most efficient manner. Then he would widen the compass of his maledictions to include the adjoining neigh-hood, and he would cuss in particular any person of outstanding importance. After he had completed that category he would take in the senators, judges, congressmen and everyone in authority, always winding up with the president of the United States. He would give the president a thorough cussing and then, for fear he might have overlooked someone, would start with the president once more and go backwards, cussing them all over again. If Huckleberry Finn's father was the champion cusser of the United States I think the hon. member for Fort William might qualify as the champion vituperator, if I might use the word, of the House of Commons, for apparently he took a leaf out of Mr. Finn's Book and retraced his steps to make sure that no member of the government had been neglected.
However, from what I could gather from the occasional drift of reason which could be discerned through his barrage of ridicule I could catch no glimpse of the policy the hon. gentleman would suggest as a substitute for the policy he was criticizing so severely. He did, however, live up to a prediction made by his leader the other day in speaking in Guelph at the nomination meeting of the hon. member for South Wellington, when he said that all converts could be relied upon to make a mess of things. After listening to the speech of the hon. gentleman-of course, he may not be a 100 per cent convert; he may be only a backslider-I was reminded of an occasion during the campaign of 1926, in my own constituency. During that year the Tories fought their campaign with practically no ammunition except the customs scandal and blue ruin; at least that was the case in the west whatever it might have been in the east. They talked customs scandal and blue ruin exclusively in my part of the country.

The Budget-Mr. Bock
The leader of the opposition honoured the town of Shaunavon with a visit, during which he addressed a large audience in the local theatre on behalf of the candidate for the Maiple Creek constituency. This was the same candidate who was nominated just a couple of weeks ago, at the meeting during which the editor of the Regina newspaper made his startling oration. The leader of the opposition was the main speaker at that meeting, of course, and he had a good audience; the hall was filled. He was in good shape that night; and did not have any trouble at all in speaking and was not embarrassed by any means. This was the first time I had ever seen the leader of the opposition, and I had driven many miles to see him. Of course I did not meet the hon. gentleman, but I was amazed at the way he unloaded conversation. He lambasted the Liberal party wonderfully that night. He took the customs department all apart, tore the officials into shreds, and busted the government wide open. He took a couple of kicks at George Spence, the sitting member for the constituency; put Moses Aziz in gaol and threw away the key, and then took us all for a ride on some boat called the Maggie, or the Margaret. He showed us a wonderful time, and all admitted he was a great speaker. He had language to burn and he burned plenty of it.
After the leader of the opposition had burned up the government pretty successfully, he mentioned that the Tory party was going to safeguard everybody, although he did not say much about protection. He said a vote for the Tory candidate was going to pave highways to happiness, as I remember it, and with little talk of tariff or any other policy he had us just about convinced that if his party was elected it would turn us from bankruptcy to prosperity over night, and that this-would happen if only we would get aboard his political band wagon. After he had mopped his perspiring brow and the dust had settled down a bit, he informed the electors that if they wanted another spasm he could turn on some more, but intimated that he would prefer to answer a few questions if any person cared to put them to him. No one volunteered for a moment to ask questions, because the audience were still more or less spellbound, finally a tall, rather tired looking fellow sitting down about the middle of the hall, who from his riding boots and general appearance looked as though he might have come in from some ranch, got to his feet and in a mild tone of voice asked the chairman if the speaker would tell him something
about the policy of the Tory party. A solemn hush fell upon that meeting; you could almost hear the chairman gulp as he nearly swallowed his Adam's apple. The man sitting next to the rancher edged away from him as though embarrassed at being even close to a man who would ask a question, which was considered rather impertinent. However, the leader of the opposition rose to the occasion; he stepped to the front of the platform, fixed the questioner with his eagle eye, pointed an accusing finger at him and, in a voice filled with scorn, repeated those well known words which I am sure many of us have heard him use. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." About that time the audience caught their breath and heaved a sigh of relief. Apparently they had expected to see the inquisitive rancher wither right up in his boots, but to their amazement he never batted an eye; he replied to the leader of the opposition that he had come to the meeting to hear something about the policy of the Conservative party, but so far he had heard nothing but a tirade of abuse and ridicule directed against everything connected with the Liberal government. He said he had only asked that question because he was interested in learning what the opposition had to offer by way of a policy. Mr. Bennett [DOT]then rather amplified his previous explanation by stating that in his opinion he had been explaining the Conservative doctrine for more than an hour, and once more he said to that man: "He that hath ears to hear, and hear not; he that hath eyes to see and see not, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea."
After he had so successfully disposed of this seeker for information the meeting broke up in the usual way, but there wTere many murmurs heard throughout the crowd because that inquisitive rancher appeared to have started a new train of thought in the minds of the audience and when the campagn was over the candidate on whose behalf the leader of the opposition had spoken was defeated by Hon. George Spence by between 2,000 and 3,000 of a majority. So it appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that something more than ridicule and abuse will be necessary during this coming election. They will require something more definite in the way of a national policy than they have yet revealed, if they expect to attain even a percentage of that success which the most optimistic among them are predicting.
The Budget-Mr. Hanson


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Bock) will not accuse me of discourtesy if I do not attempt to follow him in the various lines of his discourse. It has been well said that every circus must have its clown, and we all realize the truth of that saying now. Least of all do I wish to follow him in the fulsome flattery which he has heaped upon his former provincial leader, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). Attention should however be drawn to that reference which he made to my leader in relation to national unity. My leader has been before the public of this Dominion many years and I have never heard it asserted that he has been a disruptor of national unity. On the contrary, I say, and without fear of successful contradiction, that upon every occasion he has been the defender of national unity and of the constitutional rights and liberties of the minority races in this country.
All of us who listened to the pronouncement of the Minister of Finance on May 1 have been wondering just what has come over the spirit of the Liberal party. I have been a member of this house for nearly nine sessions, and it has been instilled into my brain that the policy of the parry now in powe was just the reverse of the underlying intent of the budget presented this year. Throughout the whole history of the Liberal party, especially when elections were in the offing, there have been sudden conversions, and there have been at least two or three similar budgets presented during the nine years I have been a member of this house. When the government's ear was to the ground, and when the electors were making known their disapproval of government policy, the Liberal party always has run true to form and has not hesitated to depart from its traditional principles on the eve of the vote taking. The Minister of Finance must have been placed in an ironical position in delivering this budget, having regard to his previous political commitments both in and out of this house, and especially in view of the statements made upon his first platform appearance in the city of Regina. I regret that due to domestic illness the hon. minister has been prevented from being present during the whole of this debate. In that regard I am sure he has the sympathy of every member of this house. But while there may be ample excuse for the absence of the Minister of Finance, there is absolutely no excuse for the absence from this chamber during this debate of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar). In the name of the people of

this country I say to the Minister of Railways that it will not do for him to shirk attendance at this debate; he must rise to his feet during the course of this discussion and justify if he can his present political position, having regard to his previous history. The country, and especially the province of Manitoba will be satisfied with nothing less than an explanation either of his conversion or of his recantation.
There is considerable in this budget which warrants careful study and analysis, as I do not believe that any hon. member in listening to the announcements in the budget speech was able to grasp the full importance of the various sections and provisions. It would be strange indeed if any announcement of policy did not contain some good points. There are some points in this budget worthy of the careful consideration of the people of this country and of the members of this house, but those points which do not meet the fiscal conditions at present obtaining in this country are worthy only of the condemnation of the people of Canada. I venture to assert that most of the first-blush verdicts which have been made in respect to this budget will be reversed after a final analysis has been made. Especially is that true with respect to those parts of the budget which are protectionist or which have to do with the application of the British preference.
I have not the time at my disposal to go into a detailed analysis of the provisions of the iron and steel schedule of the budget. I must confess that this is a technical matter and only those well versed in the technicalities of the steel industry are able to pronounce judgment upon it. It would be presumptuous on my part to attempt to make a detailed analysis or to express any final judgment or conclusion. However, I feel sure that we will not obtain the full measure of benefits which I have no doubt the Minister of Finance and the ministry generally sincerely desired should accrue as a result of the changed schedules. The underlying intent in the revision of the steel and iron schedule and of the British preference was to transfer in a degree-just how much we have not been told-a portion of the import business in iron and steel either to this country or to the old country If that is the honest intent of the ministry, I have no quarrel to make because ever since this party came into power in 1921 the business of this country has degenerated to a large degree into the hands of our neighbours to the south. Any reasonable measure which will transfer business from the United States to Canada, or failing to Canada

The Budget-Mr. Hanson
then to the old country, per se merits our very sincere support. Whether or not this budget will have that effect upon the iron and steel business of this country I do not feel competent to say; I can only express the opinions of others who I believe know what the conditions are. The well considered judgment of gentlemen who should be in a position to judge of this matter is that with respect to certain of the heavier iron and steel commodities there will be a substantial reversal of the present trade conditions, but with respect to other features of the iron and steel trade there will be substantially no difference. In so far as the government has not gone far enough .to effect the desired result, the government is to blame.
The budget, as has been said this afternoon, naturally divides itself into three major aspects: the question of the revision of the tariff schedules, the question of the extension of the British preference, and the adoption of the system of countervailing duties, which is, I understand, not exactly a new departure, but which has been put into effect at least by the Liberal party for the first time. I shall not attempt to deal further with the affirmative features of the first aspect of the budget, but before I resume my seat I desire to say a word or two from the opposite standpoint and I suppose I might do so at this point as well as later on. I want to confess to great disappointment that on the eve of a general election the government has not done something more for Canadian industry and labour. That is a very general statement and I should, I suppose, particularize.
I have in mind two industries in my own immediate community. One is a branch of the cotton industry and the other is related to the boot and shoe industry. I must at once take issue with the remark of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maophail) that there should have been any extension of the British preference with reference to boots and shoes or cottons. I would say to her: "Have a heart," and I would take her gently by the hand, lead her down to my community, and show her, because there is an old adage that seeing is believing. I would take her to a beautiful little town situated three miles from my own city where away back in 1882 one of the great pioneers of the Dominion established with his own money, with the foresight which was characteristic of him, a great industry in order that the people of that community and country might live at home and not have to go abroad to earn their living. It is true that the industry which he established was not, in the language

of some of our free trade friends, indigenous to the country; but at all events he was a man of vision, and there he built of brick, mortar and machinery what was at that time the largest cotton mill in the Dominion of Canada, and which stands to-day as practically the only monument to his memory. That industry has been going on under one ownership or another until the present day. But let me tell the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who, I believe, is very solicitous for his friends in the boot and shoe trade, that never before in the history of the cotton industry has there been such depression, yes, despair, as there is to-day. I would show the hon. member for Southeast Grey a beautiful little community with a single industry employing in normal times 800 well paid, happy contented artisans, maintaining a happy population of more than 2,000 souls who, in turn, buy the entire produce of the surrounding country. To-day, would you believe it, as a result of the changes that have been made, not this year but in previous years, by the present government, those people have been reduced so that within the last few months they have been working just three days a week. That has meant all the difference between a happy, contented community and one that is just on the border line of poverty. One of the complaints I have against the budget is that no relief has been afforded for the textile industry. I believe I could duplicate in Quebec, the province of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, the picture which I am endeavouring to paint in the house tonight, and I can duplicate and more than duplicate it in other sections of my own province.


Mr. CAHAN:: It can be increased one
hundredfold in the province of Quebec.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I could take the hon. member for Southeast Grey down to the city of St. John where years ago two cotton mills were built by one family and where to-day we have the announcement that one of those mills is to be closed permanently, to the loss of the industrial life of the whole community and to the especial loss of the people engaged in that industry. I am not particularly concerned with the stockholders of Canadian Cottons Limited. The friends of the Minister of Justice situated in the city of Montreal, and especially his friend in the Senate, no doubt have had something to say about that from the standpoint of the shareholders of the company. But let me say this on their behalf: I believe it is a very well managed institution, but for the first time in many years they have just passed their common
The Budget-Mr. Hanson

dividend and I understand only from to-day's paper that the statement of last year is so bad that the dividend on the preferred shares, that is the outstanding shares of that company preferred as to dividends, upon which shares they rely very largely for their borrowed capital, is in danger of being passed and I have no doubt will be passed. I make a special plea on behalf, not of the shareholders of this corporation or of any other manufacturing corporation, but of the thousands of men and women of this country who have been deprived of a decent livelihood by virtue of the policy of attrition adopted by the government in the last nine years in respect to the textile industry.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: The same thing obtains in the United States.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The same thing does not obtain in the United States, and the hon. member does not know what he is talking about.
I am glad to know that the boot and shoe industry has a noble champion in the person of the hon. member for Quebec East, the present Minister of Justice, but I want to put it to him that it is not fair to increase the British preference on boots and shoes to the detriment of our own industry. I yield to no one in my loyalty to the empire; that loyalty has been paid for in blood, but I say to him that in the exercise of the power of extension of the British preference every care should be taken by the government not to injure a presently existing Canadian industry. The boot and shoe industry in this country, especially in the higher class grades of men's boots, is just shivering on the brink of disaster and any further extension of the British preference with respect to boots and shoes will mean the closing up of all the high class factories in the Dominion. I am sure that if the Minister of Justice will investigate the matter he will find from his own friends that that statement is not far astray.
Unconsciously, Mr. Speaker, I have drifted from the first aspect of this budget to the second. I do not intend to labour further on the question of the British preference, because I believe that we can illustrate the dangers of the extension of the principle of the British preference by concrete examples better than in any other way.
Just one word more with respect to the boot and shoe industry. Boots and shoes made in my home city and in the cities of the province of Quebec are to-day selling in the retail stores throughout Canada in competition with boots and shoes made in Northampton, England. On the surface I have no

quarrel with that, nor would I have if the two industries, the one located in this country and the other in the old land, were on an exact parity. But they are not, and unless the standards of living and all labour conditions in the old land change, they never will be on an exact parity. In other words, the standard of living of the boot and shoe operators in our Canadian cities is away above and beyond the standard of living of similar operators in Northampton, England. Now unless we are going to adopt the position that we ought not to have this industry at all in this country, or the alternative position that we want the standard of living of our boot and shoemakers in this country lowered to the standard of living in the old land, and working conditions here comparable with the conditions obtaining in Northampton, England, our boot and shoe industry, unless something is done, has got to go down, and I appeal to the Minister of Justice to stand pat on this question of the extension of the British preference with relation to boots and shoes. He has not seen fit to do it in this budget, and I fear very much for the future if the Minister of Justice should be translated elsewhere. I doubt very much, especially in view of the increasing ascendency of the free trade element in the Liberal party save and except as exemplified by this budget, whether the boot and shoe makers of this country would have on the other side of the house any champion if the Minister of Justice should go. So one of the chief faults that I have to find with this budget is what it does not contain.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Would the hon. member be good enough to tell the house what change he would make in the tariff with regard to the boot and shoe industry?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let me preface my answer by saying that I want to make it quite plain that I am expressing my own view. I would adopt such a policy as would stabilize the Canadian industry first, and before I went to any economic conference or considered the further extension of the principle of reducing the British preference I would make a thorough survey of the whole situation, and where I did not think the tariff high enough to start with, I would jack it up first and consider an extension of the preference afterwards. I would jack it up to such a point as to make it plain that I would allow no Canadian industry to suffer in unequal competition with British industry. That is my answer, and I would not be open to the charge of disloyalty either, because the Britisher is a man who plays fair and I think he would say that I was doing just what was right.

The Budget-Mr. Hanson


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Is that the policy of the Conservative party on this same item?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That opens up a very wide question. I took very great care to tell my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Young), who is a friend of mine, I think, that I was speaking for myself. My leader is quite capable of speaking for himself on this or any other question. Further, let me say that if I have read aright the debates of this parliament in previous years I am simply reiterating in different form the doctrine of the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I want to address a few remarks to the question of countervailing duties. I am satisfied that the countervailing duties proposed in this budget are just a feeble gesture on the part of this government in answer to the attitude of the United States. It is nothing but a feeble gesture, and I have no doubt that it waill fall short of the intent of the minds which devised the suggestion. Every thoughtful Canadian-I do not think that this feeling is confined by any means to members of my own party, although I make bold to say that we first seized on the point and recognized it from the very beginning-has felt the danger of the gradual absorption of our trade by the United States. There has been in my own mind a lurking fear of the economic conquest of this country. The development of our trade with the United States, especially in manufactured goods, coupled with the attitude, not of the people of the United States but of the government of the United States, during the last eight years ever since the Fordney-MoCumber tariff came into operation, has been fraught with great danger to the economic life of this country. For eight years I have heard gentlemen representing the point of view which I support on this side of the house beg and plead with the present leader of this government (Mr. Mackenzie King) to take notice and some action with regard to that economic situation. Last session especially some of us on this side of the house begged the Prime Minister to take official notice of the action and attitude of the congress of the United States, but until the very eve of an election our pleadings have fallen on deaf ears. But now the great voice of the people willy-nilly has got across to this government, and I believe that there is nothing that the party opposite fears so much to-day as the attitude of shilly-shallying-I can find no better expression-on this great national problem which has characterized the Liberal party during the past eight years. I believe that the Prime Minister is alive to the danger, and he seeks to meet it by this countervailing
effort of his. In my 'humble judgment that effort will fall far short of its intent. In the first place the number of items to which the countervailing duties apply is far too low. I am not going to speak of the question of a brick for brick tariff. I am going to leave that to the Minister of Agriculture to chew over and reflect upon, especially in view of the way in which I have heard him pour ridicule year after year on my late leader. I want to say to the Minister of Agriculture that he along with his colleague the Minister of Railways will have to do some heartsearching. " I shall leave that to him. I want to treat this question, if I can, from a businesslike standpoint.
* This policy of countervailing duties will not in my humble judgment divert the trade that it is sought to divert; neither will the extension of the British preference nor the imposition of certain duties in the iron and steel schedules. If I understand present economic conditions, there is only one way to divert trade from the United States into the hands of our own producers or of our kinsmen across the sea, and that is to raise the duties on manufactured goods, or on other goods that we want to shut out, so high that our foreign competitors cannot send them here. Only in that way will you effectively divert trade from the United States to the British Empire in such commodities as we cannot manufacture here.
I am not at the moment seeking to do that. What I prefer is that we should firmly establish a fiscal policy that will build up this country first. That is the policy my leader has been preaching in season and out of season ever since appointment to his present high office, and that is the policy that the mass of the thinking people of Canada. the artisans and workers, desire. I know that the people in my own community are not so much concerned about the cost of certain articles as they are about having the money in their pockets to buy those articles. I should like that truth to sink into the hearts and souls of some of my free trade friends apposite, because I do not question their sincerity; I question their judgment. In this connection, sir, I believe that when the electorate have an opportunity to declare their views, they will speak in no uncertain tone.
On motion of Mr. Deslauriers the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Criminal Code Amendment

Wednesday, May 14, 1930.