1931-06-12

PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
First report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament.-Mr. McLure.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 86, to incorporate the Sarnia and Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company.- Mr. Gray.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 87, to amend the Root Vegetables Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: The purpose of this bill is to provide that new potatoes will be included for grading during the months of June, July and August.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall said bill be read a second time?


Mr. GOTT:: Now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Next sitting of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Next sitting of the house.



AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 88, respecting Dominion Agricultural Credit Company, Limited.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BENNETT:: This bill provides that loan, trust and insurance companies shall have authority to subscribe for shares in the capital stock of the Dominion Agricultural Credit Company, Limited. Without this bill they would not have such power, and authority must be exercised before July 1, 1932.


Mr. SPENCER:: Is this in reference to the Beatty scheme?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.	*



TRUST COMPANIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 89, to amend the Trust Companies Act.
The Budget-Mr. Rhodes
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This bill merely provides that subsection 3 of section 69 of the Trust Companies Act be deleted and there be substituted therefor a new subsection authorizing trust companies to increase their borrowings on trust funds to seven rather than five times their present capital stock. Many of those companies have already arranged to carry such a provision into effect, and it is felt by the superintendent of insurance that no public interest will be adversely affected by granting the power provided for in this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 11, consideration of the motion of the Right Hon, R. B. Bennett (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Fisheries) :: Mr. Speaker, may I at the very
outset of my remarks extend to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) my hearty congratulations upon the highly creditable maimer in which he discharged the onerous duty imposed upon him in his capacity as financial critic of the opposition. While in the main I may disagree with the conclusions at which he arrived and particularly in one instance, nevertheless I wish to pay him this tribute.
In the course of his remarks my hon. friend was good enough to single me out for special attention in connection with one subject in particular which is of great importance particularly to the older people in the maritime provinces, that is old age pensions. At page 2291 of Hansard my hon. friend referring to that subject, is quoted as follows:
If I mistake not, my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) made a statement that he would resign, I think within three months, if the old age pension bill were not brought in.
The first time I had heard a statement of that kind was at an earlier stage in this session -or it may have been at the special session -at the instance of my hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). I am afraid my

hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth has unwittingly been led astray by having given heed to the remarks of the hon. member for Hants-Kings. Then, after I had made a prompt denial of the statement made by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) promptly came to the rescue of his esteemed friend and said that I had made the statement that if 99 per cent of the old age pensions were not granted within three months I would resign. After the statement by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth but since that hon. member was good enough to indicate that I had not denied the mild impeachment by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough I promptly made denial of that statement also. Whereupon my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough accepted my explanation. I submit in passing however that he did so within neither the letter nor the spirit of the rule. As a matter of fact I think my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough was carried away with the conviction that I had made a statement of that character.
It seems to me that there should be no doubt as to my position in the matter of old age pensions because on numerous occasions the question was discussed by me in the legislature of Nova Scotia. In fact during the last campaign I think I discussed it upon at least twenty-five or thirty platforms in the province of Nova Scotia alone and upon at least three occasions I dealt with it over a maritime radio hook-up. For those reasons my position must have been made very clear to the people in the province of Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces as a whole. As a matter of fact the press reports of my utterances appeared and, if you please, one of them reached the eye of none other than the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) who was then Prime Minister. Not only did he deign to notice my remarks, but he did me the signal honour of paying his respects to me by dealing with them in his opening speech in his maritime campaign in the city of St. John.
As a matter of fact my method of treatment of that subject was this: I always called in question the merits of the suggestion of my right hon. friend that it was contrary to the constitution for the Dominion of Canada to pay 100 per cent of old age pensions. I may say, with all deference to my right hon. friend, that I never took very much stock in that argument. Indeed, I subscribe to the state-

The Budget-Mr. Rhodes
ment of Premier Brownlee, of the province of Alberta, who said:
I have no patience with the argument that falls back on the British North America Act in this matter of dominion responsibility. If there is mutual agreement between the provinces and the dominion, who is there to object? Certainly none of the provinces will do so.
That was an utterance -which came from a source which could not be regarded as unfriendly to my right hon. friend, because, as a matter of fact, Premier Brownlee was one of the premiers to whom my right hon. friend was prepared to pay even a five cent piece. But the argument which I took in the course of that whole campaign, and the position which I took in the house, was this: If the constitution stands in the way, it did so in the case of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. That was an act which had been in force in this country for years and in virtue of which strikes and proposed strikes had been dealt with throughout the length and breadth of Canada for many years. But that act was called into question; the matter finally went on appeal to the Privy Council and was there declared ultra vires. But the dominion and the provinces thereupon did what I regard as a very sensible thing. They got together and came to an agreement in virtue of which every province passed a statute making the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act the law in its specific province. The man who is fond of the constitution might immediately rise and say: That course itself is ultra vires. Even so, what boots it to raise that point? Who is there to object? The dominion is in agreement; the provinces are in agreement, and the law is functioning
I submit in all deference that course should have been taken in connection with old ago pensions if the constitution is what stood in the way. Carrying my argument a little further, I made this statement: If it is a question of the constitution and not a question of amount; if it is constitutional for the dominion to pay 50 per cent of old age pensions, why not 60 per cent, or 70 per cent, or 99 per cent? And that 99 per cent was what caught the eye of the present leader of the opposition. Because in his speech at St. John he said he was "amazed and amused'' at the remarks of Premier Rhodes of Nova Scotia when he suggested that the dominion should pay 99 per cent of old age pensions. I never advocated that the dominion should pay it, but in the course of my argument I followed it up to that point and I think the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) went astray in following his leader who had also gone astray.
My right hon. friend, the present leader of the opposition, in his treatment of this subject in the maritime provinces, indulged in one of those characteristic performances of political fancy-skating on thin ice because, following that meeting in St. John, he spoke in the city of Charlottetown which is in the one province in Canada where he had to treat the subject very gingerly, the reason being that in that province is the largest number of aged persons and the treasury of the province is least able to stand the expenditure. Furthermore he was in a province which had a so-called Liberal administration, and so in speaking on that question in Charlottetown- and I say this advisedly because I listened to my right hon. friend over the radio-he said this:
The Conservatives say if they are returned to office they are prepared to pay 100 per cent old age pensions.
And then this is what my right hon. friend said:
I am prepared to consider payment by the dominion subject to an accounting with the provinces.
That was one of those delightfully and beautifully indefinite statements which are so characteristic of my right hon. friend. And it is capable of numerous interpretations, because it must be borne in mind if he meant the province was to contribute, he knew he was speaking in a province which through its government had said it could not contribute, but it must also be borne in mind that statement was made in conjunction with the proposal of the Conservative party that it would pay the whole of the old age pensions. I suggest that the clear inference which was left in the mind of the person who did not think that sentence out, in the province of Prince Edward Island in particular, was that my right hon. friend was holding out a hope they would pay old age pensions in full, especially when one bears in mind the fact that in Prince Edward Island my right hon. friend never raised the constitutional question at all.
But the next night he spoke in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and there he was in an entirely different atmosphere. There was a Tory government. He had none of those ham'per-ing influences which had held him down so closely the night before in Charlottetown. So the constitution was a real issue and in his speech in Sydney he stressed the constitution. He said: The law officers of the crown have advised me that the dominion cannot pay the whole of old age pensions, and if you want old age pensions in this province you must look to Premier Rhodes. No further
The Budget,-Mr. Rhodes

comment need be given as to the comparative methods of treatment of that subject by my right hon. friend first in Prince Edward Island, and next in Nova Scotia under their different conditions.
In the house this session my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has taken very high ground with regard to the dangers involved in making political appeals for support because of special grants to the provinces. Last year this developed into a vicious principle. This year my right hon. friend has softened it down to an unsound principle. But in all seriousness I submit that what viciousness and unsoundness attach to the proposals of old age pensions and what improper method of political appeal has followed them are largely, if not entirely, due to my right hon. friend. He must assume full responsibility and I shall give reasons for having made that statement.
In connection with other grants over and above the regular subsidies to the provinces, what may be called special grants, for example, the Agricultural Instruction Act of 1913, the Employment Offices Coordination Act of 1918, the Canada Highways Act of 1919 and the Technical Education Act of 1919, every one of those acts was brought into force but with the full and expressed approval of every province in Canada, so I submit that in connection with those grants there cannot be any suggestion of improper method of political appeal. But what did my right hon. friend do in connection with old age pensions? Did he seek conferences? Did he seek agreement with the provinces? Upon the eve of an election, spurred on for reasons, which I shall not enter into at the moment, my right hon. friend not only did not have the agreement of the provinces, but in the case of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec he had the explicit promise, given in advance by Premier Ferguson and Premier Taschereau that their provinces would have nothing to do with the proposals of my right hon. friend.


Mr. HEENAN:: The minister will pardon me; it wa3 just after the election, not on the eve of the election.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My time is too 'limited to enter into any controversy with my hon. friend, but my statement is substantially correct. In the case of Nova Scotia a communication was sent with regard to the attitude of the province, and the province said it was not in a position to enter into such an arrangement. The point I desire to make, however, is that if there has been any improper method of political appeal through grants of this kind, my right hon. friend the leader of the op-TMr. Rhodes.]
position and his friends must assume full and sole responsibility. If political appeal, rather than the welfare of the public, had been in our minds, we had an opportunity to pursue that course with the technical education measure which is before the house at the present time. If we had desired to play politics we could have deferred consideration of that proposal for two or three years, until the eve of an election, when we might get some political benefit from it, but we did not do so. It has been brought down at the first regular session of parliament, and by the time an election comes along it will be taken for granted and any political effect will have been lost. That will show that we had in mind as a government not the party welfare but the welfare of the public who, through this measure, will participate pro rata in the sum of $750,000 per year.
Just one word with regard to my attitude in connection with old age pensions. I am fully pledged to the full payment of old age pensions by this government. This government is pledged to the payment of old age pensions by the dominion, and the Conservative party is so pledged. If this session had been held during even normal times there is no question but that this pledge would have been implemented in full but, Mr. Speaker, the thinking public at large know that we are passing through a world economic upheaval, and that it would have meant very heavy additional obligations upon the treasury of the country to have gone the full distance at this time. We have bridged half the gap; there remains but the final step of 25 per cent, and I submit that this step will be taken as soon as sound financing will permit.
There is one other subject arising out of this debate to which I feel I must briefly but especially allude. My hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) had a word to say about the Canadian National Railways. Let me say in parentheses that if there is one hon. member of this house whose utterances are invariably fair, conciliatory and mild, it is my hon. friend from North Waterloo. Therefore any remarks he makes have attached to them perhaps a greater significance than would follow in the case of some hon. members who are perhaps not so careful in what they say. Furthermore, there attaches to his utterances also a further significance by reason of the fact that for a number of years he was a minister of the crown. During the course of his speech he made particular reference to the attitude of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) on the subject of the Canadian National Railways, and those who heard the hon. member for Stanstead are of course aware

The Budget-Mr. Rhodes
of the fact that he uttered his views in no uncertain terms. Then my hon. friend from North Waterloo, by inference at all events, endeavoured to make it appear that the Prime Minister, as head of the government, was identified with the views expressed by the hon. member for Stanstead. The first statement of the hon. member for North Waterloo was that the Prime Minister was not sympathetic to the Canadian National Railways in his utterances, and then follows a paragraph which appears at page 2487 of Hansard, having reference to the remarks Of the hon. member for Stanstead:
I felt that some of us who are the friends of public ownership, as exemplified in the operation of the national railways, would take issue with him on that point and say to him that if he represents the opinion of the government, and if what he said indicates that in any sense this is merely the preliminary of a propaganda against the national railways, they are playing with fire.
Then he starts his very next sentence with these words:
These attacks upon the national railways . . .
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the opening portion of the first paragraph my hon. friend from North Waterloo sets himself up as a friend of public ownership, in contradistinction to those to whom he was referring on this side of the house, and I wish to direct your attention particularly to the fact that while he might have been justified, in referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Stanstead only, in using the words "this attack," he did not do so; he used the words "these attacks on the national railways." That still further tended to leave the implication that he was coupling up the Prime Minister and the government of this country with the utterances of the hon. member for Stanstead. Let me say now that I attribute no ulterior or unfair motive to my hon. friend from North Waterloo, but that seems to be the implication.
I desire not only to take exception to that implication, but to repudiate in the strongest possible terms any such suggestion and to assert positively that it is without foundation. I am sure my hon. friend from North Waterloo and his leader would have been the first to take exception if, during the last session under the previous government, hon. members on the other side of the house had fastened the responsibility upon the then government for the utterances of my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), when he made attacks upon the premier of the province of Quebec. They would have been equally justified in that instance as was my hon. friend from North Waterloo in attempting to make
the utterances of my hon. friend from Stanstead the utterances of the government.
What are the facts? In addition to having raised hundreds of millions of dollars for capital expenditures in connection with our railways, to-day parliament is called upon to provide annually for the Canadian National Railways, for maintenance and improvements, a greater sum of money than was necessary for the whole cost of government in this country only a few years ago. Is this government or this parliament, or any government or parliament, which may hereafter inquire, as it is the duty of parliament to inquire, into the financial position of the Canadian National Railways, to be charged with making an attack on public ownership? Either the expenditures in connection with the Canadian National Railways are sound or they are not. If they are sound, no examination can do injury; if on the other hand they are unsound, even in part, then parliament owes a duty to the people of Canada to apply the necessary remedies. It would be unfortunate indeed, both for the railways and for the country, if the Canadian National Railways were to be regarded as sacrosanct. Many a child has been spoiled through over indulgence and lack of control on the part of fond parents, and in the interests of the Canadian National Railways it is our duty to scrutinize expenditures with the utmost care and, where it is necessary, to exercise a reasonable check and control. Hon. members of this house may have their own views upon the subject of private versus public ownership, but whether we agree with the one principle or the other, the fact is that we have government ownership. All parties are in agreement that it must be preserved and maintained. And it is the duty of all governments, of whatever political complexion, or whatever their views upon private or public ownership, to recognize facts and not to permit their sympathy to override sound business judgment in the matter of railway expenditures. As a last word upon this subject, may I express the fervent hope that in all our relationships with the Canadian National Railways, both now and in the future, it shall not be made the subject of party political controversy to the detriment of this great undertaking.
I regret that the limited time at my disposal will not permit me to traverse in detail, as I should like, the speech of my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth which covered some two and a half hours in time. At the certain risk of criticism-in fact, I predict now that I shall be criticized-for not having dealt with
25G8
The Budget-Mr. Rhodes

this, that or the other subject, I propose to treat with but one subject on this occasion, leaving other matters to be dealt with as opportunity presents itself. That subject is the coal policy. I think I can best make a proper entry into that subject by taking the house back to the conditions found in the coal mining areas in the province of Nova Scotia, following that great strike which ended in the early summer of 1925.
That I deal with Nova Scotia perhaps to a greater extent than with other coal producing areas in the dominion is because I happen to know the conditions there better. But what I say with respect to conditions touching that province will in the main hold good in relation to the coal industry in other provinces of the dominion. I shall not go into gruesome detail regarding all the suffering and distress and disaster which followed that eventful strike. I make reference to this merely for the reason that the underlying root cause for that strike and for the distress in that industry was the lack of regular employment-the lack of continuous employment. That strike was settled by way of compromise, and one of the conditions of that settlement was an agreement on the part of the government of Nova Scotia that it would appoint a royal commission to inquire into all conditions surrounding the coal industry. That commission was presided over by Sir Andrew Duncan. It is sometimes lo9t sight of that there were two Duncan commissions. Another member of that commission of three was Mr. Hume Cronyn, of London, Ontario, once an honoured member of this house and a very highly esteemed and much respected citizen of that province.
Now, in the addendum to the report brought down by that commission, covering several pages, Mr. Cronyn makes certain statements- not findings-with respect to that industry.
I have not time to read at length from it but I must quote at least one or two paragraphs. He says'.
The commission as a whole did not feel* warranted in expressing their opinion on some of the remedies suggested for relief of the coal industry in Nova Scotia. These remedies touched on matters within both provincial and dominion control, and of necessity involved a pronouncement on questions which for more than a generation have been the subject of political discussion.
The chairman of the commission, coming as he does from Great Britain, did not fcsl like entering upon findings; he dealt with a subject, which was more or less domestic in its character. I would direct the attention

of the house to these significant lines of one paragraph:	.
It will appear from our report that one, perhaps the greatest, cause of distress and discontent is due to irregularity of employment in the mines.
I would ask the house to listen to these two paragraphs:
I f, then, we of the central provinces are unwilling to sacrifice something of our prosperity on the altar of common citizenship to aid, perhaps indeed to save, the main industry of Nova Scotia, we may witness an estrangement of far-reaching consequences; for it is not exaggerating the situation to say that the inhabitants of the maritime provinces are in a frame of mind that insists upon relief from the disadvantages under which they labour. My appeal then, to my friends (if I may so term them), of Quebec and Ontario, and through them to the parliament of Canada, is on the highest ground of national unity. Let us, overlooking the pecuniary sacrifices involved, take the necessary measures to safeguard the welfare of our brothers by the sea.
Now, I do not recite passages in order to lend any emphasis to the conditions of which Mr. Cronyn spoke at that time, but merely for the purpose of emphasizing the importance of this industry to that section of the country. I have read these passages for that purpose and for no other. Bear in mind that from one-fifth to one-fourth of the whole industrial life of Nova Scotia is dependent upon its mines. To give an idea of the relative magnitude of the industry, let me say that half of the workmen's compensation paid in that province comes from the Dominion Steel and Goal Company in this mining area alone.
I do not propose-I have not sufficient time-to deal with the causes leading up to the appointment of the second Duncan commission, but I will cite one paragraph from the report of that commission. Bearing in mind that not only did it have as its chairman Sir Andrew Duncan, but that it included two other esteemed gentlemen, one of whom was my immediate predecessor in the portfolio I have now the honour to occupy, and the other a highly esteemed county court judge in Nova Scotia, whose political sympathies, before his elevation, were akin to the party of my hon. friends opposite I shall read what is stated on page 36 of the report of the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims:
We cannot too strongly emphasize the discouragement which the maritime provinces feel at the delay which has already taken place in giving practical shape to a policy which has been recommended so definitely by the Dominion Fuel Board as the only method by which eastern and central Canada can be relieved of the dependence upon imported anthracite. The difficulty in the Nova Scotia coal field is to keep winter employment regular.

The Budget-Mr. Rhodes
Even a partial displacement of the anthracite imported for domestic uses would provide an outlet for their coal, with definite prospects of growth and permanence, and having the very-great advantage that it would increase and make regular their winter employment.
Now just a word in order that we may-grasp the situation as respects the coal industry in Canada as a whole. We have to-day in Canada mines developed and equipped and in a position to operate, capable of producing a total of 28,550,000 tons of coal per annum, located as follows: Nova Scotia, 8,000,000; British Columbia, 2,500,000; Alberta, 17,000,000; Saskatchewan, 750,000; New Brunswick, 300,000. At the same time we operated those mines last year to just a trifle over 50 per cent of their capacity. I cannot attempt to depict to the house what it means to try to operate an industry of that character only half time. At the same time we imported into Canada 18,079,200 tons of fuel. We imported anthracite to the extent of 4,254,500 tons; we imported 1,048,000 tons of coke from the United States and 12,700 tons from Great Britain. We imported ' 1.3,218,000 tons of bituminous coal, which included a small amount of lignite from the United States, and 146,000 tons from Great Britain. These figures make up the total of 18,679,200 tons which I have mentioned already, which figure includes coal, both bituminous and anthracite, coke and a small amount of lignite. I have lumped them together in one figure-


Mr. VENIOT:: Could the minister give the house the distribution in Canada of those importations?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend means the distribution of the various quantities?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That would be a very large order and as a matter of fact I have not the details before me.
To put it another way, it means that if our coal mines had operated last year one hundred per cent of their existing capacity, we would have had to import during the year of 1930, which was not a high consumption year, no less than 5,007,200 tons of coal in order to meet our requirements. That is a simple statement of fact. It protrays a situation which requires no elaborate comment. Our problem in Canada is to increase the production of Canadian mines to a point of continued production with consequent regular employment. I submit that that problem constitutes a direct challenge to members of governments in Canada, both provincial and dominion, and to the executive capacity of
those engaged in business, in transportation and in industry. I will not overlook the difficulties of transportation nor the obstacles imposed by geography, but at the same time I am convinced in my own mind that this problem is capable of solution.
In approaching the consideration of this problem I would respectfully ask the attention of those who are opposed to tariffs, particularly as they apply to industries which might be regarded as exotic, as not indigenous or even adaptable to this country; I submit that we have here an industry which is native in being and important, and therefore one which requires our serious consideration for its welfare.
So far as I have been able to ascertain there never has been a country in the history of the world which has been great industrially unless its industry has been based upon coal. That statement may be subject to some modification owing to hydro-electric development and the larger use of oil, but I think it will be found that that statement holds substantially good even under these conditions.
Let me refer again to the report of the royal commission, known as the second Duncan commission. I am speaking now particularly to those who have not a kindly feeling towards tariffs. This commission was presided over by Sir Andrew Duncan, who was an adherent of the Manchester Liberal school and was not one predisposed in favour of tariffs. The commission stated that for reasons which had been pointed out to them, to the effect that the matter was under consideration by the tariff advisory board, they would not make a specific finding in the matter of tariffs, .but they did say this:
But we may be permitted to say that we are impressed with the need for reconsideration of the customs tariff in its relation to coal, anthracite and coke, and we recommend that the Tariff Advisory Board should be asked to give immediate consideration to the subject.
I have no desire to interject into my argument with respect to this coal question any political considerations, but I think it would be -fair for me bo say that this report was brought down over four and one-half years ago and that so far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned, during the whole period of their tenure of office they made no effort to give heed to the recommendation of their own commission which pointed out that immediate consideration of the subject was imperative.
Hon. members who heard the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth make his very excellent speech will recall that he coasted along very freely until he came to the coal proposals. He bore down very heavilv in his
The Budget-Mr. Rhodes

arguments upon every other phase of his criticism, but he treated the coal proposals very gingerly, in fact he might be said to have crossed the danger area with a hap, skip and jump. His first remark was that he did not propose to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I submit, sir, that here was a clear indication that there was a gift being made to the coal industry of Canada by means of these tariff proposals. He was as good as his word, he did not look the gift horse in the mouth; he spurned it out of hand, because he submitted an amendment which, if carried, would have the effect of denying to the people of his native province the opportunity of receiving the benefits contained in the proposals.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth during the course of his remarks made the statement that it had always been his humble endeavour to do what he could to advance the interests of the coal industry of the province of Nova Scotia. That may be so, but I would point out to the house that while my hon. friend was a minister of the crown, he was responsible in his own department for ordering coal for government services in the Department of National Defence during a period of years. Year after year my hon. friend submitted advertisements asking for tenders for coal to heat the various government buildings under the charge of his department, and what did he advertise for? Anthracite coal. In the year 1928-29 he purchased no less than 7,783 tons of anthracite coal, and in the year 1929-30, 8,535 tons. Perhaps that is not a great amount, but translated into terms of bituminous coal it means that last year his department purchased the equivalent of upwards of 10,000 tons of bituminous coal. Contrast the action of mv hon. friend in spite of his protestations, with the concrete actions of this administration. The moment we came into office we set up the policy that we would use none other than Canadian fuel in Canadian buildings, except in those isolated instances where it would be more advantageous to use imported coal.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I am advised that I have only two minutes left and I am only nicely started upon my remarks. This is my first experience of this closure rule, and hence the embarrassment in which I find myself. I shall endeavour to compress my remarks into the very smallest compass in view of the few minutes that remain to me.
Our proposals in regard to coal are, in the first place, a duty of 40 cents a ton on anthracite. I submit that that tax, which was held up as a burden plaoed upon the people of Ontario and Quebec, need not be paid at all by the people of those provinces. In the first
fMr. Rhodes.]
place, even if they buy anthracite coal, the treasury gets the benefit of the tax. It remains to be seen, however, how much of that tax will be paid by the producer. I venture to say, owing to the highly competitive nature of the business, that the larger portion, if not the whole of that tax, will be paid by the producer in the United States. But, sir, there is no reason in the world why the householder in Ontario and Quebec who is a large user of anthracite coal should use a pound of anthracite because we have in Canada to-day, in coke, a fuel that is infinitely superior to anthracite. Exhaustive tests have fully demonstrated that the man who uses, we will say, ten tons of anthracite in a year can save, in round figures, about S23.50 if he will use coke, which is a far superior fuel. You say: There is a duty of $1 per ton on coke. True, but the coke can be made in Canada. Even if the coke is made in this country from United States coal, there is a drawback of 99 per cent.


Mr. CANTLEY:: There should not be.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) says that there should not be. But the fact is that it is there. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth criticized us very severely the other day because tariff item 1049 had not been deleted. When he made that criticism it was not so ingenuous as it might sound. It reminded me of the position taken by President Cosgrave of the Irish Free State, who when taxed by Mr. De Valera with not having done something, replied, "They have burned down the buildings and now they complain to the government because there is a smell of smoke." My hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth and his friends are responsible for that tariff item 1049, and he expects us now to wipe it off out of hand. It is one thing to be responsible for the initiation of policies, and quite another thing to disturb settled conditions, after contracts have been entered into. That cannot be done overnight, but I agree with my hon. friend from Pictou that that item ought to be deleted, and I look forward to the time when it will be deleted.
If I may be permitted a moment just to conclude, it is not suggested that these proposals offer a complete solution of our problem of building up and maintaining a healthy and prosperous Canadian coal industry, but they do mark a great step forward in that direction, indeed, the greatest step forward in our history. It is not to be expected that their effects will be electric or immediate, but as a result of our policy I believe that we shall witness a gradual and steadily increasing

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
improvement, and in the future our proposals can be revised and amended in the light of experience. Whatever may be said of this budget as a whole I have full faith that future generations will acclaim the proposals of the government and their contribution to our national development.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to
listen to the "pro domo'' plea which my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) has just made about old age pensions. He did not fail to speak about the five-cent piece, and I am not at all surprised, therefore, that he should be slated by the press for the Ministry, of Finance. As my hon. friends from the maritime provinces have repeatedly told me, the hon. member should lay a wreath on the grave of the former Minister of Finance, the late Mr. Robb, who paid subsidies to the province of Nova Scotia before they were due in order that the province should not have a deficit, and that was done not only for Nova Scotia but for New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island as well. My hon. friend said that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has given numerous interpretations of the Old Age Pension Act. Perhaps so, but I was very sorry to see the hon. Minister of Fisheries take the wrong one. He spoke about agreements with the provinces. There was a proposal submitted by the federal government to each of the provinces, and as soon as that proposal was accepted by a province, it was agreed to and the province was satisfied with it. My hon. friend complained about a statement that was made the other day by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) relating to the payment by the federal government of 99 per cent of the cost of the old age pension. Then, how is it that the Minister of Fisheries stated a moment ago that his own party is absolutely pledged to the full payment of the old age pensions.
The next matter which my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries discussed was the Canadian National Railways, and in that connection he put me in company with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). He said that fond parents would not allow their children to be rude to one another, or something to that effect. But as I listened the other day to the remarks of my hon. friend from Stanstead I thought he was treating that child, the Canadian National Railways, pretty roughly, and I wondered if he was thinking of adopting another big fat and nice looking baby, the Canadian Pacific Railway. The hon. gentleman also said that he was in
favour of scrutinizing the affairs of the Canadian National Railways. In that we are in perfect accord, and I have now hope that in the near future I shall see the returns brought down which have been passed by the house and which I have repeatedly asked for. May I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) for having been kind enough to bring down something yesterday, to give me a sweet mouth. I expect more in the near future.
There is another matter with which my hon. frend the Minister of Fisheries dealt and that is my relations with the premier of the province of Quebec. The hon. member (Mr. Short) who at the moment is presiding over the proceedings of this house

and I congratulate him upon the honour conferred upon him in being asked to take the chair-will, as one who has occupied a seat in the house for a number of years recall that I spoke about fair wages in the province of Quebec and also in the maritime provinces, and I gave a message to my good friend from Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) one day. I said to him:	Please give this message to the
premier of Nova Scotia, now the distinguished Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes). Tell him to take good care of the miners. See to it that their salaries are improved by a minimum wage law. I suppose that my hon. friend from Inverness had other things to do than to give that message, and I am very sorry he found it impossible to deliver it to the hon. Minister of Fisheries who at that time was the premier of the province to which I am referring. Hon. members may have noticed that lately they have not heard me speaking about the premier of the province of Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Mr. POULIOT:: Well, I shall state the
reason. I hear the Prime Minister say "Hear, hear." May I say to him that I have not been referring to the premier of the province of Quebec because his bad companion, Mr. Ferguson, has been sent to London. As the premier of Quebec is now in better company I have nothing to complain about. I wish to say further that after our efforts, our work and our complaints the payment to men working on the roads in the province of Quebec has been increased by 50 cents per day. Such an increase is appreciated by those labouring men and the increase represents a practice which to my knowledge has not been followed in the province of Nova Scotia. I am sure however that if my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries had remained at his post as premier of the province of Nova
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

Scotia he would have followed that good example of the province of Quebec. For that reason I am sorry he now holds a portfolio in this house. Concluding my remarks about the speech of the Minister of Fisheries, I have only one thing further to say. Although he represents a very fine constituency I am sorry he does not represent the capital city of the province of Nova Scotia owing to the fact that he has been the premier of that province. If sometime before prorogation the government decides to purchase the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon may I suggest that the present junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) would be a proper representative for the new constituency of St. Pierre-Miquelon and the present Minister of Fisheries could take the seat of the' present junior member for Halifax.
Concerning coal I have very little to say. I wish to state however that if the duty on coal serves the purpose of helping the miner in the province of Nova Scotia, I am for it. If on the other hand it increases the cost of coal at the expense of the common people without offering a better chance to the miner I see no advantage in the change. Bituminous is a type of coal which is used in conjunction with a certain heating apparatus. The cost of the coal in addition to the expensive apparatus is too great for the pocket book of the poor man who is out of a job and who belongs to the great army of unemployed; as a result we seldom find those men using coke and bituminous coal for heating purposes. I am told however that many people in the maritime provinces use anthracite, as is done in other parts of the country.
As I wish to make my speech as short as possible I shall now direct my remarks to the promises made by the perpetual Tory candidate during the last election campaign in the constituency I have the honour to represent. Promise number one related to agriculture, and in the promise was included an upheaval of industry and further development of agriculture.
On May 29 the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Myers) said:
I may tell him,-
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr Beaubien).
-however, so far as the maritime provinces are concerned, that they cannot register as many complaints to the square inch as I have heard from western members this winter.
This is probably due to the good effect brought about by the implementing of the Duncan report by the Liberal government.

The hon. member said I looked like an honest-to-goodness farmer. May I at this time thank the hon. gentleman for that compliment. The fact that the leader of the opposition and hon. members on this side of the house look like farmers proves that hon. members of the Liberal party have identified themselves with the farmers and the workingmen of Canada. I was surprised when the hon. member for Queens, speaking of the east, made the following statement:
We are easy to deal with. When the price of butter is low we pocket our loss, and when it is high we take our profits and say nothing about it. It is easy to handle such a situation.
If hon. members were not accorded the privilege of bringing to parliament the farmers' grievances the functions of parliament would be better abolished. The farmers of my constituency are gentlemen, as are undoubtedly those of the constituency of my hon. friend from Queens and throughout the country. I was surprised therefore when looking at the Parliamentary Guide a few days ago to learn that the hon. member is a farmer. To my mind he did not show good manners when he stated that lawyers could not properly defend the case of the farmers. What about the right hon. leader of the government, one of the most distinguished members of the bar? The remarks of the hon. member constitute an insult lodged not only against the right hon. leader of his party but against all lawyers in the house, and 1 protest most strongly.
When the Prime Minister visited Riviere du Loup he addressed a very well attended meeting.


Peter John Veniot: Did the right hon. gentleman speak in the new station?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, he spoke about a mile from the station, but I may say I was glad to go to the station on his departure to wish him good luck. In the Gazette of July 14, I find the following:
Mr. Bennett spoke briefly of the necessity of inaugurating measures to help restore Canadian agriculture, dealt with the butter situation and said the issue was, whether Canada was to be a country or an annex. "Are you for Canada or some other country?" He asked: "Therein lies the issue. If you are for Canada, how can you help unless you send men to parliament who will pass laws to secure the markets of Canada for Canadians and give us an opportunity of selling our supplies abroad."
The practice of marketing abroad was a Liberal policy.
"Why," asked Mr. Bennett, "should eggs, meats, butter, cheese, et cetera be brought from abroad to feed Canadians?"

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
Return No. 318 tabled on June 8 of this year disclosed the information that in spite of the fact that the tariff is higher now than it has ever been, the price of butter was lower in the month of May than it has been for twenty-seven years. I asked a question concerning the people who had tried to dump butter in the months of May, June and July prior to the election? That question appeared on the order paper, but was not answered and the information was not given. I asked the further question:
Who are the members of parliament who are or who have been directors, officers or members of the National Dairy Council since 1925?
I heard my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Thompson) say that he had been a member of the board, and I had been informed that he was not the only one on his side of the house. However the question to which I have referred was ruled out of order by Mr. Beau-chesne, Clerk of the House. May I take this opportunity to say that that gentleman has been quite severe concerning questions to be put on the order paper.
At this time I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) some questions. My first question is: How is it since less butter is imported the price is also less? Secondly: How is it that the price of milk and cream for home consumption remained about the same when the price of butter and cheese fell down? Third: How is it that the so-called protection policy does not protect the farmer at all?
During the election campaign several observations were made concerning pulpwood coming from Russia last year. At the special session my hon. friend from North Timiska-ming (Mr. Bradette) obtained an answer from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) concerning this importation of pulp-wood. The reply was as follows:
Pulpwood imports from Russia-Nothing. Construction wood imported from Russia- Nothing.	*
Until the special session our country had imported no pulpwood or construction wood from Russia; in spite of that fact however the government decided to place an embargo on all Russian products. The farmers in my constituency would be very much surprised if any good came from such an embargo. Last winter settlers, whose earnings are derived from the sale of lumber tried to sell pulpwood at $5 per cord, and their offers were refused.
As regards the question of the seasonal tariff on potatoes, the farmers in my part of the country are interested in raising potatoes.
The following order in council was published in the official gazette on May 5 last:
By order in council (P.C. 1033) dated the 1st May, 1931, order in council (P.C. 937) dated the 22nd April, 1931, was amended by deleting potatoes from the list of products which the Minister of National Revenue was thereby authorized to fix the value of, and the value for duty of potatoes fixed by the minister as contained in Appraiser's Bulletin No. 3704, dated the 22nd April, 1931, is cancelled.
Afterwards, in order to give an opportunity to the farmers, the government fixed the value of radishes, and later there are other orders in council for strawberries and cucumbers, but there is nothing for potatoes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There will shortly be one for new potatoes.


Jean-François Pouliot: But at present there is
nothing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just as was said, this is a seasonal tariff. The old potato season is past; the new one is about to come. Before it comes, there will be provision for it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad the Prime Minister confirms my statement.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is what it is
for.


Jean-François Pouliot: There are many ways of
helping the farmer. When I was elected, fences and ditches along the Intercolonial railway in my constituency were in bad shape, and through the good-will and intelligence of the then Minister of Railways, Mr. Dunning, who grasped the situation thoroughly, the law was changed in order that the Intercolonial might be put under the jurisdiction of the railway board in regard to operation. This work has since been done and I was glad to hear the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) say the other day that he would follow that wise policy. Amongst other things that were done, submarine telephone cables were laid in order that the farmers of distant parishes might have better communication across lakes and on islands in the St. Lawrence river, and many other works were carried out in order to help the farmer.
In regard to old age pensions, the Prime Minister came to Riviere du Loup and according to the Gazette this is what he said:
He renewed the pledge of the national Conservative convention at Winnipeg as regards old age pensions.
At this point may I relate something which is delightful. During the last campaign my opponent said: "How will the leader of our party succeed in having the old age pension
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

paid in full by the federal government without any increase in debt, without any more expenditure?" He said, "It is very easy; he will cancel those legations at Tokyo, Washington and London." As regards the mention of Washington, that was surely a lack of foresight, and the same thing may be said of London, because Mr. Ferguson was sent there. My opponent said more than that. There was only one legation left, that of Paris, where Mr. Roy is. When a Conservative candidate returned to his home, he said to his wife: "I have been offered the appointment to succeed Mr. Roy." She said, "Who said that to you?" He said, "Mr. Dube." She said, "What Mr. Dube?" He replied, "The mayor of Riviere du Loup, who is to say a good word in my favour to Mr. Bennett and I might be appointed to Paris."
I quote again what my right hon. friend said at Riviere du Loup:
We propose to pass a law, the first session, to give Canadians a fair chance of competition on equal terms, a fair chance to develop Canada against competitors from any part of the world, said the leader.
This is the Liberal policy.
We propose to do that, the first session, or we will get out of office trying. I ask for your support and there is only one way of giving it -vote for Messrs. Dube and Audet, if you mean to help us build up Canada.
Not build up a station, but build up Canada.
Mr. King cut off the federal grant to aid agriculture; if we come back, we propose to renew that grant, for farmers have the right to know everything that science can teach them.
Let me refer to what was said during the election by my opponent about the Imperial conference. This is something which was also delightful. He said more than the leader of the party. He asked:	"Who are
the Conservatives who are to represent Canada at the Imperial conference?" He mentioned the present Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), who did not go there; the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), who also did not go and the Hon. Senator Chapais, who did not go there. One day he said to the people who were present: "Would you not like it better if I went there than he?" pointing to me. I replied: "I never mentioned it." But he was to go to the Imperial conference, and the day before the election he said: "This is the last time I come before you as a private citizen. The next time I appear before you I will be Minister of Labour." I wonder if it is because he has changed his mind that the Prime Minister has asked Senator Robertson, who is a very good man, to take that portfolio.

With regard to the transcontinental railway the speech of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) on June 5 of this year was answered on July 12 of last year by the Prime Minister when he came home. The hon. member for Stanstead said, as reported in Hansard at page 2348:
How far that eloquent chieftain-
Speaking of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
-of this parliament was able to lead the people astray when he engaged in public ownership.
This is how the Prime Minister replied, when speaking at Riviere du Loup last July:
Mr. Bennett drew cries of "Shame" from the audience when he contrasted Premier Mackenzie King with Laurier. When the United States had threatened to cut Canada off boundary privileges, Laurier had declarfed that Canada would build two railways of her own. But when protection was asked against American imports, Mr. King had said: "Hush, do not provoke the United States."
The present leader of the opposition is alive; he has to be fought; but Sir Wilfrid Laurier is dead and he has what he deserves -praise.
It must be remembered that the grades were changed under the Borden administration by people who wanted to destroy the work of Laurier and this is why the transcontinental railway did not serve the purpose it was intended to serve. In my constituency some of the grades are so bad, they have to cut trains in two in order that they may pass with heavy loads.
There was a promise of a junction between Riviere du Loup and the transcontinental railway, but I have heard nothing about it since this pamphlet of promises which I hold in my hand was published.
There is a promise about the development of harbour facilities at Riviere du Loup. I have here the program of the Conservative candidate in my constituency which contains this promise, but according to a certified copy of a resolution that was passed by the municipal council of the city of Riviere du Loup on April 13 last, he voted against it. His party voted not only against it, but against the consideration and study of the matter by experts. This is shown by the report of the vote on page 1031 of Hansard.
With regard to the improvement of the railway shops, I have an order for return dated April 23, in which appears letters from the Conservative candidate, as mayor of Riviere du Loup, to the director of unemployment and to other people, saying that before January 1, owing to his own ignorance, the city of Riviere du Loup did not pay

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
regular wages or observe regular working hours ^ for the men on the pay list. The Tory candidate was promising better wages and fair hours of work to the workingmen, but he did not even act according to the regulations of the Unemployment Relief Act.
Just a word with regard to the employees of the Canadian National Railways. On June 1, at page 2199 of Hansard, I asked:
1.	Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to reinstate Mr. Noel Plourde, ex-conductor?
2.	If so, when?
The Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) said, "Answered," but my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said:
Mr. Speaker, this question reads; "Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to reinstate Mr. Noel Plourde." Surely we have reached the stage where such a question should not be asked.
Mr. Pouliot: I should not like to ask a question which causes discomfort to the cabinet.
Mr. Manion: The cabinet has nothing at all to do with the question.
The point is that the Minister of Railways was ready to answer; he had received the answer from the Canadian National Railways, but my right hon. friend prevented him from giving the answer to Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the information of
the hon. gentleman I may say that the answer would have been that the matter was in the hands of the railway and not in the hands of the government.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand that very
well, but the answer came from the railway to the minister, and the minister was acting in accordance with the answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that was the answer of the railway; they were not going to disclose their business.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad my right hon. friend is giving the answer to-day; it was worth speaking about.
There is also another matter, with regard to the appointment of workingmen on the recommendation of the Conservative candidate, on the ship Mikula, which is operated by the Department of Marine. One of these men was convicted for stealing apples, so I would ask the Minister of Marine if he has insured the furniture of the ship against theft, or if he intends to use the ship as a galley for convicts or ex-convicts. I have a copy of the judgment in the case, the minister is not here, but I will send it to him to-night. This man who was recommended, took the place of other people with a better record.
Now I come to a very dear subject, the Riviere du Loup station. Speaking in Brandon, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister made a statement with which I entirely agree, except for the blame which he tries to place on the previous administration; as an enunciation of principle his statement is perfect. He said:
I want to say that the Conservatives in power will give the Canadian National management a stronger support, and a more disinterested support, than they have had under the King administration.
If the right hon. gentleman had said s strong and disinterested support, and left it at that, I would have agreed with him entirely. He continued:
There will be less log-rolling and interference; the management will be better able to carry out their policies without politicians butting in and trying to stop them.
I have in my hands a copy of the Canadian National Railways Magazine of June, 1930, which contains a picture of Sir Henry Thornton laying the corner stone of the new railway station in Hamilton. On that occasion he said:
This new station, of which I have the honour to lay the corner stone, is but a vision of the past come true; and it is a permanent testimonial of the work that has been done. It is true that there is no such thing as satisfaction, completion, or finish, for achievement only spurs us to greater endeavour and to greater progress. Therefore, to you veterans I can only say "thank you" and tell you that you have made traditions of which we are all proud and which we hope to emulate in the future.
This is a nice speech for the laying of the corner stone of a station.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman had better delete that reference from his remarks; it is not in order to introduce the name of the Governor General.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not referring to the Governor General; I am referring to Sir Henry Thornton. To proceed with the station at Riviere du Loup, two ministers of the crown said the Conservative candidate had worked hard for that station. I asked them questions and found that the. Solicitor General left for the Imperial conference on September 23 and returned on December 12, and he said he had not in the meantime communicated by letter, wireless, cablegram or wireless telephone with any person in connection with the proposed construction of the new railway station at Riviere du Loup. This answer of the Solicitor General appears in Hansard of June 5. The answer of the Minister of Railways, which appeared in Hansard of May 2S, stated that he left Ottawa op October 1
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

and' oame back on October 11, and in the meantime did not communioate with anyone with regard to the proposed new station. The other ministers whom the Tory candidate met in Ottawa on October 7 last were the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), and when I asked them for information they refused to answer, because they said, of their oath of office. The hon. member for Argon-teuil (Sir George Perley) was appointed acting Minister of Railways on October 7, by order in council. On March 31 I asked the following question, which appears in Hansard:
Was he appointed acting Minister of Railways in order to refuse to sanction the construction work at Riviere du Loup?
Mr. Manion: Certainly not.
That was a good answer, but on the very day of his appointment as acting minister the Canadian National Railways returned the cheque to the tenderers, saying the Department of Railways and Canals had refused to sanction the construction of the station. That, was while the Solicitor General and the Minister of Railways were out of Ottawa, and both of them pretty far away. On June 1 I asked this question:
What was: (a) the date; (b) the number: (c) the subject matter of each.order in council submitted to him while acting as such, to the privy council during that period?
The answer was that there was one order in council dated October 8, 1930, in fact October 9, P.C. 2370, with regard to orders for an addition to the station at Levis, Quebec. He refused to sanction the construction of a station at Riviere du Loup, though he was not appointed to do so, and in fact he approved of an addition to another station at a place no more important than Riviere du Loup. Through the courtesy of the Prime Minister I have a copy of that order in council, and I wonder whether, on the recommendation of the new board of directors of the Canadian National Railways, the money voted by parliament for the station at Riviere du Loup was spent in virtue of an order in council on the addition to the station at Levis.
I do not wish to be rude to any hon. member of the house, but on April 16 last, at page 650 of Hansard, an hon. member accused me of playing vaudeville with the station at Riviere du Loup. I am sorry the right hon. Prime Minister has left the chamber, but I will ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) to convey my message to him. That very same hon. member was on the train with me one day going from Ottawa to Montreal and he said, "I am {Mr. Pouliot.]
. very sorry I cannot speak English; otherwise I would tell these facts to the government." I mention no name, but anyone referring to Hansard will realize whom I am speaking of. It is pretty hard to speak both ways in and outside of the house. Take for example, Mr. Speaker, a respectable Conservative paper like the Mail and Empire. What does that paper say on June 10 with reference to the photographs of Riviere du Loup station, laid on the table of the house? Let me quote;
The photos, he stated in an interview to-day, show what words cannot bring. They make clear, he said, the holes in the present station's roof and the way the water runs into the waiting room from a flanking hillside every time it rains-and it rains plenty in Riviere du Loup.
If Mr. Pouliot is able to table the pictures, as he claims is his right, without being ruled out of order, no member of the house, he declared, will be able to plead ignorance of the true state of affairs beside the tracks at Riviere du Loup.
I have here the correspondence that has been laid on the table under reference No. 242, the correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Railways and the Conservative candidate. The file is not complete: some of the letters are here but others are missing. No letter from that gentleman to the minister is produced, the explanation being that it is marked personal. I believe I have sufficient time to read one of the letters not marked personal-and I would observe, by the way, that one wonders what the personal letters must be like. This letter, which is a translation, reads:
Riviere du Loup,
January 17, 1931.
Mr. Arthur Lalonde,
Secretary,
Post Office Department.
Dear Sir,
Re: Isle Verte R.R. No. 1 This mail service has been asked by Mr. J. F. Pouliot, before the elections, it has been granted, mail contract awarded, more than 50 per cent of the residents have bought boxes.
To-day, it is not working, Mr. Pouliot accuses me to have stopped this service. Meantime I would not be a bit surprised to learn that he is the guilty party. The officials of your department are still his friends. He can make them act.
Why, after having decided this matter the mail service is not in operation? Because the government has changed and the officials of the department do their best not to grant us anything we ask.
Yours truly,
Chs. E. Dube.
I protest against any communication of that character for it is utterly false and unjust for the civil servants.

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
A communication from the Minister of Railways to the clerk of the city of Riviere du Loup on November 6 was to this effect: "Your city was not proposed in a special way when the question was presented." This means everything, because the Conservative candidate was in Ottawa when the question was decided by the acting minister.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that my county has been discriminated against. The reason is obvious: they wanted to punish the good electors who voted for the Liberal candidate. But they did not realize that at the same time they were punishing their own friends. The gentleman to whom I have referred, the Conservative candidate, wrote an article in his own name, in Saint Laurent, in October last, in which he made this statement: "I have not been elected; I have no promises to fulfil." That will give the house an idea of the way in which my constituency has been treated. I have been asking for returns to orders made in this house, and I have got some crumbs from the table of the rich, for which I am thankful. May I suggest that a square meal would be welcome-all the orders I have been asking for. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote the following excerpt from May's Parliamentary Practice, twelfth edition, page 564:
If parties neglect to make returns in reasonable time, they are ordered to make them forthwith: or so much of returns as lxas not been made. If they continue to withhold them, they are ordered to attend at the bar of the house; and unless they satisfactorily explain the causes of their neglect, and comply with the order of the house, they will be censured or punished according to the circumstances of the case.
I wish to be lenient, but at the same time I desire to have at the earliest possible date the answers which I have been expecting. I shall be thankful to the government when they bring down these returns, and I am sure that when they realize the true facts of the situation they will be disgusted with the local Tory tactics in my county and will put a stop to the present state of affairs.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: In rising to address the house briefly on the resolution proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), it is not my purpose to discuss at length more than one subject, and that is the effort that is being made throughout the country and in this house to fasten on the government and on the Conservative party the charge of endeavouring to undermine the Canadian National Railways. In dealing with this matter I intend to put before the house some information which I think will convince all reasonable people that 22110-164
it is the men on this side of the house, and those who are willing to examine closely into Ihe expenditures of the Canadian National Railways, in order to ascertain exactly what the position is and what circumstances have led up to the present situation, who are in reality the friends of the system itself.
The Canadian National Railways came into existence as a result of a situation with which this country was confronted in 1917, 1918 and 1919-a situation brought about by the fact that the parliament of Canada had utterly failed in its duty in the years from 1904 up until that time. I am not going to weary the house by traversing everything that took place. I am not going to endeavour to fasten upon one political party or the other responsibility for that situation. The fact remains that it was the parliament of Canada, as a parliament, by reason of its docile attitude to the proposals put before it, proposals in themselves utterly and completely unsound, that placed us in a position, in those years I have mentioned, 1917, 1918 and 1919, which compelled us to take over the roads and endeavour to amalgamate them into one system.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) in the course of this debate, referred to one or two matters which I shall consider. The- hon. gentleman referred to securities in the long-term bonded indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways which he said dated back to 1875 and some of them, I believe he said, to 1850. And the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), referring to the sum of 8604,000,000 in the balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways for 1930, representing direct advances by the government of Canada, stated that those advances were made prior to the taking-over and amalgamation of the lines. Before I conclude I shall endeavour to show the fallacy of these two statements.
I have in my hand a copy of the Toronto Globe of Saturday, June 6, 1931, in which there is an article that illustrates the campaign that has been going on all over the country since August last in relation to these railways. This editorial is headed, "The Inquisition Under Way," and there appears in it this statement:
Premier Bennett in his budget speech provided a text for the special committee on national railways and shipping, which has commenced a probe of Canadian National affairs.
Now, that special committee on railways and shipping is the representative body of this house which is inquiring into details of expenditures made by the Canadian National

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson

Railways, which expenditures are to be covered by direct vote of this parliament. Yet, referring to that committee, the Toronto Globe, in an article indicative of what is talcing place throughout the country, taking its cue from statements made by hon. members in this house, describes the work of the committee as an inquisition, because before voting millions and tens of millions of dollars parliament presumes to make an inquiry as to what this money is being spent for or why it is asked for.
Let me say at once that so far as I am concerned, and so long as I remain in this house, I intend if I can to find out why parliament is asked to vote money for any purpose whatsoever; and I intend particularly, if I can, to ascertain why it is that so much money is required for this enterprise we call the Canadian National Railways. I conceive it to be the duty of every member of this house, the friends of the. system itself, to go the extreme limit in finding out what the position is, suggesting if they can the remedy, and paying special attention to the expenditures that are now being made and the sums which are asked for.
I 'have in my hand the balance sheet for 1030 of the Canadian National Railways, and it shows the total liabilities as $2,531,000,000 in round figures; it shows that there have been approximately $1,350,000,000 added to the liabilities of the system since the lines were taken over in ioi7, 1018 and 1019. Reverting for a moment to the statement made by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth regarding the long-term funded debt dating back to 1875, I would say that a statement of that character made by whomsoever it may be is merely an effort to throw sand in the eyes of the Canadian people.
hen the Canadian Northern lines were taken over by the Canadian people the value was fixed by arbitration, and that value was such that the obligation assumed was $384,000,000 in round figures. The common stock, representing the investment of those who were behind the railway, of a par value of $100,000,000, was wiped out entirely with the exception of $10,000,000.
When the Grand Trunk Railway was taken over under the legislation of 1010, there were approximately $211,000,000 of securities wiped out as being of no value. I have before me the total cost of these lines, including the cost of the Transcontinental and the Intercolonial railways, which cost is $1,106,237,620.72.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Is that the actual cost paid by the government?


George Brecken Nicholson: No.


Eugène Fiset: And not the cost charged to the railway in our bookkeeping entries?


George Brecken Nicholson: That is the cost charged to the railways at the time they were taken over. If my hon. friend desires to obtain this information, he can-


Eugène Fiset: That is just what I thought. The hon. gentleman appeared before the committee and asked for information and he was given that figure of $10,000,000 paid for the Canadian Northern, and the information that hundreds of millions of dollars had been added to the debt.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend will have an opportunity to make a speech, either in this debate, if he has not done so already, or upon some other occasion, at which time he can deal with this subject. I have just forty minutes at my disposal and while I am quite willing to answer a question I do not intend to give up any of my time in order to permit another hon. member to make a speech.


Eugène Fiset: The hon. member should be accurate.


George Brecken Nicholson: If any hon. member desires the exact figures he can obtain them in Hansard of 1018, when they were given to the house by Sir Robert Borden. I cannot give the house the exact page, but they will be found in Hansard of that year.
The Intercolonial railway up to that time had cost $137,000,000 in round figures, the Transcontinental had cost $173,000,000, and the Canadian Northern Railway was taken over under arbitration at a value of $386,000,000. For the information of the house let me say that that last figure represents $38,000 per mile for the system. The Grand Trunk Railway was taken over under arbitration at $216,000,000, and let me repeat again that there were more than $211,000,000 of securities wiped out. The Grand Trunk Pacific was taken over at $192,809,000. The total cost to the Canadian people at the time these lines were absorbed was $1,106,000,000. The liabilities to-day amount to $2,531,000,000, excluding anything for interest on the construction of the Transcontinental or the Intercolonial railway.
Any hon. member who knows anything about this matter must admit that at that figure of $1,106,000,000 the railways cost too much. There was a liability involved which the railways could not properly be expected

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
to carry. There should have been written off at that time $265,000,000 in order to put the lines at a proper valuation. Any hon. member who desires to go back into the records can ascertain what the estimated cost would be to bring these lines up to standard. I will not weary the house with these details because they are available to any hon. member.
Taking the liabilities as they stand to-day, they show that the long-term funded debt, unmatured, amounts to $1,168,000,000, the loans from the Dominion of Canada amount to $604,000,000, appropriations in aid of construction, $17,000,000, government grants, $403,000,000, current assets and liabilities deficit, $15,000,000, and interest due the dominion amounting to $322,000,000.
The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) in his urgent defence of everything which has taken place from that time on made the statement that this $604,000,000, representing the advances made by the Canadian people, were advances made, as I stated a moment ago, at the time the railways were absorbed by the Canadian people. The balance sheet of 1923 was the first balance sheet given to the public by the Canadian National Railways which set out what its obligations were and hon. members will find in the statement of assets and liabilities that the total advances made up to that date by the government of Canada, including interest on the total sum, amount to $580,000,000 in- round figures. The sum advanced by the government of Canada up to date, including interest, is $926,000,000, and as I proceed I will attempt to show the house how a large portion of this amount was expended.
Between 1918 and 1922 it was expended on the Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk Pacific, National Transcontinental and the Intercolonial, and in the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 on the old Grand Trunk. Perhaps the hon. member did not have this information but I can scarcely conceive why he should not have it because he was a member of this house in 1918 aifd 1919 when the whole matter was under discussion and he knew at that time the exact condition of affairs. Between 1918 and 1922 there was expended by the then management of the Canadian National Railways on betterments, rolling stock, equipment and so on the sum of $115,293,589;. there was expended by the committee of management, provided for by the act of 1919, the sum of $31,513,176.56 during 1920, 1921 and 1922. The total expenditure up to that date on betterments of all character amounted to $146,000,000 in round figures. That expenditure was made inclusive of the
22110-164i
expenditures made by the committee of management of the Grand Trunk. From 1922 until 1930 there was expended $437,000,000 for the same-purposes; $146,000,000 in the former period and $437,000,000 in the latter.
I have in my hand the report of the Canadian National Railways for 1922, signed by Sir Henry Thornton as president and chairman, and I ask permission to quote one paragraph therefrom. The report is signed by Sir Henry Thornton as president and chairman and is dated April, 1923:
Oil behalf of the board, I would like to state that after inspection of the main arteries of the system, we find that the work undertaken has been well performed, and that the expenditures have been well applied. While the demands for capital expenditure on a system of such extent in a growing country, as the former board stated, are never ending, yet it may now be said that the three groups of lines, until recently the Canadian National Railways, enter the consolidation in excellent physical condition, and operating at a high mark of efficiency as regards actual performance or movement of traffic and other factors controllable by management. Apart from certain well known cases of duplication the lines are well located and in exceptional position to successfully perform the transportation demands of the country. The problem as far as the lines covered by the report is concerned, is how sufficient traffic may be developed to carry the overhead and maintenance expenses. As far as transportation costs go, an economical performance is being made. Under tbese circumstances the margin for improvement with the present light volume of traffic is largely dependent on circumstances beyond the control of the management.
I would ask the house to note particularly what follows:
On some of the older sections there are still improvements that should be undertaken, but in the main the lines are modern in character and w-ere built or have been brought up to standards which are ahead of actual traffic requirements, except under stress of seasonal movements.
That was the president of the Canadian National Railways in April, 1923. There bad been expended by the former management during 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922, in the case of the first group, and in 1920, 1921 and 1922, in the case of the second group, $146,000,000, and from that date until the present the sum of $437,967,226 on a road that in road-bed and equipment and everything else required for the handling of traffic had been brought up to date. I submit this question:	Is it any wonder that the Canadian
people are asking when this is going to end? Is it any wonder that the members of this house who are anxious to preserve the national railways, and to prevent them becoming such a burden that the Canadian people cannot carry them, should be making im

The Budget-Mr. Nichobon
quiries as to why these expenditures have been made and if they have all been necessary. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in standing in this house and saying publicly-I will say it anywhere 

that in my humble judgment many of the expenditures which have been made have been wholly and completely unjustified, and if the Canadian National Railway is to be made a success, if we are ever to get to the place where the load will be taken off the back of the taxpayer, it will be when this parliament scrutinizes every single dollar that is asked for and finds out whether that dollar is going to provide some asset that will carry itself by providing additional traffic.
I took the liberty of saying to this house in 1919, and I repeat it now, that there is one way and one way only in which the Canadian people can operate this railway successfully and allow it to earn its operating costs and sufficient to carry the capital obligations which the lines should carry, and that' is to fix the capital at a point where it becomes a proper charge against the line, and put a management in charge-it may be the present management: I am making no criticism in that regard because I know many of the operating and construction officers of the Canadian National Railways, and I know that there is no finer group of men on this continent; they are virtually the same men who spent .$146,000,000 between 1918 and 1923 and who spent it in such a way as to cause the president of the Canadian National Railways to make the statement which I have just quoted and which appears at page 10 of the annual report for 1922-and say to them that they must operate the lines just the same as if they were operating them for a private company.
To pass on, because I do not want to delay the house too long, at pages 5 and 6 of the report of the Department of Railways and Canals for 1925, I find it stated that from the date the lines were taken over, from the time of the act of 1919 taking over the Grand Trunk, the following sums have been advanced:
Loan and advances from government	 $103,578,182	33
That is part of the $604,000,000.
Two bond issues of
$25,000,000 each	 $ 50,000,000 00
Equipment notes	
12,000,000	00Advances from Canadian National Railway Company	
24,899,157	62Total	
$190,477,339	95
That is the total presumed to have been put into construction or betterment or equipment on the Grand Trunk Railway up to 1925, the sum of $190,000,000 odd, representing a capital charge of $58,000 per mile.
Yesterday in the railways and shiping committee I took the liberty of asking a few questions, and before doing so I made this statement, that information I had secured caused me to know that the capital value of class one railways in the United States, double track, triple track and quadruple track, ran from $90,000 to $125,000 per mile, varying according to the density of the traffic. The capital liabilities of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is the nearest comparison we can get to our own lines, represent a charge of $70,000 per mile. The Grand Trunk was taken over in 1919. It was in somewhat of a rundown condition. Everybody knows that, but apart from that it was the best constructed line in the Dominion of Canada and the northern United States. It was a double track line from Montreal to Chicago. Its equipment was not up to date, but there have been advanced to the road since it was taken over the sum of $58,000 per mile, according to the report of the Department of Railways and Canals. Now I submit this to the house, that the sum of $58,000 per mile could not have been and has not been properly expended on the lines of the Grand Trunk Railway, and as a result the Canadian people are carrying a burden to-day that they have no right to carry, and the success of the Canadian National Railways is jeopardized just to that extent.
I pass on. If the lines had been valued at the time they were taken over, with $265,000,000 written off, they would have had a value of $841,237,629.72. There has been added to that approximately $584,260,815.68 in capital charges, making a total of $1,394,498,445.40. The present capital liabilities are $2,531,331,405.85, leaving a difference of $803,000,000, which has gone somewhere, if the balance sheets are correct. If you undertake to write the capital down to where it properly belongs, to a point at which the lines can be expected to earn a return on the money, the very outside figure that you could put it at would be $1,462,000,000, or say $1,500,000,000. If it was necessary for us to write off $285,000,000 in 1919 to bring the roads down to a proper value it will be necessary for us to " write off now approximately $1,000,000,000, which the Canadian people themselves must carry exclusive of the railways, and I say that in my opinion the sooner that is done, the better. The duty of the government and of

For example, in the two years 1929 and 1930 the sum of approximately $250,000,000 was added to the obligations of the Canadian National Railways. I do not know what the sum will be for 1931. I venture to say that in the next two yeare another $200,000,000 will be added. Is it not time some definite, positive step was taken to bring such a condition to an end?-because the Canadian people cannot much longer carry the load.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, in one respect only I wish to answer the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Nicholson) who immediately preceded me. He referred to a three-day flight over Hudson bay as a result of which one port was discarded and another chosen. I think hon. members, of the house should know that when Mr. Palmer, possibly one of the best harbour engineers in the world, went up into that country in company with the former Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) and surveyed the situation, he went into the matter in considerable detail. No exception has been taken to the judgment formed at that time as to which was the proper port. The decision at which they arrived has been endorsed by the present Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). Either during this session or during the special session he made a statement to the effect that he thought the change made was a good one.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Everybody thinks
so.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Since the budget was
brought down on June 1, hon. members from the western constituencies have been searching to find if there is anything in it which will be of benefit to them. I think there is only one clause in the budget speech which will prove to be of any benefit to the people in the west; I refer to that section which deals with the bounty or rebate of railway rates on wheat. On page 2171 of Hansard the Prime Minister stated that the west is in dire circumstances. I quote from Hansard as follows:
Two things must happen:	First, provision
should be made to assist those who have a crop, because they have considerable obligations, taxes, etc., which must be- discharged. Other methods will be taken to deal with the situation of the provinces which are not in a position to assist those who with their reserves exhausted and their crops a failure for the third time are practically ruined. We therefore propose to provide that the freight rates shall be adjusted by this country absorbing five cents per bushel on all wheat that is exported of the crop of this year.
Since that statement has been made no hon. member has attempted to explain it.

Nobody seems to know whether the farmer, the shipper, or the elevator man will receive the benefit of the rebate of freight rates. Nobody seems to know how the distribution of the five cents per bushel is to be worked out. For the moment however I will leave that matter and revert to the first statement in the quotation to which I have just referred. We find the words:
First, provision should be made to assist those who have a crop, because they have considerable obligations, taxes, etc., which must be discharged.
I think every hon. member by this time realizes that the situation in the. west is serious and that something must be done to assist the farmers of the west who have reached the end of their resources, particularly in those districts where it looks as if there would be a total crop failure this year. The farmer of the west has in the past not been looking to governments for assistance. What he has been endeavouring to do is to be put on a par in some way with the manufacturing interests in the country. He wanted to hold down the subsidies that were being paid to the manufacturers so that he might be able to get his goods at as nearly cost plus a reasonable profit as possible. If he was able to do that, he was then willing to take his chances in the markets of the world with his products.
When the present government was elected on the 28th of July last, I believed they were entitled to have an opportunity to put their policies into force. There is no doubt that the people of Canada gave them a mandate to increase tariffs if they saw fit to do so. The people of Canada had the intimation that tariffs were going to be increased, and at the special session on the 16th of September, 1930, the Prime Minister, in introducing his tariff changes and the resolutions with regard to them, drew attention to the fact that he had warned the people as to what he was going to do. At that time, for two reasons possibly, very little exception was taken to them. One was, as I have intimated, that the people had given him a mandate to do what he wished in connection with tariffs. The other was that the time was limited and the Prime Minister had to have an opportunity to attend the Imperial conference. We were told, however, that at the present session of parliament we would be able to discuss the changes that were made then. That undertaking has been renewed during this session.
It is my purpose, in discussing the budget, to deal with only one item, and that is the question of gasoline. During the special ses-

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
sion the duty on gasoline was increased to 2J cents a gallon. There is certain gasoline that enters this country free of duty. The quantity is comparatively small, and it is used entirely by the oil companies in the manufacture of gasoline. When one looks into the situation, it is most peculiar that the high test gasoline that is brought in by the oil producing companies of this country and which comes in free is about the only gasoline that enters into competition with the high test gasoline of the Turner valley fields. But a duty of 2| cents is imposed on almost all gasoline imported, and in fact on all gasoline imported for the use of the general public. We were told by the Prime Minister that there would be no increase in price by reason of tariff changes. In that connection I want to refer to the words he used as reported on page 240 of Hansard of the special session of last year. This is what the Prime Minister then said:
There then remains to be considered the consumer. I was much taken with the observations made yesterday as to the desirability of caring for the consumer; it 'was a part of every address I made during the last election to the electors of the country. I believed it was the duty of this parliament to protect alike agriculture and labour, industry and the consumer. And I say to you, sir, and to this house, that with respect to the items that are dealt with in these schedules we have definite and positive assurances from the manufacturers that their enactment will result in no increase in prices.
In resolution 18 as quoted at page 242 we find this:
18. In the event of the producers of goods in Canada increasing prices in consequence of the imposition of any duty under the provisions of this act, the governor in council may reduce or remove such duty.
The Prime Minister continues:
That is the embodiment in statutory form of what I said in the opening of my observations; it confers upon the governor in council power to reduce or remove duties where there has been any effort on the part of the producer to exploit the consumer.
That was the undertaking that was given at the special session of last year. I propose to show that the consumer in Canada has been exploited by reason of the increase in the gasoline tariff. That speech of the Prime Minister was made on the 16th day of September, 1930. I have in my hand photostat copies of letters that were written by the Imperial Oil Limited. This is a letter under date of July 4, 1930, from the Imperial Oil Limited, Regina, addressed to the manager, Puritan Oil Company, Regina. It reads:
Dear Sir:-
We have	pleasure in making the	followingquotations,	tank cars	'.o.b. the	followingstations:	U.S.42/44 W.W. 64	motorkerosene	gasoline	gasolinecents	cents	centsgallon	gallon	gallonAssiniboia.	. . 18.9	19.7	19.7Bechard. .	. . 18.2	19.0	19.0Gibbs. . .	. . 19.4	20.2	20.2Gray. . .	. . 18.4	19.2	19.2Griffin. .	. . 17.6	18.4	18.4LaFleche.	. . 19.1	19.9	19.9Meyronne.	. . 19.3	20.1	20.1Ponteix. .	. . 19.6	20.4	20.4Kadville. .	. . 18.1	18.9	18.9Regina. . .	. . 18.6	19.4	19.4Riceton. .	. . 18.2	19.0	19.0Wilcox. .	. . 18.2	19.0	19.0At the bottom of that	letter is the follow-	
ing:
These quotations are subject to market changes, and the above prices are for immediate acceptance only.
Yours truly,
A. R. Smyth.
This is a letter dated September 17, 1930, the day following the Prime Minister's speech in the house, from the Imperial Oil Limited to the manager of the Puritan Oil Company, Regina, written by the same man:
Dear Sir:-
We have pleasure in making the following quotations, tank cars f.o.b. your station:-
			U.S.
	42/44 W.W. 64		motor
kerosene	gasoline	gasolinecents	cents	centsgallon	gallon	gallonAssiniboia.	. . 18.9	21.7	20.7Bechard. .	. . 18.2	21.0	20.0Gibbs. . .	. . 19.4	22.2	21.2Gray. . .	. 18.4	21.2	20.2Griffin. .	. 17.0	20.4	19.4LaFleche.	. 19.1	21.9	20.9Meyronne.	. 19.3	22.1	21.1Ponteix. .	. . 19.6	22.4	21.4Kadville. .	. . 18.1	20.9	19.9Riceton. .	. . 18.2	21.0	20.0Wilcox. .	. 18.2	21.0	20.0At the bottom of the	letter is	the following:
These quotations are subject to market changes, and the above prices are for immediate acceptance only.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: As regards the second list of prices which the hon. member has just quoted, was a readjustment not made as a result of action taken by the government? Also, are the present prices as quoted greater than they were before the new tariff changes were made?


Charles Edward Bothwell: I will deal with the question of the hon. member as I proceed and give him some account of what has happened. There has been a reduction in
The Budget-Mr. Bothwell

price, but there has been no reduction in price comparable with the reduction of price in the United States. In order to clear up the matter now, since the question has been asked, I shall give my hon. friend the information. These figures are taken from the Canadian bureau of statistics, and from the United States labour bureau. They illustrate the decline in the price of petroleum products in Canada and in the United States. The basic index number is 100 as the United States price in 1926. In April, 1930, the United States figure was 65.6 and the Canadian figure 85, while for September, 1930, the United States figure was 62 and the Canadian figure 83.8. Then we had the special session, with the changes in the tariff. For April, 1931, the United States figure was 37.4 and the Canadian figure 74. In other words, the index figure in Canada was almost twice that in the United States.
I have already referred to the letter sent out by the Imperial Oil Company at Regina on September 17 last. It might be argued that under the "Canada first" policy it was necessary to have a tariff on gasoline coming into Canada, in order to protect Canadian industry. That protection has been given, but I find according to the reports of the Department of Trade and Commerce that gasoline production in Canada steadily increased from 1920 to 1929. Our gasoline production was 344,129,861 gallons in 1928 and 436,620,614 gallons in 1929. We import and export a certain amount of gasoline, and according to this same report our apparent consumption in 1928 was 483,798,833 gallons, and 606,934,608 gallons in 1929.
The next question which might be fairly asked is whether or not the companies have made a profit'. Last September the right hon. Prime Minister was good enough to read to the house the undertakings he had received from the different wholesalers or manufacturers throughout Canada. The letter with regard to gasoline appears at page 592 of Hansard for the special session, and is as follows:
The adoption of these recommended revisions will not result in any increase of prices to the retail consumer because of them.
The British American Oil Company, Limited,
Per A. L. Ellsworth,
President,
The Canadian Oil Companies, Limited, Per F. H. Littlefield,
Vice-Pres.
Imperial Oil, Limited,
Per C. O. Stillman,
President.
MeColl Frontenac Oil Company, Limited,
Per J. Irwin,
President.
I thought it might be well to look into the financial structure of those four companies to see whether or not they required the protection which was afforded by the tariff changes, and also to see whether it was fair for the government to fix a price at which gasoline might be imported into Canada in order to apply the dumping duty. As a matter of fact, I believe the result of the tariff changes by this government is that the price of gasoline in Canada has been increased by 4.44 per cent. Figures will be given during this session, possibly in the course of the discussion on the resolutions, showing what is the additional cost from one end of Canada to the other. I think it will surprise hon. members of this house to find that we are being mulcted of from 4 to 7 cents per gallon of gasoline.	.
Canadian Oil Companies Limited was one of those which signed the letter. I looked up Poor's Manual for 1930 in order to find out where this company was incorporated and all the facts in connection with it. I find that it was incorporated on December 4, 1908, that it has refineries at Petrolia, Ontario, and 145 oil distributing stations in Canada. They are marketing the brands of the National Refining Company. That is the important thing in connection with this company; they are marketing the brands of the National Refining Company. I do not intend to go into the financial structure of this company; since 1926 the Canadian Oil Companies, Limited, has paid a very nominal dividend, but I looked up the National Refining Company and found that F. B. Fretter, of Cleveland, Ohio, president of the Canadian Oil Companies, Limited, is also president of the National Refining Company. He has two other gentlemen from Cleveland, \V. H. Lamprecht and C. S. Smith, on the boards of both companies. There are some Canadian directors and officers, but those three men are on the boards of both companies.
Then I looked up the financial history of the National Refining Company and found that from June, 1910, to November, 1911, it paid a dividend of four per cent per annum. From then on the dividends were as follows:
1912-	6 per cent.
1913-	8 per cent.
1914-	6J per cent and a stock dividend of
100 per cent.
1915-	2f per cent.
1916-	10J per cent.
1917-	16 per cent.
1918-	16 per cent stock dividend.

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
25S5
1919-	16 per cent stock dividend.
1920-	10 per cent and a stock dividend of
83 per cent.
1921-	6 per cent and a stock dividend of
4 per cent.
1922-	6 per cent.
1923-	7 per cent.
1924-	6 per cent.
1925-	6 per cent and a stock dividend of
10 per cent.
1926-	6 per cent.
1927-	8 per cent.
1928-	6 per cent.
1929-	6 per cent, plus 2 per cent extra.
1930-	February 15-1J per cent.
May 15-11 per cent.
Do you know what that means, Mr. Speaker? If my arithmetic is good it means that from 1911 this company has been able to pay dividends up to 44-8 per cent, or an average over that twenty-year period of 22-3 per cent. It does not look as though that company needed any tariff protection.
Now I come to another of the companies who signed the letter; I refer to the McColl Frontenac Oil Company, Limited. This company was incorporated on December 21, 1927, acquiring the stock of McColl Brothers, Limited, and the Frontenac Oil Refineries, Limited. They were authorized to issue 750,000 common no par value shares and $10,000,000 of 6 per cent cumulative preferred shares at $100 per share. Their first offering was $7,500,000 of preferred shares with a bonus of four shares of common stock with each ten shares of preferred stock. Apparently the common stock issued by this company was not sold; it was given as a bonus with the preferred stock. A dividend on the preferred stock of $1.50 was paid on April 16. 1926, and that dividend has been paid quarterly to date. On the common stock dividends were paid of 25 cents on January 15; 29 cents on December 16, 1929; and 15 cents on March 15 and June 16, 1930.
This is stock that, cost no money. In addition to that, the assets of this company have increased from $20,946,131 in 1920 to $29,380,788 in 1930. Their reserves have increased from $923,608 to $1,009,321. Their surplus has increased from $608,189 to Sl,-373,246.
In the annual report of this company it is shown that the earnings per share were: preferred earned, 14.89; paid, 6. Common earned was 1.43 and paid .60. That is the situation in connection with McColl-Frontenac. Apparently, therefore, this company does not need any nursing bottle to keep it going.
Then we come to the British American Oil Company, another of the companies referred to. In the case of this company there have been several divisions of stock. The report
is given in Poor's Manual, which shows that the shareholders on December 15,	1926,
sanctioned the exchange of capital stock to the extent of 400,000 shares of $25.00 par value for shares of no par value on the basis of four for one. On February 24, 1930, the shareholders got a split of the no par value shares of the company on the basis of two to one. That is to say, a man who owned one share in 1926 now owns eight shares in this company. As regards dividends, from 1909 to January 2, 1926, they paid 8 per cent. From April 1, 1926, to January 3, 1027, they paid 62J cents per share per quarter, which figures out on the original stock at 12 per cent. On April 1, 1927, they paid an initial dividend of 20 cents per share on new no par stock; on July 1, 1927, and October 1, 1927, 20 cents per share; and in 1927 they also paid a bonus of 50 cents per share, all of which yielded them 14.8 per cent. On January 3, 1928, they paid 20 cents regular and 20 cents extra; on April 2 and July 3, and October 1, 1928, they paid 25 cents per share, which worked out at 18.4 per cent. On January 2, 1929, they paid 25 cents regular and 26 cents extra, and on April 1, July 1 and October 1, 1920, they paid 25 cents regular, which worked out at 20 per cent. On January 2, 1930, they paid 25 cents regular and 50 cents extra, and on April 1, 1930, they paid 40 cents a share before the split up, or at the rate of 36.8 per cent. This meant that for a part of 1030 they paid on the basis of 36.8 per cent, while as respects the rest of the year 1930 it may increase beyond that. I do not know what the official figures will be. That statement takes into account only dividends at 80 cents per share per annum. Their annual report shows that they earned $1.01, or 32 per cent on the original stock.
The most remarkable statement I have seen -the most remarkable statement which I think any hon. member has seen-in the report of the chairman of the board of directors of the company, is the statement, in showing the returns for the year, in connection with the sum of $874,499 set aside for depreciation. At the annual meeting of the shareholders held on February 25, 1930, the chairman of the board, Mr. S. R. Parsons, said that up to the end of June, 1929, profits in both eastern and western divisions were 39i per cent ahead of 1928, but that western crop conditions and bad weather in November and December in eastern Canada had brought about disappointing results in the latter part of the year. Had conditions continued throughout the year as they commenced, the company would have been able
The Budget-Mr. Bolhwell

to show at least $1,000,000 more of profits than the statement contained. Dealing with an item of $874,000 set aside for depreciation, he said that $174,000, or $700,000 less than the amount set aside, would have been sufficient. The larger amount was written off because 9 per cent of the net revenue was payable to the dominion government for taxes. With respect to this, a nominal writeoff, he said, would have substantially increased earnings per share as indicated in the figures presented.
That is the situation so far as this particular company is concerned, with this addition: their balance sheet shows that at December 31, 1929, their surplus over all outstanding debentures, and over capital stock of $10,618,' 117, was $7,504,967. And by December, 1930, that had increased to $8,054,887.
.Let us now come to the most important of these companies, the Imperial Oil Company. There are a number of subsidiary companies associated with this parent concern, and when I mention their names hon. members will no doubt recognize them. Here they are:
Royalite Oil Company, Limited, controlling May! and Oil Company, Limited and Dalhousie Oil Company, Limited, the latter controlling the Mid-West Oil Company, Limited.
Foothills Oil & Gas Company Limited, controlling the Southwest Petroleum Company Limited.
Imperial Pipe Line, Limited, wholly-owned subsidiary, operating a pipe line between Sarnia, Ontario, and Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Imperial Oil Refineries, Limited, wholly-owned subsidiary, operating the parent company's refineries at various points in Canada.
Northwest Company, Limited, wholly-owned subsidiary, operating as a drilling and exploration company in western Canada.
The Galena Signal Oil Company of Canada, Limited, wholly-owned subsidiary, manufacturing railway lubricants and petroleum specialties for railways.
International Petroleum Company, Limited, controlling Tropical Oil Company.
In addition to the foregoing, Poor's Manual states:
Imperial Oil Limited owns Northwest Company Limited, a subsidiary which carries on development in western Canada and controls Royalite Oil Company Limited.
Imperial Oil Limited by agreement is developing the properties of Home Oil Company, The Baltac Oil Company, The Associated Oil Company, The Sterling Pacific Oil Company, The Lowery Oil Company, Southern Lowery Oils Limited, The Advance Oil Company, The Calgary Development & Producers Limited and Bargal Oils Limited, operating in the Turner valley.
I took the trouble to go into the record of this company to find out what they had done. In March, 1913, their capital was increased to $10,000,000. It had been originally $1,000,000.
[Mr. Bothwell.l
There were further increases in November, 1915, December, 1917, March, 1920, and December, 1921. In 1915, a stock dividend of 100 per cent was paid. In July, 1919. the shares were subdivided. In January, 1920, 200,000 shares of $25 each were offered the shareholders at $75 each. On December 19, 1921, 142,628 shares of $25 each were offered at $90 each; and in January, 1925, the shares changed from 2,000,000 at $25 to 8,000,000 of no par, and the shareholders received them on the basis of four for one. On April 16, 1929, the capital increased from 8,000,000 shares to 32,000,000 shares, the shareholders getting them on the same basis, four for one.
As regards the dividends, the figures are:
1914-	10 per cent.
1915-	12 per cent and 100 per cent in fully
paid shares.
1916-	8 per cent.
1917-	8 per cent.
1918-	16 per cent.
1919-	12 per cent.
1920-	18 per cent.
1921-	12 per cent.
1922-	12 per cent.
1923-	12 per cent and 4 per cent extra.
1924-	12 per cent.
1925-	$1 per	share.1926-	$1 per	share	and	25	cents	extra.1927-	$1 per	share	and	50	cents	extra.1928-	$1 per	share	and	50	cents	extra.1929-	25 cents per share and 25	cents extra,
and from September 3, quarterly dividend of 12J cents.
In other words, starting with 1914, they paid dividends as indicated, but considering the stock bonuses and divisions of stock made by the company they actually paid dividends as follows:
Year
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
Rate per cent 10 12 16 16 32 24 36 24 24 32 24 32 40 48 48 80 128
We can see quite easily just how this company is able to pay such dividends and why it will continue to be able to pay such dividends; it is because of the protection given by the people of Canada. I could go on and deal with other subsidiary companies such as the Royalite, but my time will not permit. On June 8 I asked a question on the

Criminal Code
orders of the day of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), which question read as follows:
I have under my hand a statutory declaration from the president and general manager of Mercury Service Limited of Oshiawa, Ontario, stating, among other things, that on the 16th May, 1931, the Imperial Oil, Limited, refused to sell or supply gasoline to the said company, and gave as a reason for such refusal that Mercury Service Limited were selling gas at cut prices. In view of the fact that the Imperial Oil, Limited, is apparently taking advantage of the protection given by the legislation of last session, will the government now remove the tariff then placed on gasoline?
The Prime Minister might have done me the courtesy of making a reply without its being more or less insulting, but this is what he said:
Assertions do not constitute facts. The hon. member should know, and I think he does, that this is a matter which lies entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Whether or not any company or any individual owning anything shall or shall not sell to any person who desires to buy, is not a matter over which we have jurisdiction except with respect to interprovincial matters covered by the Combines Act and other legislation of that character. If the hon. gentleman is as desirous of ascertaining what the jurisdiction is as he apparently is of making political capital, I think there will be no difficulty.
Are we to take that as being a renouncement of the promise which was given to us during the last session that if these companies who had given undertakings to the government did not live up to their promises the government would remove the protection it had granted? It does not matter in what words those undertakings were given, that is how we understood them, that the companies were not going to take advantage of the tariffs. I have before me a declaration made by the general manager of Mercury Service Limited of Oshawa. I would like to read the whole declaration, but shall have to content myself with reading but one paragraph, as follows:
I thereupon personally called Colonel Oliver, the general manager for the Ontario district of the Imperial Oil Company Limited, at his Toronto office, and the said Colonel Oliver advised me on that occasion that the Imperial Oil Company Limited would no longer sell or supply to Mercury Service Limited, United States motor fuel, by reason of the said Mercury Service Limited having sold gas at cut prices.
Apparently this company intends to control the market, and they are being permitted to do so with the aid of this government. The people of Canada are being gouged to a great extent by the oil companies and it is time the tariff on oil was removed. The Prime Minister states that it is his intention to bring
in legislation during this session to assist the people of the west. The Financial Post survey for 1030 estimates that the farmers of Canada used in 1930 one hundred and forty million gallons of gasoline. If these companies are making the exorbitant excess profit of four cents per gallon, that would mean that the farmers of Canada are paying $5,600,000 to help the Imperial Oil Company, a subsidiary of the Standard Oil Company. That amount is being paid for the benefit of the shareholders, largely resident in the United States. If the farmers receive all of the five cents per bushel rebate on the freight rates on wheat, they will get a little over $8,000,000, as the return prepared by the Department of Trade and Commerce shows that we exported in the fiscal year of 1930 a total of 177,000,000 bushels in round figures.
We consume in Canada 600,000,000 gallons of gasoline annually, and figuring a four-cent excess profit to the companies, this means that the people of Canada are paying 824,000,000 each and every year, and will continue to do so as long as these companies are permitted to make this profit. The farmers are receiving $8,000,000 as a rebate on the freight rates, while these oil companies are being permitted to benefit to the extent of $24,000,000.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The 'house resumed at eight o'clock.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Neill for the second reading of Bill No. 43, to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I had not finished my remarks when this bill was before the house on the last occasion, Mr. Speaker. I cannot find at the moment a copy of the previous debate showing just what stage I had reached in my remarks. But since I moved the second reading I have received an extraordinary large number of communications from all over Canada, from individuals and different bodies, boards of trade, credit men's associations, and so on, all urging the great need for some such amendment as this. It was represented in the press after my remarks on the previous occasion that I
25SS
Criminal Code

had said that some credit association had spoken of receiving 7,000 bad cheques in one year. The correct number was 70,000, with a money value of over $5,500,000. Picture the expense and annoyance of handling 70,000 bad cheques!


Mr. STEVENS:: Was that in Canada?


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, yes. The particular body that wrote me was in Winnipeg, the Credit Men's Association of Canada, or something like that. The practice of issuing cheques without sufficient funds is very general. I was going to suggest that either the second reading should be given and the bill be sent to a committee, or that the Minister of Justice should take into consideration whether he could not, as was done the other day with another bill, adopt it as a government measure. Certainly there is great need for this legislation and very strong support for it throughout the country. There may be a difference of opinion as to the best methods. The American states which have adopted something of this kind have adhered to the principle of including the words "with intent to defraud", and they set up certain conditions which constitute a prima facie case of intent to defraud. This bill, as it is drawn, leaves out the words "with intent to defraud", which have always been a stumbling block, but sets up in another way what I would call a prima facie case. It seems to me as an amateur that this is the better way to govern the matter, and the innocent person, I believe, is fully and entirely protected under this bill, which is not the case with some of the bills that have been adopted in the states. I would suggest that we might hear from the Minister of Justice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had no intention of discussing this bill. I had not the faintest idea, in view of its place on the order paper, that we should reach it to-night. I know that the Minister of Justice has given some thought to this bill and desires to bring certain matters to the attention of the house which the house should very carefully consider before the bill is given its second reading. I think there are no two opinions in this country as to the desirability of minimizing the abuse-shall I say?-of the issuing of cheques by persons without sufficient funds to meet them, but it is perhaps going a little too far to say that anyone who does so is guilty of a criminal offence. In the transaction of business in these modern times, when resort to payment by cheque is so frequently and constantly made, persons perhaps a little careless might 
quite innocently be guilty of this offence. I am not able at the moment to say from memory just what provisions exist already in the criminal code and in other statutes for the protection of recipients of cheques issued without sufficient funds to meet them, but I know that there is very considerable protection now, and it is a question in the minds of a good many whether this bill does not go much too far.
There is perhaps one phase of the matter which might be considered not from a legal but from a strictly business viewpoint. My hon. friend, I recall, speaking on this matter before, described with a good deal of pathos the manner in which business men are victimized by persons presenting cheques and taking in exchange part cash and part goods. But surely one is not compelled to take a cheque. The proper and the common sense practice for business concerns, if I may say so, is to accept cheques only from persons who they know are reliable and able to meet the paper so given. Those who are careless in their acceptance of such paper ought not to look to parliament to enact a measure that would make a criminal of a person who would pass cheques of that character. Of course if a person passes a cheque with intent to defraud he immediately comes under the provisions of the criminal code, and when apprehended, under the law as it stands to-day, is suitably punished. I think it would be very unwise for the house to give second reading of this bill to-night owing to the fact that unavoidably the Minister of Justice is absent. Only yesterday I was speaking to him concerning this bill and he told me it was his intention to point out certain phases of the bill which ought to be considered before parliament commits itself to the principle contained therein. In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



PROSPOSED CHANGE IN METHOD OF DEALING WITH APPLICATIONS FOR BAIL

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland) (for Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton South) moved the second reading of Bill No. 46, to amend the Criminal Cod'e.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The orders under the
headings of private and public bills having been disposed of the house will resume the dehate on the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means.

The Budget-Mr. C.owan (Long Lake)



OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the
house and before the debate on the budget is resumed I should like to move, seconded by Sir George Perley:
That the resolution adopted by the house on the 9th day of March. 1921, which appears at page 78 of the Journals, relating to the translation into English of all the speeches which have been delivered in French the preceding week, and the publication thereof on every Monday, during the session, be referred to the select standing committee on debates for examination and report as to the propriety of amending the order under which said translation and publication are now being made.
In practice it is rather difficult to carry into effect the exact terms of the resolution to which I have referred, and it is desirable that it should go to the select standing committee on debates to see if some change cannot be made that will be agreeable to all parties concerned. In order that the matter may be considered at once the clerk has suggested that the motion be. made to-night, so that the change may be effected at an early date.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask in what respect difficulties have arisen?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty is that
under the present system publication of the English translation of speeches delivered in French during the week has to be made the following Monday. It was suggested that they might be published on Wednesday, rather than on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
Mr. W. D. COWAN (Long Lake):: Mr. Speaker, that last great Liberal tragedy, commonly known as the Dunning budget, in many respects differs from the budget which was delivered on June 1 by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I cannot at this time go into details concerning the many differences between the two budgets. I do wish to say
however that beyond the actual wording of any budget a psychological effect is always produced by the atmosphere in which the budget is presented, the manner of its deliverance and reception. In the present instance the annual financial statement was received most favourably.
What is the difference between the last budget brought down by the late administration and the budget which has been placed before the house recently? Referring to the present budget I would say that it reflects the best qualities of the Prime Minister. It is my good fortune to be in a position to say that for thirty-five years I have known the Prime Minister. Since I first met him out in the west, and as a matter of fact lived in close contact with him, I have followed his career closely. During those thirty-five years, whether he was speaking in cities, towns or villages, we have found him taking the one ground, namely, that the farmers and workmen of this country were entitled to adequate protection and that all those industries which produced the food supply in Canada should be protected for the benefit of the Canadian people. Throughout his career he has taken that attitude. Later in his life he has reached the point where he can see before him the fulfilment of his dreams, and the present budget is the means which may be used to bring about that end. The people know what they have got; there is no uncertainty about it. They may lay their plans definitely. May I say in passing that the business world will always accept adverse conditions in preference to a state of uncertainty. When there are adverse conditions and people know it, work goes on just the same, but when a state of uncertainty exists work is seriously retarded.
On the other hand what was the Dunning budget? I think even hon. members on the opposite side of the house will agree that it reflected uncertainty from beginning to end, that it was submerged, rolled and immersed in uncertainty. Certainly the government behind the Dunning budget could not know what the effect of such a budget would be or where it would end. In the case of the Dunning budget there was nothing but uncertainty; in the present instance we have decisiveness. What could be expected from a budget such as that brought down by the late administration?
I have lived for forty years in Regina, which was the home of the father of the notorious Dunning budget for many years. The Hon. Charles Dunning, who is a personal friend of mifle, lived in Regina and I am quite familiar with his ideas. I have heard him speaking hundreds of times in that
2590	.	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Cowan (Long Lake)
part of the country. What was he? He came to the west an English free trader, a Cob-denite, a follower of John Bright. I have heard him addressing many meetings, and it did not make, any difference what the meetings were being held for, he always ended up with a speech in favour of free trade or a denunciation of protection. There is only one man that I know in western Canada as much obsessed with the idea of free trade as the Hon. Charles Dunning and that is the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), and I shall leave it to hon. members as to which is the worse. What happened? This English freetrader had to come to Canada to get converted. He got converted suddenly; he was compelled to get converted suddenly, on the eve of an election, and he brought down a budget which had in it some customs duties that were higher than Hainan's gallows. This ardent freetrader wept as he professed conversion, but the Canadian people refused to believe in it and decided that they would let him stay at home. We have now a business man at the head of the affairs; the former state of uncertainty has gone. Our business world is face to face with something it understands. We have something the people know will be enforced. The record of the Prime Minister is known to the people to back him up, and moreover he has behind him a solid body of men who will support him in the decision he makes and the course he pursues.
For the second time this session I shall have to get away from national affairs and come back to those of my province. Saskatchewan has been so often misrepresented to the people of Canada by the Liberal party that it will take a long time to undo the evil they have done. For a long time we had no Conservatives in the house; we had no Conservatives in the provincial legislature. For twenty-six years the Liberal party ran the province and hon. members know the result. The house has been told and rightly so that there is a great deal of hardship in that province. The other day the Prime Minister stated that Saskatchewan had created new wealth not by the millions, but by the billions, and yet that province requires assistance. The very fact that we have created wealth to this extent proves what we can do. We have done it and we can do it again. At the beginning of the session we heard from some of the members from Saskatchewan on the other side; but you see, Mr. Speaker, how quiet they have been ever since. You would hardly know they were here at all. The weeping and wailing they were doing in the house was terrible. I never before saw men in their prime weeping and wailing the way they did.

The fact, however, is that we in Saskatchewan are hard pressed to-day. What are the causes? They are many, but I want to say to hon. gentlemen opposite that their insane immigration policy was more the cause of it than anything else. The immigration policy that their ministers of immigration carried out and applied to Saskatchewan during the last twenty-five years or more was insane. The population of Saskatchewan is 840,000 and out of that number there are 370,000 born in continental Europe outside of the British Empire. That is the burden which hon. gentlemen opposite placed upon our province. They said: They are yours. There was no after care so far as the immigrants were concerned. When they brought in these hundreds of thousands of people we asked: What about better roads for them? The reply was: They are yours. What about better bridges for these people? They are yours. What about extending the system of justice to reach all these people, a system costing hundreds of thousands of dollars? They are yours. When we spoke about building schools, we were told:	They are
yours. Who shouldered all this burden? Hon. members opposite talk about our province as if we were bankrupt. We shouldered the burden ourselves. We never asked the federal government for a dollar for our provincial responsibilities. Let me give just one illustration. The immigration commission recently reporting in Regina said that as regards the province of Saskatchewan the stress on our educational and other facilities was too great and the Immigration department would have to slow down in allowing these immigrants to enter. What have hon. gentlemen who imposed this burden on us ever offered to us?
We had to increase our school system. We have paid for that. We have carried it through; we have never asked for a dollar from anybody, and let no one interfere with us in our duties in regard to the schools. I warn anybody who wants to interfere that we have handled and we will handle the matter ourselves. These 370,000 people all require schools. The law as laid down by Sir Frederick Haultain in those days was that every child in the province, no matter where he came from, had to be educated. Let hon. members challenge that policy if they dare. What does that mean to us? Do hon. members know how many languages are spoken in Saskatchewan? Forty-three. Yet these hon. gentlemen said to us: These people are yours. They came from countries where they hardly knew, except in a limited way, what schools were. They did not understand our school system. They had to be made to go

The Budget-Mr. Cowan (Long Lake)
to school. How many public schools have we in the province of Saskatchewan as a result? There are 5,210. Beat that, if you can. There are also a limited number of separate schools. What do these 5,210 public schools cost? They cost us just $15,000,000 per year and this is what has happened as a result of this immigration policy. We had to build those schools, either by issuing debentures or bonds or by paying cash, and we have paid just $40,000,000 to construct those buildings. Then there is the cost of higher education. The Minister of Education of Saskatchewan spoke just the other day, and I have his words before me. We pay $10,000,000 a 3'ear for higher education, and the minister said there was no other part of the world which could come up to that record. We have had to do it.
Does anyone say the foreign people of the west are not receiving higher education? I am glad to say that is not so. We are educating them; they are coming to our higher schools, under the policy we are pursuing, by thousands and demanding that we pay the cost of their education, and we are paying it. Think of it; $10,000,000 a year for higher education and $15,000,000 a year for public schools. Almost half of that is due to the insane policy of hon. gentlemen opposite. We are glad to pay that, however; we are glad these children are coming to school. We intend to discharge our duty as a province, but when in a year like this, when times are very bad in the province, when drought has bit us and we are facing difficulties through no fault of our own, we say to you, "We are up against unusual conditions which have prevailed for two or three years and we ask you to assist us," we expect you to give us some consideration. Remember this:	We
have carried that load which this parliament imposed upon us, and we have raised no question about it. We will not raise any question; we will discharge our duties as a member of this Canadian confederation, but when hard times come we want a little consideration without being told we are a bunch of wallers and squealers, or whatever people say. That is not the sentiment in Saskatchewan at all; the hon. gentlemen who say that sort of thing were not born in onr province but were all educated east of Saskatchewan. We would never have them in our schools; we would never educate men like that. Do you think we would turn out from our schools men who would talk as hon. members in the dismal swamps of the far comer talk, members of that nightmare party? We do not bring up men like that in Saskatchewan; they
have all come to us from elsewhere and brought their soap boxes with them. We would have been only too glad to have them if only they had brought the soap and left the boxes behind. We have no use for their policies at all in the province of Saskatchewan. We are doing our duty, educating our people and living up to the burden cast upon us by this parliament, and all we ask in return is reasonable consideration.
Now I am going to leave that subject for a moment and say something else which hon. gentlemen probably will not like. I am coming to the estimates for this year, and I want to show just what Saskatchewan is being given. Here are the estimates; let us look at our maritime services. I am going to take up the estimates of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) first; I hope he is here. I find no fault with him; there are some people in this world I like and some I do not like, but he is all right. When I see a man with a good clean-cut look in the corner of his eye, a man who is quite capable of telling me to go the dickens if he feels like it, that is the kind of man with whom I can get along. When I come to him with some proposition he will tell me at once just what he can do Take the estimates of the Department of Public Works dealing with harbours and rivers. We find there a sum of about $5,000,000, and taking all the maritime services we find they total over $20,000,000. That is a lot of money, and it is an annual payment. I do not know where a lot of these towns and villages on the marine pay roll are located-I do know where Riviere du Loup is-but I trust to the government of Canada and to the hon. members representing the constituencies to say that these are legitimate estimates and that the undertakings should be carried on.
The expenditure of this $20,000,000 every year is an annual income to these provinces. They know they will have that amount spent; it may be spent in different towns, but that amount of money will be put in circulation and that is always of tremendous advantage. Out of that $20,000,000 did you ever think how much is spent in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan? In those two provinces there is spent every year some $15,000. But are we kicking? We are not. We know that these services have to be carried on, that they are a national obligation. The ports may be in different provinces, but they are national ports, and for that reason we are prepared to support them, whether they are in Prince Edward Island. Nova Scotia, or some other province. These services are all supported by the taxpayers; we in Saskatchewan and Alberta are taxpayers, but we only get $15,000 out of the

The Budget-Mr. Cowan (Long Lake)
$20,000,000 spent for these services every year. That is because we are the only two nonmaritime provinces in the dominion. We have no ocean frontage; we have not a single navigable river, and we have not a lake of any decent size. So we have nothing at all upon which an amount of money could be spent equal to that spent in other provinces for these services.
What we ask is this: We are paying for these services but we cannot get anything from them. We must develop in another direction, however, and all we ask from the government is that next year, when the estimates are brought down, provision be made to equalize the amount spent in all the provinces. Is that unfair? Some hon. members may say we are getting railways. That is so, but if you totalled the cost of all the railways we have had built for many years, you would not have half enough to build the Montreal terminal. So we ask that you take these matters into consideration, and when we come to you for some assistance, as we must come this year, we want you to extend it to us. You may ask what we want. Our money is gone; we are tied up; we are unable to meet many of our obligations. Taxes are unpaid at the present time to the extent of millions of dollars. We need water conservation in the worst way; we need it just as much as you need dredging down here. We need a policy of reforestation. I can remember back in the early days-and I am sure the Prime Minister can remember also-when in the spring and fall you could look over the prairies and see a great wall of flame, with the whole prairie burning up. That is all over now; there is nothing more to burn. As these prairie fires swept over the land they burned every shrub and plant, and there is not even a root left from which anything can grow. We need a policy of widespread water conservation. At the present time water comes up in abundance in early spring and ten days after it finds its way into Hudson bay.
I have been saying this only because I think the people of eastern Canada should know what we have been doing out there. All we ask is that when we get around confederation table, as one might say we are doing when we are in this house, hon. gentlemen from the east will realize our situation out there. The people out in that part of the country are a hardy race. At the confederation breakfast table they may not have the choicest dishes, nor are they attired in any fashionable style. But even if it is only with a kerchief round his neck, you will see the average man from the west wearing a smile-just like my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works-

cheery and goodhumoured. If he has nothing but oatmeal porridge he is content. If there are pancakes, he will make a hearty meal of them anyway. And so much the better if he has fresh bacon and equally fresh eggs from Temiscouata. By the way, I may observe to the hon. gentleman who represents that constituency that our name is not Lazarus and we are not picking up crumbs from any rich man's table.
I must say I do not believe in paternalism; I do not hold with anything of that kind so far as government is concerned. The only man who ever succeeded in 'this world is the man who could depend upon himself. We have been hearing a good deal about banking during this session. Some hon. gentlemen keep on talking banks all the time. And a good deal of this has come from some members from the west. Well, the Liberals have been in charge in Saskatchewan for twenty-six years, in fact ever since the province was established. Have they ever attempted to do anything in this direction? I should like some of these hon. gentlemen to study the situation in Ontario and go back to Saskatchewan and tell the Liberals there something of what has taken place in this province. Let them follow the examples of the farmers in Ontario. Old Ontario can give the west a good many points; and even the farmer government that was in power in Ontario a few years ago-and it was the rankest government there ever was-had something to its credit. There was one thing they did which is worth emulating. The Ontario farmer government nine years ago made a departure which I would recommend to the Liberals in Saskatchewan if they wish to free themselves from the thrhldom of the banks. The government of Ontario established a savings bank through their own government, and today there are seventeen branches of that institution in this province, one of them right in this city a few blocks away. The sum of $25,000,000 has been put into that bank. I would ask the hon. member for North Battle-ford, would he take $25,000,000 if he got it?


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. gentleman
should address his remarks to the present government of Saskatchewan.


Walter Davy Cowan: I have done so, and I can assure the hon. member that we Conservatives will pull that province out of the hole the Liberals got it into. Now, the Conservative government made a success of that business, so much so that to-day the government savings bank has 80,000 depositors. Anyone can deposit a dollar or more, and if the people all decided to put by

The Budget-Mr. Young
some of their savings it would do more for the country than all the yelping of the Liberals. The government itself has made $186,000 through this venture. What more could you ask? If people can invest money in the conversion loan, why can they not put some of their spare cash in their own bank? Why should not men out in the west drawing fair salaries deposit some of their savings in a government bank? If the people would only put their money into their own banks the result would be independence, instead of their continuing under the thumb of the bankers, as some hon. members are fond of telling us. I like the bankers, not as a rule but once in a while, chiefly on two occasions: when I want to borrow and they are willing to lend, and when I don't want to borrow and I can look them straight in the eye and tell them to go to the wild west wind.
We in the province of Saskatchewan are not the whooping, howling free traders that some people think we are. If you go to some of these hon. members and ask them what ought to be done under certain circumstances, one of them will tell you that the tariff on corsets is too high and another-like the hon. member for Weyburn-will hold up two socks.


An hon. MEMBER:: Three.


Walter Davy Cowan: Possibly three. On one occasion the hon. member held up these socks in a meeting where there were some ladies looking on. One of them asked the hon. member which sock was for the right foot and which was for the left, and the poor gentleman blushed as red as could be, and I am hanged if he could tell. But after all, Mr. Speaker, is it not just as well to inject a little humour into elections? That is what we did, and you see the result. We licked them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you lick them
in Estevan?


Walter Davy Cowan: Well, they
had a small majority there, notwithstanding all the weeping and wailing coming from hon. members opposite who have set up that wailing row.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wailing wall.


Walter Davy Cowan: I called it the wailing row; the wailing wall is in Jerusalem. Saskatchewan will do its duty to this country and it is going to get from Canada all that is coming to it.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hope to entertain the house with so witty or amusing a speech as that 22110-105
of the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan), but I will endeavour in as simple language as possible to set forth things as they appear to me.
In considering the budget and its several amendments it is well to bear in mind that we are to-day considering a double budget. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) introduced his budget last September he told us that if we did not put it through and put it through quickly he would not go to the Imperial conference. Is it not a pity that we did not call his bluff and keep him at home?


An hon. MEMBER:: It certainly is.


William Richard Motherwell: Score one.


Edward James Young: However, in order to give
him every possible chance to make good we decided to put through the budget or allow it to go through on condition that when the budget came down this year both budgets would be open for consideration. When we vote for or against this budget we are voting also for or against the budget which was presented last fall. Let us keep that in mind.
In his present budget the Prime Minister anticipates a deficit of some $78,000,000, and when speaking the other night the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) stated that were the Liberals in power this deficit would be about the same. I cannot accept that statement, because it is quite easy to see where this deficit will come from. During the campaign we were told that if my right hon. friend and his party were returned to power they would shut out from this country some $300,000,000 worth of goods which were imported from other countries. The house knows that when $300,000,000 worth of goods are shut out of the country they do not pay any revenue to the treasury, and we know that the average duty collected last year on imported goods was 26 per cent. Twenty-six per cent on $300,000,000 amounts to exactly $78,000,000, which is the amount of the deficit expected by my right hon. friend. In other words the $78,000,000 of duty which would be paid on this $300,000,000 worth of goods being excluded from the country will now be paid, not into the public treasury but into the pockets of the manufacturers. The minister has suggested new forms of taxation in order to make up that deficit. How is he going to make it good?
The first thing he did last fall was to raise enormously the customs duties. How did ho raise them? The hon. member for Long Lake referred to socks as being one of the items, but he did not tell us that the Prime Minister and his friends raised the duty on the kind

The Budget-Mr. Young

of socks that they wear to only 51 per cent while they raised the duty on the socks of the workingman to 165 and 185 per cent. He did not tell us that the Prime Minister had increased the duty on clothing and textiles by adding to the ad valorem duty a specific duty of so much per pound. We know that the workingman, the artisan, the labouring man and the farmer, who have to work exposed to all kinds of weather, wear heavier clothing than do the financiers or members of parliament or they who sit in steam-heated houses or ride in closed cars. Such duties fall most heavily on. the poor man, while the Prime Minister's own class is spared. The Prime Minister seeks to raise a part of that deficit by increasing the income tax on incomes up to $130,000, but then he reduced it on the incomes of the extremely wealthy. This has been the policy of the government in seeking to replace the revenue which they are giving to the manufacturers. Is it any wonder that one of his own admirers referred to the Prime Minister as "God's own gift to the idle rich"?


William Richard Motherwell: Score two, no
errors.
Mr, YOUNG: In his speech on the budget the Prime Minister asked this question: Can Canada continue as an unprotected country in a protected world? I do not like that word "protection", it is a misnomer. Nothing is protected by the tariff unless it be the strong against the weak, the favoured few against the helpless many. It would have been better and more apt if t'he question had been worded this way: In a world in which every other country insists upon placing artificial restrictions on its trade, can Canada survive unless she also places artifical restrictions upon her trade? Or to put it another way: In a race in which all other competitors insist upon hobbling themselves, could Canada hope to make any progress unless she hobbled herself also? I will answer the Prime Minister's question by asking another: Can Canada continue to exist as a country living to herself and refusing to trade with the rest of the world? No, she cannot do it, and there is no hon. gentleman opposite who will say that she can.


Mr. MALONEY:: If not, why not?


Edward James Young: I will tell you why not in a minute, and when my hon. friend makes his speech perhaps he can tell us why so.


Martin James Maloney: If not, why not?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward James Young: In a country such as
Canada, with our resources and. the genius of

our people, there are produced vast quantities of goods which must be exported. We produce many times as much wheat as we consume, and many times as much newsprint, pulpwood, lumber, nickel, asbestos and so on as we consume, and these things must be sold abroad. We must trade with the world and even our factories are equipped to handle an export trade. If these factories had to rely upon Canadian trade alone they would be forced to run on half time or less. We must trade with the world; we have goods in abundance to sell to the world, and I ask the Prime Minister this question: How are we going to sell to the world if we refuse to buy? If we sell and refuse to buy, how are we going to get paid for the goods we sell? There is no other way under heaven by which we' can get paid for our exports except by taking imports in return.


Martin James Maloney: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Martin James Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question or two.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Smith, Cumberland):: Has the hon. member received permission?


Edward James Young: Yes, provided the hon.
member has a question to ask; I will answer a question but I will not permit .the hon. member to make a speech.


Martin James Maloney: My 'hon. friend made the statement that we could not-


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask the question.


Martin James Maloney: My hon. friend made the statement that we could not live within ourselves. I asked him then and I ask him now-if not, why not?


Edward James Young: The answer is very simple -because we are part of the world and we cannot separate ourselves from it. What is the matter to-day with the world?


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for
South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney) is doing better sometimes.


Edward James Young: Why is it that we have-so many men unemployed in the different countries of the world when there is so much need for goods and . such an apparent surplus of goods and so much distress? I do not for one minute agree with those who say that there is an over-production of goods; there is no over-production; there is underproduction. Why is it, then, that with an apparent surplus of goods in some countries, and with

The Budget-Mr. Young
millions of men in every country anxious to get work and to produce more goods, and with all the people of the world requiring more goods, we have so much idleness and so much want and so much distress? What is it that prevents those who want to go to work from doing so and producing more goods? It is this: they know that if they produce goods, something somewhere will stop them from exchanging those goods for the goods they need. Something prevents us from making the exchange.
We have in this country a surplus of foodstuffs and of lumber, of newsprint and of other things, but something prevents us from exchanging those goods for the goods we need. It is said by an ancient writer that it is in the exchange of the fruits of the earth that we shall have abundance, but something prevents us from making that exchange. What is it? There are two things. First, I would say it is the war reparations. Germany is working to the limit of her capacity, producing goods in vast quantities. She is not exchanging those goods for the goods she requires. She pays them in reparations and receives in return nothing but a receipt. She cannot buy the goods which she requires and which we have to sell. In his budget speech the Prime Minister states that we shall receive $4,000,000 in reparations from Germany this year. I do not know of a more magnificent thing the Prime Minister could do than to send Germany a clear receipt and tell her that we do not want any more reparations. With Germany on the verge of bankruptcy, considering Whether she will ever be able to pay any more reparations or not, with the statesmen of the world wondering what is going to happen next, I do not think Canada could set a finer example than by saying to Germany: We do not want any more reparations and we are willing to wipe out that old score and trade with you now on equal terms. If our big neighbour to the south were to do that, we would be falling over ourselves to follow her example. Why not set the example ourselves. It is only $4,000,000, and who knows but that our example might be followed by the other nations of the world, with the result that the war debts would be wiped out and the world would be given a chance to start anew?
Another thing that is hindering us from making the necessary exchange of goods is tariffs. The leading economists of the world, bankers, business men, and even the League of Nations itself, have all said that the greatest obstacle to world trade to-day is tariffs. With an abundance of goods in the world, with an abundance of producing capacity in 22110-1651
the world, with an unlimited demand for goods throughout the world, we cannot make the exchange because of tariffs. Surely the acid test that we must apply to this budget is this:	Will its provisions help or hinder
the free exchange of goods among the nations? If they will help the exchange of goods, it is a good budget and we should support it; if they will hinder the exchange of goods, it is a thing of evil and should be defeated. Every provision in this budget and in the one brought down last fall is calculated to restrict trade, deliberatel}' calculated for that puipose. We can never hope to prosper by following a policy of that kind. I have here a copy of the final report of the committee on industry and trade published by the Board of Trade of the British government. This is what they say:
But it does mean that the predominant interest of each commercial country is the economic recovery of the world as a whole.
Those who say that we cannot survive if we alone among the countries of the world lower our tariffs are entirely wrong. Our interests are identical with those of the whole world, and the interests of every country, especially a country like Canada, which depends so much on her foreign trade, are the interests of the whole world. We should set the example of lowering tariffs. It will not cost us anything; it would be to our advantage. When we look on the markets of the world to which we must have access, we see that they are closed to us by tariff walls. Those tariff walls are put up against other nations as well as against us. The question is, how are we going to scale the wall? We should make this country such a cheap one to produce in that *we shall have the advantage over every other competitor, and then we shall be in a better position to scale the wall than they are. The country with the least burden on its shoulders will get over the tariff walls more easily than those countries that insist on burdening themselves with restrictive tariffs of their own.
Let me say a word or two about particular items in the budget. I should like to refer first to the national fuel policy. The Prime Minister during the election and before promised to inaugurate a national fuel policy. He has brought it down in this budget. He proposes to do two things. First, he proposes to put a duty on coal; secondly, to pay the freight on certain Canadian coals-a form of bounty to certain districts. In putting a duty on coal his purpose is to shut out American coal. I wonder if he overlooked the fact that the American duty on coal is reciprocal, and that if we increase the duty on American coal coming in here, automatically the duty on our
The Budget-Mr. Young

coal going into the United States goes up to the same rate? When we seek to shut out American coal from eastern Canada, we are at the same time shutting out Canadian coal in the west from the United States. My hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) this afternoon said: "No country has been great industrially unless its industry was based on coal." He is right. Britain became the industrial centre of the world because she had an abundance of cheap coal; Germany built up her tremendous industries for the same reason; and so did the United States. All the industrial development in central Canada is due to the fact that just across the great lakes in the United States there is an abundance of cheap coal, and now this government proposes to deal Canadian industry a staggering blow by raising the price of coal.
The other proposal of the government is to pay the freight on certain coals from certain areas to certain other areas. I should like to show how that will work out, say, in the province of Saskatchewan. Alberta is to have a bounty of $150 a ton into Manitoba and $2 a ton into Ontario. That is the federal contribution to the freight on Alberta coal going into Manitoba and western Ontario. That bounty will be paid in part by the people of Saskatchewan. The people of Saskatchewan can sit on their doorsteps and watch that coal rolling past their doors, on which they are paying part of the freight, in order to furnish cheap coal to Manitoba and Ontario! while they pay a higher rate themselves. Can you adopt any policy of bounties and gratuities to industries like that and be fair to everybody? If you can, I would like to see it tried. I have never seen a system of bounties that did not work an injustice to somebody.
I should like to say a word on the new duty on magazines. I do not know of any other country in the world which has undertaken to put a duty on magazines and to decide what its people shall or shall not read. The proposed duty is 15 cents a pound, plus one per cent excise tax. I do not know why it is called an excise tax; it is a sort of duty which applies on everything which goes through the customs. In other words the free list is entirely wiped out; there is no more free list. There is the excise tax of one per cent, plus 4 per cent sales tax. We are told these taxes are imposed because the American magazines are of a salacious and demoralizing nature. The government suggests that for the welfare of future generations it is necessary that these magazines be excluded from the country. Strange to say, however, the duty is so arranged that it does not fall heavily

upon the salacious or semi-salacious magazines. The rate is placed at 15 cents per pound and falls upon the better class magazines such as the Saturday Evening Post and The Atlantic monthly. Magazines which are printed on heavier paper are taxed heavily while the thin, flimsy stuff on which salacious or silly magazines are printed is not taxed so heavily. I have used the word "silly" because as a matter of fact I have never found anything very salacious in any of them.
I remember that a few years ago, when the matter of placing a tax on salacious or immoral magazines coming in from the United States was being discussed by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), he made a statement which impressed me very much, to the effect that those who seek for salacity in reading will not stop at the payment of a duty. They will pay any duty and get what they want. However, the increased price will affect the careful man who reads the better class magazines because he is not flush with money and has to be careful of his spending. The result of the proposed taxation will be the reading of better class magazines to a lesser degree and no change whatever in the reading of salacious matter. If, however, it is immoral and sinful to allow our children to read magazines of a salacious character valued at 25 cents each, is it any less sinful to allow them to read the same magazines at 50 cents each? Can those so-called salacious magazines be sanctified by the government collecting 25 cents on the price?
Believe me Mr. Speaker the government had no thought whatever of the morality of the people when they were shutting out these magazines. They had another thought entirely in their mind. Why did they want to shut out the better class magazines? I hold in my hand one of the magazines which was affected perhaps more than any other, the Saturday Evening Post. The regular selling price of this periodical is 10 cents. Some issues weigh as much as 27 ounces, and the duty will be very heavy. This is the particular magazine, above all, which the government has aimed to exclude, and I shall give the reason. We are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that tariffs do not raise prices. My hon. friend from Richmond-West Cape Breton (Mr. Rhodes) said this afternoon that the Americans would pay the tariff on anthracite coal. I am afraid he has not been long enough familiar with the tactics of the present government to know how it operates. If my hon. friend were minister of customs he would know that if the Americans dared offer to pay the duty on anthracite coal his department would impose a dumping duty, a duty

The Budget-Mr. Young
which has been designed for the sole purpose of seeing that the Americans do not pay the duty, that it is paid by Canadians and nobody else.
AYe have been told by hon. gentlemen opposite that tariffs would be levied and that prices would not be altered. May I direct the attention of hon. members to an advertisement which appeared on page 55 of the Saturday Evening Post of June 6. In this advertisement are listed side by side the American and Canadian prices of the Cord automobile. We find that whereas the American price is only $2,395 the Canadian price is 34,075, a difference of $1,680. What makes the difference? The tariff, and nothing else. This magazine is being shut out of Canada, and why? There is nothing salacious about it; the articles in it are well written; the writers are well informed, the work is done in a masterly fashion and the reading matter is the very best. I tell hon. members that the duty is raised on this magazine because the Canadian Manufacturers Association do not want the people to see this kind of advertising. There is no other reason; my hon. friends may not like to hear it, but that is the truth.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not the truth; it is just a bit of pure nonsense.


Edward James Young: No, it is the truth, and I know it hurts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it does not hurt; it makes me laugh, because it is most amusing.


Edward James Young: It may be amusing to hon. gentlemen opposite; their cars are paid for by the government and of course they are not hurt by the increase in prices.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, they are not.


Edward James Young: There is one other matter upon which I wish to touch before concluding my remarks, and I refer particularly to the bounty on wheat. The demand for a bounty on wheat arose as a direct result of the budget introduced last fall. By the provisions of that budget the price of manufactured goods was pegged. The farmer said, "If you can peg the price of everything else, why can you not peg the price of wheat? We have as much right to demand pegging as anybody else." Hence arose the agitation for the pegged price of wheat. If the world would not pay the price, then to make up the difference, the government would have to do so. That is the inevitable concomitant of a protective tariff. When there is an attempt to protect certain industries other industries which cannot be protected are bound
to come and seek compensation in some other form. The farmers of this country have been the goats for so long, have had to pay for all the protection accorded to others for so long, that now when everything is against them and they stand on the brink of ruin they demand compensation in the form of a bountv on wheat. My right hon. friend replied by saying, "Very well, we will give them five cents a bushel on all the wheat they grow this year." He was referring particularly to the year 1931. First he told us there would not likely be any wheat this year, and now he is going to give us five cents a bushel on it. Let us see what that means: Thirty per cent is the average rate of duty being collected to-day in this country. For the benefit of other classes in the community the farmers' income is being taxed through tariffs, at least to the extent of 30 per cent. For the last two or three months the price of wheat has been hanging around 60 cents. Five cents a bushel on 60-cent wheat comes to a little over 8 per cent. Therefore my hon. friends through the tariff are taking from the farmer 30 per cent of his entire income for the benefit of others, and it is proposed that the farmers be compensated for one year only by giving them a bounty of 8 per cent on their export wheat. It is proposed to give him an 8 per cent compensation for a 30 per cent exploitation. That compensation applies for only one year, while the exploitation goes on from year to year.
The peculiar thing about this five cent provision is that the money is to be paid to the railway companies. I wonder why that roundabout process has been adopted? AA hy is the five cents to be paid in freight? AVhy has the government adopted that process? Why could the 5 cents not have been paid directly to the farmer through the grain trade or through the wheat pool? AVhy has this money to be handed to the railway companies? Are they in a position to know whether wheat is going to be exported or sold to local millers? No, they are not. I can think of only one explanation why the money is being paid in this manner. Last fall there was a great deal of low grade wheat in the country and this year the crop is likely to be so late that there will likely be much low grade wheat again. AVhen No. 1 wheat is selling at 60 cents, the lower grades, Nos. 5 and 6, frequently sell formless than would be sufficient to pay freight. Because of that condition the railway companies sometimes find themselves in the position of having hauled a car of wheat to the

The Budget-Mr. Young
head of the lakes which does not sell for enough to pay the freight. With that in mind my right hon. friend has said, "Well we will take care of the railway companies anyway."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now, Mr. Speaker, that
is absolutely wrong. I should like to ask my hon. friend in common decency, when an offer such as this is made by the government-and I might say that the details as to exactly how this bounty will be paid have not yet been disclosed-


Ernest Lapointe: This is an abusive
speech, Mr. Speaker.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not.


Ernest Lapointe: I rise to a point of
order; my hon. friend is delivering an abusive speech.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am asking the hon
gentleman a question.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member is
asking a privilege.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not asking any
privilege. When a genuine offer is made to the people of western Canada of 5 cents a bushel, which is the proposal towards the relief of the conditions of the wheat grower of the west, and when, as I have already intimated, the details of how this is to be paid are not yet stated, is it fair for my hon. friend to say that that is an indirect way of helping the railways? I ask him if that is a fair presentation of the offer made in the budget.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. gentleman himself does not know how it is going to work out. Not a single hon. member opposite does.


Edward James Young: We know that the Prime
Minister said he would pay 5 cents a bushel. He said he would pay it in freight.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, he did not.


Edward James Young: He said he would absorb
it in freight charges.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, he did not.


Edward James Young: It is to go to the railway
companies, then.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is to go directly to the farmer.


Edward James Young: When the farmer sells his
wheat he gets the money from the buyer to whom he sells it. A moment ago I said I could not find any other explanation than this:	Sometimes the railway, when wheat

sells at such a low price as it sold at last fall, finds it has not yielded sufficient to pay the freight.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nonsense.


Edward James Young: I ask my hon. friend this:
The government is going to pay this money in freight. If a carload of wheat is shipped to the head of the lakes and it does not sell for sufficient to pay the freight, what will the railway do? Will the railway company pass the five cents on to the farmer or will they keep it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will not go to the railway; in that case it will go directly to the farmer.
Mr. Y'OUNG:	I am very glad to hear my
hon. friend say so, and I hope he will see to it that his promise is carried out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will be. Do not
worry,


Edward James Young: Let us see who is likely
to get this five cents. AVill it ever go to the farmer? I doubt very much whether it will. The grain trade doubts it very much. The wheat market is the most sensitive market in the world. The slightest influence is reflected in the price of wheat. When this announcement was made, if anybody in the trade had thought it would have the effect of increasing the price a single cent, the December option would have advanced on the market the next day. But it did not.
What is likely to happen? If the world market is such that it requires all our wheat, every bushel of it, then the buyers will come in and they will bid the world price for that wheat, and the five cents bounty will be reflected back to the farmer. The Canadian miller will have to pay the extra five cents because he will not get the freight reduction on his wheat. What will he do? He will come to the government and demand a compensating bounty on flour. If on the other hand the situation should be as it is to-day and as it is likely to be as long as this measure is in effect, for it is going to last only one year, when the world does not require our wheat and does not care very, much whether she takes any of it or not, your European buyer will sit back and he will let the Canadian miller bid for the wheat. The Canadian miller, having to pay the full freight rate, will bid just five cents less. That will fix the price. Then the European buyer will come in and take what he wants at that price. He will either put that five cents in his pocket or distribute it amongst his customers in

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
Europe, and the western wheat producer will get none of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the hon. member in
favour or not of the government making a genuine effort to give five cents a bushel to the farmers of the west in the way of a bonus this year?


Edward James Young: I am not in favour, to use
the Prime Minister's own words, of trying to debauch the people with their own money.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I take it the hon.
member is not in favour of the effort.


Edward James Young: I am not in favour of taking thirty-five per cent from the farmer's income and trying to compensate him with eight per cent for one year. I honestly believe this five cent bonus on wheat will prove an apple ot Sodom, tempting to the eye, but one that will turn to ashes in the grasp.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think some of the
farmers will welcome the cheque when they, get it.	.


Edward James Young: I hope they will get it.
In conclusion, might I appeal to the government-the Prime Minister is not in his seat- to forget this mad policy of trying to restrict trade in a world that is suffering from trade restriction, to set to the world an example of common sense and fair dealing, to show thia tariff mad world there is at least one country that has not lost its reason, and to show the people of Canada and of the world that we can get along better and prosper more without those restrictions on trade than ever we could with them:
O ve, the wise who think, the wise who reign. From growing commerce loose her latest
AmMet the fair wliite-wing'd peacemaker fly To happy havens under all the sky,
And mix the seasons and the golden_ hours; Till each man find his own in all men s good, And all men work in noble brotherhood, Breaking their mailed fleets and armed
towers,	,	,
And ruling by obeying nature s Powers And gathering all the fruits of earth and
crown'd with all her flowers.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Scuth Vancouver):: In speaking to this motion, I think
I can pass over the formality indulged in by my hon. friends opposite who have spoken to it in congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr Bennett) on what they are pleased to term "this excellent budget". I am spared that formality in the first place because I am not on the government side of the house and consequently I need not pay any great attention to the conventions of the moment. In the second place this is my first experience of a parliamentary budget and I have in my mind nothing with which to compare it excepting the promises that were made a year ago during the election campaign. If we compare it with those promises, it falls very far short, and consequently I cannot with sincerity offer any congratulations in regard to it.
It is, however, a conventional budget. The maker of it is no Columbus. Regardless, of what age he might have lived in, he never would have ventured on an uncharted sea in search of a continent. But if ever there were a time in the history of Canada when conditions called for a bold lead, when the dire necessities of large masses of the people were calling for long overdue relief, that time is the present. If ever there were a time to break a new trail, that time is now. But in this budget there is nothing new, only old things that we thought we had some time ago got away from. All we get in this budget is a three-fold application of taxation upon the poor and a considerable exemption from taxation for the very rich.
There are many parts of the budget I might criticize; the first part is merely a recitation of figures, which are very good in their way but which do not help us very much, but with regard to possibly the entire latter part of the budget I could and perhaps should express some criticism. However, I will try to confine myself largely to the outstanding and unpardonable fault, which is the omission of any reference to unemployment. I am not particularly surprised at that. Although this government was elected on the issue of unemployment, an issue which was raised here by my colleagues in this section of the house and taken up by the government as an election cry, on which they were elected as a government, during the session they have done everything possible to prevent any discussion of unemployment in this house. In reply to the criticism of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) did condescend to devote thirteen lines out of nine and a half pages in_ Hansard to the question of unemployment, j. auppuoe we will have to thank him for that, but what did he say? This is what he said:
This is scarcely the time, just m the spring of the year, for us to be making proposals to the house to deal with unemployment which may be anticipated next autumn.
Let us go back just one short year, though I suppose perhaps the shortness of the year depends upon whether or not you have, been employed. If you have been unemployed, it has been a long year; if you have been fairly wrnll employed, or if you have been receiving a salary for doing nothing, the year might have passed very quickly. However, let us go back one year and see what the same hon.

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
gentleman had to say. He, together with other members of his party, went from one end of this country to the other bewailing the distress of the unemployed and bemoaning the fact that the King government would not give a five cent piece to relieve unemployment. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking in Vancouver on June fl-just a year ago yesterday-is reported in the Vancouver Province of June 12 as follows:
Mr. H. H. Stevens was caustic at the expense af the Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour, as he approached the question of unemployment. "What did he do in the house when he was forced, after two days, to make a statement?" he asked.
Let me say that this government could not be forced to make a statement in any length of time; they would not make a statement under any consideration. Possibly we did not have quite as much force as they had last year, but we did the best w'e could and we did not get any statement. The report continues:
. read us Christmas cards from prime ministers of the Canadian provinces, messages sent out full of good will natural to that time of the year. While he was doing it unemployed wore marching the streets of Vancouver, Calgary and Winnipeg. The minister said there was no unemployment."
What is the difference this year? While unemployed are marching the streets in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, and every other city and hamlet throughout Canada-more than there were last year-the Minister of Trade and Commerce says:
This is scarcely the time, just in the spring or the year, for us to be making proposals to the house to deal with unemployment which uiay be anticipated next autumn.
We need not anticipate unemployment next autumn; we have it now, and unless something is done before next autumn we are definitely sure that we will have more unemployment than we have at the present moment.
It is not a matter of anticipation; it is a matter of actual realization, yet this is all we get. It would not seem so bad, perhaps, if they had not been so virtuous about it last year. Quoting again from the Vancouver Province of July 13, 1930, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is reported as having said:
Unemployment is the most serious problem lacing Canada to-day.
I quite agree, but when unemployment is considerably increased, does that lessen its "eiiousness? If it does not, surely before now we should have had some discussion on the matter and some proposals from the govern-[Mr. Maclimis.l
ment before now as to what they are prepared to do.
People may ask why it is brought into politics.
They may ask; it was a legitimate subject for discussion; but the reason it was brought into politics was because a certain party wanted to get into power. Having served its purpose, it is forgotten. He continued:
My answer is to quote from a report I hold in my hand of a banquet given to Ontario members of the federal cabinet at Brantford m January. In that report, the Hon. Mr. Elliott, Minister of Public Works, deprecated the clamour for a national conference on unemployment and asserted that the responsibility lay with the municipalities.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said at that time:
I take issue with Mr. King and his colleagues on that point. Wherever else the responsibility lies, it is not with the municipalities. Take our own city:
That is the city of Vancouver.
1 venture to say that two-thirds of the men we have to look after here come from outside. Remedy of this situation is the business of some outside authority, something bigger than the municipalities.
I think that still holds good. The number of outsiders in the city of Vancouver has not lessened at all during the year; in fact, from information I have received, I believe it has increased. I was rather impressed with the statement made in this house a few evenings ago by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), who said that since the Conservatives moved to -the other side of the house they had become good Liberals. I think it would be more correct, however, to say that when the Liberals were on the other side of the house they were good Conservatives, and the Conservatives now are merely running true to form. Compare the statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in 1931 with the statement of the Minister of Public Works in 1930. Hon. Mr. Elliott deprecated the clamour for a national conference on unemployment in 1930. while the Minister of Trade and Commerce says this is scarcely the time, just in the spring of the year, for the government to make proposals to the house to deal with unemployment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend permit a question? Is he not entirely ignoring the fact that immediately following the statements to which he is referring, and the change of government, we called parliament together; we dealt with the problem; we voted 820,000,000, which brought another 860,000,000 from other sources? While unemployment is not ended, we dealt with the

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
situation in an effective way last winter, and what I meant was that this is not the time to start a new discussion on the question or to bring in new measures. There will be time enough before the session ends to disclose the policy of the government in that regard.


Angus MacInnis: I think the Minister of
Trade and Commerce has heard me say in this house that I greatly appreciate what the government did at that time. I have pointed out that while there was a good deal of criticism and dissatisfaction with regard to the way the appropriation was allocated, I was satisfied that with the time at their disposal the government did all that could be done. But when he says that they dealt effectively with the situation, he is far from right. They actually helped the situation, but by helping it in that way the result has been that to-day the municipalities are in perhaps a worse condition than they would have been otherwise, as far as their finances are concerned. However, I will deal later with the situation in that regard.
That $20,000,000 is gone now, and the situation is worse than it was at this time last year. I say that without fear of contradiction. This is the time to discuss the question, while we are here, and while the government can formulate policies and we can criticize or approve of those policies, as the situation may require. And it was in exactly the same period of the year that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking in 1930. I believe I heard someone across the way suggest that the situation today is not as bad as it was last year. I do not _ think anyone needs to refute a suggestion of that sort.


Mr. BARBER:: Will the hon. gentleman give figures from coast to coast to show that the situation is worse than it was last year?


Angus MacInnis: Did my hon. friend have the'figures last year to show the situation at that time?


Mr. PRICE:: The hon. gentleman should be prepared to give figures when he makes the statement that conditions in the provinces are worse to-day than they were last year. Let him back up his figures.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member has all the information I have.


Otto Baird Price: The statement is absolutely incorrect so far as the maritime provinces are concerned, at least. If the hon. gentleman's information with respect to the rest of the country is the same as he has given regarding the maritime provinces, he does not know what he is talking about.


Angus MacInnis: I have had letters and telegrams from the maritime provinces indicating the situation there, and it is surely no better than it was last year.


Otto Baird Price: From the maritime provinces?


Angus MacInnis: Yes. From the Montreal Star of June 6 I quote the following:
With vast numbers walking the streets of the city in search of jobs there can be no mistake that Montreal is face to face with a grave crisis. Stark poverty and wretchedness is the lot of hundreds, maybe thousands, in the midst of a city whose reputation for organized charitable effort is acknowledged all over Canadji. Once again it becomes vitally necessary to plan ways and means of relieving the hungry and homeless sufferers. To enable the unmarried man who is genuinely seeking work to go on hoping, to save him from the bitter thought of utter defeat, prompt action is absolutely necessary.
As regards Vancouver, I know what the conditions were like there last year, for I was closely connected with the unemployment situation. The following is from the Province of June 5:
"Well, we are rapidly approaching a financial crisis," said Alderman Bennett. "When these 1,400 men are laid off this month it will mean we have 3,000 families to keep. Unless one or both governments come to our aid, it means a bank overdraft or having to close up shop."
Last year we did not have 3,000 families on unemployment relief at this time of the year. That would represent from 12,000 to 15,000 persons. But let us take the city of Ottawa. In the Citizen of yesterday, I find the following report:
A round-up by city police yesterday afternoon of the rat-ridden hovels netted 69 unem ployed men, who were brought to police headquarters and placed in custody on vagrancy charges.
The round-up followed complaints from residents of Ottawa east. Six trips were made by the police patrol to bring in the men, who instead of being placed in cells were turned loose in the cell corridor. According to Deputy Chief Gilhooly it is likely that the men will not be arraigned in police court but will be given their liberty this morning. Following the arrests the police purchased four dozen loaves of bread, and a contribution of bologna and cheese was later sent to the police station. Then to complete a meal for the unfortunates the_ authorities ordered ten gallons of coffee which was delivered at the police station. This raised the spirits of the prisoners, some of whom said they hadn't had a square meal for a considerable time.
It did not require a great deal to raise their spirits.
The meal provided by the police at least surpassed what some of the men had intended for their supper before their arrest. As if some of them had been disturbed in the preparation of their meals, here and there food, some of it with the appearance of having been picked

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
up in the dump, remained lying around when a Citizen reporter visited the dump last night.
Take next the evening edition of the same paper:
Homeless Men Get Police Sympathy Building for Dogs to Replace Shacks Inhabited . by Transients	.
While detectives were in the city engineering department arranging for the demolition of shacks on city property, the Lees avenue dump, which had housed three or four score unfortunate men, an officer of Ottawa Humane Society was in the same office to submit plans for a' $10,000 building to be erected on city property for the care of dogs.
. It is proposed to erect the Humane Society building on part of the Broad street corporation vard in the opposite end of the scity to the city dump where the men established themselves in make-shift shacks. Even the_ officers and men wiio arranged for the demolition ot shacks expressed the opinion that until better provision were made for the men they should be allowed to continue in the shacks so long as they did not molest or offend others.
I see by the Evening Journal of the same date that the police have announced their intention of making periodical visits to the dump and vicinity in the future, to forestall settlement there. Surely these are wonderful conditions, when the police have to guard the city's dump to keep Canadians from making their domicile there. Yet my hon. friend says that conditions are not as bad as they were last year. Let me read a question which was put to Sir Henry Thornton in the railway committee yesterday. The question was asked by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson).
What did the railway intend to do about falling revenues, asked R. B. Hanson. Conservative member for York-Sunbury. "In view of the alarming conditions, what does the road intend to do?" he repeated. Revenues of the road-for the first part of June dropped 25 per cent, and "things are worse now than they were in 1930."
"You are quite correct, and I share your alarm," replied Sir Henry, "but frankly I do not know the answer to your question. Perhaps it should be addressed to the prophets of Israel. We cannot announce what we are going to do because we do not know."
And I presume the government is in the same position. But while the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the election campaign .was seized -with the seriousness of the situation, he was quite moderate in his language in comparison with his leader. I do not think he said that they were going to end unemployment; I feel sure he did not. But the present Prime Minister, speaking in Regina on June 10, and as reported in the Daily Province of June 11, said:
I never in all my life saw- such unemployment in this Canada of ours as in this year of 1930. . . . Canada is blessed with great natural resources; yet we find something which

saddened my heart to-day. I met men wearing the white button of the unemployed, and all they ask is a chance to work.
It was in June, 1930, when the hon. gentleman's heart was saddened, but, as I said before, there are more unemployed to-day in June, 1931, in every city in Canada than there was in June, 1930, and yet there is no mention in the budget of relief for unemployment.
I was wondering who went to the trouble of obtaining the white badges for the unem-ploj'ed in Regina in June last. It was not the labour or the communist parties because in that case the buttons would have been red, or at least pale pink; it was not the Liberal party, because there were no unemployed last year, and they would not buy buttons for anybody. I do not think it was the farmers because they had not the price. That cuts down the list of those who might have purchased those buttons, and I leave the house to conjecture just who it was.
Since last year it has been found expedient for the government to realize that world economic conditions have a bearing on the economic conditions prevailing in this country, and that it was not all due to the fiscal policy of the preceding government. I have quoted these statements to show where the party in power stood when in opposition, when the conditions of unemployment were not as serious as they are to-day. A few days ago I gave to the house the unemployment figures for Vancouver; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has given the figures for Vancouver island, and the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) have given the figures for Winnipeg. A few moments ago the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) mentioned what had been done last year, but I feel that any proposals which the government may make should be made in sufficient time to enable this house to consider them. He stated, as I quoted a few moments ago, that two-thirds of the unemployed who had to be kept by the city of Vancouver were from outside the city. The unemployment figures for October 31 show that the total unemployed in Canada amounted to 47,682; the figure for British Columbia was 8.581, and for Vancouver. 4.712. It will be noticed that the city of Vancouver had well over half of the total unemployed in the province of British Columbia; that British Columbia had 18 per cent of the total unemployed in Canada, and Vancouver, *9-86 per cent of the total. Based upon these figures British Columbia was entitled to 18 per cent of the federal grant, or $2,880,000, when in fact it was allocated $900,000 or 5-6 per cent. On

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
the basis of unplaced applicants on October 31, the, cjty of Vancouver was entitled to 9-86 per cent, or SI,577,600, when in fact it received 1-3 per cent or $220,000, approximately one. eighth of its just proportion, or a shortage of SI,356,600. That is one of the reasons why I, at least, want to know in good time what the government has in mind and what proposals it intends to make in connection with unemployment.
Canada is a country possessed of great natural wealth and wealth in usable form, and yet we are told that there must be retrenchment, that strict economy must be practised. What does strict economy mean as far as the working class is concerned? They are economizing all the time. Strict economy on the part of this government will mean less work and more unemployment; strict economy will mean more hunger, more destitution, more . want, more disease, more crime, more insanity, more suicides and more human deterioration.
An lion, MEMBER:	Does the hon. member want the country to go bankrupt?


Angus MacInnis: It is quite possible that
we might go bankrupt in figures, but we would not be bankrupt in actual wealth. Economy- when we have our trade commissioners in every country of the world trying to dispose of our surplus products, and there are in this country the trade agents of other countries trying to dispose of their surpluses. Economy -when millions of bushels of wheat and other grains are rotting in the elevators of this country.


Otto Baird Price: Who is responsible?


Angus MacInnis: Well, possibly-


Otto Baird Price: Did the hon. member say that grain was rotting in the bins?


Angus MacInnis: It is deteriorating.


Otto Baird Price: Who is responsible, this
government?


An hon. MEMBER:: Trotzky.


Angus MacInnis: No, not even Trotzky. No one is responsible just at the moment, but someone will be responsible unless we take heed of what is actually transpiring and take time by the forelock and put our house in order before a general collapse occurs. I do not place the blame on anyone, but the blame may be and will be placed on someone, and those on whom the blame is placed will have to bear it.
Economy-when clothing is being moth-eaten and becoming shopworn in our stores and warehouses, when lumber is rotting in
the woods and in the mills, when foodstuffs are allowed to spoil and have to be destroyed beca.use they cannot be used. Economy- when hundreds of thousands of people are ready to work to produce more as needed.
The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), who preceded me, laid these ills at the door of the tariff. I am neither a high tariff nor low tariff man as I think the tariff has little effect upon our economic system; at the best it is only a negative policy. In a world where the worker must make a profit for someone else, where he must produce more than he receives in wages, there is bound to be a surplus. If the employees in one industry cannot consume the goods produced therein, then the employees of all industries cannot consume their products. So that you have a piling up of goods, not because there are not wants to be filled, but because the people who produce these goods have not the purchasing power to buy them back. That is one of the causes of our difficulties.
I want to quote a few figures from the statistics of the Department of Labour as recorded in the Canada Year Book, covering the years from 1920 to 1828. They show that the index of productive efficiency of wage earners increased from 97-0 in 1920 to 148-5 in 1928, while the real value of wages increased only from 100-4 in 1920 to 116-4 in 1928. In productive efficiency there is a gain of 51-5 per cent, while in the real value of wages there has been an increase of only 16 per cent. Now let us see where this increase of 35-5 per cent in volume of production over the real value of wages went. The capital invested in Canada in 1920 was $3,371,000,000 and in 1928, $4,780,000,000, an increase of 42 per cent. Wages and salaries in the same period increased from $732,120,000 in 1920 to $755,199,000 in 1928, an increase of 3 per cent. If you have an increase of 42 per cent in capital and an increase of only 3 per cent in wages, how are you going to consume your total production? What are you going to do? There are all kinds of needs and all kinds of work to be done in this country, but there is no gainful employment out of which a profit can be made from the labour of the worker, and if that cannot be found the people will be unemployed.
An hon. gentleman on the other side of the house a few moments ago asked who was responsible for all this. I said that I was not blaming anybody. I should like, however, in this connection to quote from a speech made by Sir George Paish in New York a few days ago, as reported by the New York Times of June 9, 1931. I think his remarks are well

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
worth reading and thinking over; he is a greater authority than I am. I quote:
Sir George predicted greater distress in America and in other countries in this coming winter "than we have witnessed in modern times" and urged timely preparation of relief measures. He advocated unemployment insurance as the only means of averting revolution in countries which, like Great Britain, had been suffering from chronic unemployment.
Personally I would not advocate unemployment insurance merely for the sake of averting revolution, but I am quite sure that it has done that much at least in the British isles. Not only has it done that, but in Great Britain they have come thus far through the depression with less lowering of their standard of living than any other country in the world to-day. I quote again:
The belief that next winter will bring more acute distress was shared by officials of the Welfare Council, which represent the principal welfare and health agencies of the city.
"1 am also very much disturbed," said Sir George "about the situation in the world, and it is clear that both you and we, in fact all countries, will be up against a good deal. In a measure we are going to fight probably the greatest peace battle that we have fought. You will remember that during the war we were right up against it. We had to mobilize all our forces to win the war. Now we have to mobilize the forces of every possible kind to win this fight against trade depression. Indeed, if I may say so. in my judgment there is a danger, a great danger, of a complete breakdown of trade, and we must be prepared. If those who are able to control world affairs are wise and act rvisely, then we may mitigate the disaster. It cannot be prevented."
Those are the words of Sir George Paish. He continues:
"It can only be made bearable."
He is not the only one who is beginning to feel that the situation is getting very precarious indeed. I continue to quote:
Sir George said that the politicians and statesmen must bear the responsibility: "They have done everything in their power, they desired to do everything in their power to hamper trade," he said. "They have increased tariffs, they have imposed embargoes, they have created licences; in fact, they have left nothing undone to hamper trade. I wish to compliment the politicians and statesmen of the world on the success of their policy. They have left nothing undone to hamper the trade of the world and to bring ruin. They have succeeded, but it means the suicide of the world. I am not saying that of New York, but of my country and of every country. It is essential that people should realize the danger in which they are. the danger of the complete breakdown of trade bringing unparalleled distress. This is no mere trade depression. It is a catastrophe of the first moment."
The report continues:
The world's great misfortune had been, Sir George added, that each nation was trying to solve the problem in its own narrow, national
[Mr. Maclnnis.1
way, whan as a matter of fact the problem required common action.
"Each nation has been trying to get ^out, thinking that its problem is a local one," he said. "This has carried us into deeper and deeper distress. This problem is not merely a national problem. It is essential that every nation in the world should cooperate with every other nation to get the world out of distress. The world problem must be faced by the world."
Lastly Sir George Paish said:
AVe must each of us stand for the welfare of the other nations. AVe have to create a condition in the world that will make all nations prosperous. Out of world prosperity our own prosperity will follow.
The Prime Minister in concluding his budget speech said that we must have faith, courage and determination. It is all right to have faith, and it is easy to have courage and determination when your stomach is full and you have a place to live and sleep, but it is going a little too far to tell the unemployed, who are citizens of this country, that they must have faith. They have come to the time when hope, deferred, maketh the heart, sick.


Mr. J. B. SAVANSTON (Maple Creek):: Mr Speaker, taking part for the first time in a debate in this house I wish to point out to the government some of the difficulties that, confront the people of the constituency of Maple Creek, which I have the honour to represent. In doing so I am not unmindful of other parts of the country. Maple Creek is situated in the southwestern portion of the province of Saskatchewan, bordered by Alberta to the west and the state of Montana to the south. It is purely agricultural, and although there are large areas where mixed farming is carried on, wheat growing is the major industry.
I wish to extend my congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) upon the budget he presented to this house. I wish also to thank him for the consideration extended to the western farmers. I may say I have had many letters from the west commending the recent budget. There will be no attempt on my part, Mr. Speaker, to disguise the fact that at the present time conditions in -western Canada are exceedingly trying and difficult. Those opposed to us who have sought to emphasize this condition should however not forget their silence of just a few short months ago when conditions were exceedingly bad and drifting with startling rapidity to the state of affairs which exist to-day. At that time hon. members opposite did not think it necessary to paint a dismal picture or to call attention to the swift and disastrous declension that was taking

The Budget-Mr. Swnnston
place in agricultural Canada, especially in the prairie west. Canada occupies almost one-halt of the northern agricultural area of the world. The rest of the far northern hemisphere is almost wholly in the hands of Russia. Consequently, Canada is brought into first and direct competition with a country which is now operating under a new and peculiar form of despotism, which form of government for the time being at least enjoys the fanatical support of most of the vast millions of the Russian population. While this enthusiasm continues and while those vast millions are ready to sacrifice every comfort and many of the necessities of life in the belief that they are building up an earthly paradise to come, the nature of the competition which now faces Canada can well be imagined. This is the competition against which the Canadian farmers are now pitted, and in the struggle they merit and demand the practical cooperation of the Canadian government and the Canadian people, and unless such cooperation is given the Canadian farmer can remain in competition only by reduoing his standard of living to the level of that obtaining in Russia. I do not say that these melancholy conditions can by any sort of reasoning be considered permanent, but I fear that in the present state of mind of the Russian people such a condition may actually exist, and it is with these and near future troubles we now have to contend. The complaisance of the Russian people, despite the tyranny under which they live and the deplorable standards of living of the peasants, constitutes the real problem Canadians have to face to-day.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Are they any worse than the dump heap in East Ottawa?


James Beck Swanston: You talk too much. My hon. friend's time this session has cost this government about 8100,000 already.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend is getting good value.


James Beck Swanston: If my hon. friend keeps on talking there will be no doubt as to my being returned at the next election.
I represent an area in the west which is not exclusively wheat growing but to some extent is interested in mixed farming. The constituency of Maple Creek has long been noted for its production of cattle, horses, sheep and hogs, in wheat Russian competition is imminent and its effect is crushing. In the cattle trade competition is coming, but I do not anticipate it will be quite as severe as it will be in the case of wheat.' As long as the Canadian farmer is called upon to compete
with free labour only he has courage to face such competition, and in the past he has always been able to succeed. Russian labour, is not free labour. For the time being a great deal of the labour may be voluntary and sacrifices are willingly borne because of promises of future glory. Actually, however, the condition is one of forced labour in one sphere after another of Russian activity and the result is that the Canadian farmer should and must have special . protection in the world's markets. This applies to all free farming communities in all parts of the world, and especially in the British Empire. It should be the duty of the statesmen of this empire to see that such protection is given. In turn Canada should be ready to give advantages to other countries, especially to the mother country, in return for the advantages given in their market against the product of the forced labour of Russia. All classes of people should be prepared to see that trade arrangements are made which will bring about special advantage to Canada in the British market as well as in the other markets of the world. Surely we have not come to the time when under the influence of a wild and fantastic mania any country in the world can dictate the standards of living which must prevail in other countries. It is the function of this government to protect the standard of living, and the Canadian people expect this government not to fail. All through these years the Canadian farmer has done his share to maintain the standards of living of the workmen, manufacturers and financiers. Now the workmen, manufacturers and financiers along with all other classes in Canada must indeed do their part to maintain the standard of living of the Canadian agriculturist. I compliment the government upon having already taken action along this line. What has been done has been only a step, but it has placed Canada in a position to proceed with treaty negotiations which will be in the interest of our farmers.
As I have seen other hon. members referring to notes Mr. Speaker, I shall take that liberty. One of the chief difficulties with which we in Maple Creek constituency are faced is the lack of railway facilities. A few days ago when the railway estimates were before this house I observed, when it became known that the railway officials of the Canadian National Railways had decided to curtail the expenses by making a out in certain lines which were not paying costs of operation, that some hon. members representing the constituencies affected appealed to the Minister of Railways and Canals to maintain those lines even at a loss to the Canadian

The Budget-Mr. Swamlon
National Railways and to the country. What would be the attitude of hon. members, if, instead of 'having a curtailed railway service, they had no railway at all? In Maple Creek constituency there are large stretches of fertile country that have no railway. The residents of those districts are the most thrifty and the finest class of people in the world. They have waited a long time for a railroad. They have paid heavy taxes for many years. They have sent petitions and requests to the railway officials and to the government. They have hauled their wheat and other farm products over long trails for many years, and on top of that they have paid extra freight and express charges. They are greatly handicapped on account of lack of railway transportation facilities to the market. Those people are not asking for a daily train service; all they are asking for is a railway to help them to reduce the cost of production and transportation at this time when the prices of farm products are so low.
To encourage those people to stay on the land, to give them some hope of success in the future and to furnish employment to the unemployed, I am going to appeal to the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) and to the government to use their influence with the officials of the Canadian Pacific railway to hasten the construction of the following lines: The gap between Mankota and Val-marie; the Dunelm-Vesper extension; the Verio extension, and the extension from Golden Prairie to Big Stick lake. I shall not take up the time of the house in explaining all the inconveniences experienced by the people in those districts, but I should like to mention one gap, that is on the south line, between Mankota and Valmarie. Travelling east from Valmarie or any of the towns west of the gap, you will first travel one day west to Consul, then spend another day travelling east to Shaunavon on the Weyburn-Lethbridge line, and after travelling for two days, you are now thirty-ffive miles north and thirty-five miles further west than you were when you started two days previously. Thus hon. members will see the need of the construction of these lines.
Just a word with reference to the Hudson Bay railway. A few days ago the Prime Minister, announced that the grain rates on the Hudson Bay railway, when it was placed in operation, would be based on the Crows-nest pass rates. This is welcome news to the people of western Canada. The western farmer will make a great saving on both his wheat and cattle. It is estimated by good authority that the saving on wheat will 
be from 7 to 8 cents a bushel,, or in the neighbourhood of $100 per car. To ship a carload of cattle from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, to Montreal. costs $221 per car of 20,000 pounds, while to ship the same car to Churchill would cost $108, or a saving of $113 per car. In addition to the cash saving, there, will be an economic advantage, in that less feed and less care will be necessary in shipping to Churchill and the cool northern route will be easier on the cattle so that there will be diminished shrinkage. In the case of dairy products going to the British Isles, it is estimated that a shipper from Regina will save $190 on a car of butter by shipping by way of Churchill, and the savings on shipments from other parts of Saskatchewan will be in proportion. I congratulate the Minister of Railways for hastening the construction of this line.
Probably one of the most significant developments which have taken place recently, at least so far as Canada is concerned, is the reappearance of Russia in the world's wheat market, and Russian competition in the marketing of this commodity may well be viewed with concern. In 1930 more than 200,000,000 bushels of Russian wheat were offered in competition with Canadian wheat in the British market. In 1928 Argentina had a wheat crop of 350,000,000 bushels, or 129,000,000 bushels above her average for the years 1923 to 1927. She also held, at the beginning of the Canadian crop year 1929-30, in round numbers, 120,000,000 bushels available for export as compared with 61,000,000 bushels, the average during the years 1923 to 1927, and, moreover, no one in Canada seemed to have any idea of this enormous increase in the wheat crops of Russia and Argentina. Here were two countries sending tens of millions of bushels of unsold wheat to sea and dumping it on the market wherever possible at greatly reduced prices and greatly below the cost of production. When these large shipments of distressed wheat neared the shores of such countries as Germany, France, Italy and Spain, they found protective tariff Walls over which they could not sell. Those countries had decided to protect the home markets for their home grown wheat. Consequently those ships turned their course to Britain, and unloaded their wheat at any available price, displacing Canadian wheat.
No information had reached western Canada from the ex-Minister of Trade and Com*-merce regarding the serious condition of the wheat market. No information was received from the marketing experts of the Liberal government to inform the western farmer of the danger of holding his wheat, when the British

The Budget-Mr. Swanston
market was. being crammed to its utmost capacity with wheat from Russia, Argentina and other countries. Surely it was. the duty of the intelligence department to keep the wheat grower advised when such serious conditions arose. After hearing that the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce had made the statement that the wheat market would take care of itself, it was no surprise to me to hear that wheat markets had been lost. And may I say right at this point that it is much easier to lose markets than it is to find them. If timely information had been given the wheat growers of Canada, our wheat would have been sold and an extra $100,000,000 would have been distributed among the farmers of western Canada. Instead of that, the wheat has been held in the elevators and the farmers have spent their last dollar to pay elevator charges and other expenses. Although every effort is being made to leave the impression throughout the country that this administration has been unable to find markets for our wheat, the fact, remains that our exports of wheat are increasing. Let us see exactly what has happened. In July, 1929, the price of wheat was $1.78 per bushel' while in July, 1930, before this government came into office, it had dropped to S7 cents per bushel. During the crop year ending July, 1930, we exported 155,000,000 bushels of wheat. During the first ten months of this year we have exported 195,000,000 bushels, and the booking estimates for June and July, the last of the crop year, is 234,000,000 bushels, or an increase of 80,000,000 bushels this year as against last year under our fiscal policy. France took 9,800,000 bushels this year as against 6,000,000 bushels last year. This would seem to indicate that markets are being found.
The farmers of western Canada must look for a reduction in -the prices of farm implements and gasoline, for a reduction in freight rates and for lower interest rates on loans. The absorption by the government of five cents per bushel in connection with the cost of transportation of wheat will assist the farmer to the extent of $15,000,000 or more a year in normal times, and this provision is made effective this year.
With reference to the banks and financial institutions, I am of the opinion that the banks, loan companies, implement companies and other financial institutions should not be allowed to charge over 7 per cent on their loans. I believe agriculture in western Canada cannot be developed on a sound economic basis under high interest rates. I am greatly concerned over the mounting debt of the fanners in our part of the country, due to interest on farm loans and interest owing implement companies. I believe the farmers are honest
and do not wish to evade their debts, but-their honesty is being stretched to the point of breaking because under present conditions their debt is growing out of all proportion to their ability to pay.
To keep the farmer on his land I would suggest a conference of representatives of the farmers, the municipal councils, the provincial governments, the banks, the implement companies, the loan companies and the federal government in order to see if something cannot be done to assist in adjusting -this debt and giving the farmer a fresh start. This: will pay best in the long run. It would seem as though some of this debt must be adjusted in order to give the farmers of the west a chance. They cannot pay these high interest rates much longer.	;
In view of the fact that there has been a good deal of discussion with regard to the effect of the Australian treaty on the dairy industry of Canada, I have secured from the bureau of statistics the figures with regard to the exports and imports of butter during the five years the treaty was in operation. The exports were as follows:
1925..		 26,646,535
1926		 9.814.3.00
1927		 2.696.000
1928		 1.994.800
1929		 1,400,490
1930..		 1,180,400	,
For -the same years our imports were as follows:	,
1925		 99.478
1926		 9,151.882
1927		 11,208.819
1928		 16.801.656
1929		 35,928.240
1930		 39,606,055
For the twelve months preceding September 30, 1930, our imports of butter amounted to 47,031,642 pounds, and during the first half of October, 1930, we imported over 2,000,000 pounds. The six months' notice ending the treaty became effective in the middle of October, and in the following month, after the treaty was cancelled, we imported only 124,943 pounds. Apparently every effort was made by those shipping butter into Canada to ship in as much a3 possible before the abrogation of the treaty in the middle of October.
To summarize the actual situation during the five years of the treaty, Canada, one of the most important dairy producing countries in the world, exporting butter at the rate of 26,000,000 pounds annually in 1925, exported only a little more than 1,000,000 pounds in 1930, and our imports increased from 99,000 pounds in 1925 to the enormous figure of over 47,000,000 pounds in 1930. Ir
Private Bills

other words, in 1930 we exported twenty-five times less butter than in 1925, and imported 470 times as much. During this period our exports of milk and cream diminished by 75 per cent and our exports of cheese were cut in two. Our dairy farmers were so greatly affected by the treaty that many milch cows were sold for beef, reducing our dairy herds by over 100,000 cows. In the small town of Hatton, in the constituency of Maple Creek, in July, 1925, the heaviest cream month of the year, they shipped 350 cans of cream a week. During the same month in 1929 the number of cans had been reduced to less than 100 per week. The farmers of that town lost thousands of dollars through the large importations of New Zealand butter.
This leads me to say a few words with reference to the bacon industry, because when there is a diminished production in dairy products there will be a falling off in the bacon trade, as those two industries run hand in hand. Previous to the Australian treaty we were exporting 220,000,000 pounds of bacon annually, but by 1930, this was reduced to 20,000,000 pounds.
My time is almost up. I should have liked to say something with regard to the tariff and the income tax, but I will leave those matters for another occasion.
On motion of Mr. Motherwell the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Stevens the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
Monday, June 15, 1931.