1931-06-18

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on privileges and elections.-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury).
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury) moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay) presented the first report of the select standing committee appointed to supervise the official report of debates, as follows:
Your committee have had under consideration the resolution referred to them by the house on Friday, June twelfth, relating to the translation into English of all the speeches which have been delivered in French the previous week, and the publication thereof on every Monday during the session, and recommend that the resolution referred to in the order of the house be amended by adding after the word "Monday" the words "or Wednesday."
Mr. ESLING moved that the report be
concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER presented the report of the special committee appointed to consider jointly with Mr. Speaker the amending of the standing orders of the house governing the procedure to be followed in taking a division, as follows:
Your committee, having considered several systems of taking divisions, are of the opinion that there does not seem to be any urgent necessity of making radical changes in the procedure now followed in the House of Commons; but they recommend that, in order to save time, one of the officers of the house be assigned to sit near the clerk and count the votes as they are called during a division, so that the totals of the yeas and nays recorded be given out immediately after the members have voted.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 97, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the sole object of this bill is to amend subsection (a) of section 87 of the Canada Shipping Act. This section
deals with the terms under which what are commonly known as servitude certificates are granted. This section contains a large number of subsections, and subsection (a) relates solely to the question of time which must be served before a certificate can be obtained. The amendment substitutes the words "one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one" for the words "one thousand nine hundred and twenty."
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many pensions are being paid through the decisions of the Board of Pension Commissioners since October 1, 1930, to date?
2.	How many pensions are being paid through the decisions of the tribunal since October 1, 1930, to date?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	11,761.
2.	161.


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What amount is included in the estimates for the Department of Pensions and National Health for the year 1931-1932 for salaries: (a) veteran's bureau; (2) tribunal; (3) appeal court; (4) veterans?
2.	What is the total amount included in said estimates for contingencies: (1) transportation: (2) travelling expenses; (3) telegrams and telephones; (4) furniture, office supplies, etc.?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Salaries, 1931-32:	(1) Veterans' bureau,
$175,000; (2) Pension tribunal, $170,000; (3) Appeal court, $40,000;	(4) War veterans'
allowances, $40,000.
2.	Contingencies: (1) Transportation, $45,000; (2) Travelling expenses, $60,000;	(3)
Telegrams and telephone (postage), etc., $25,000.
(Note:	These items include fees to witnesses and payments for loss of wages).


CENSUS ENUMERATORS
Mr. CHEVRIER:: Were the appointments of but ten Frencli-Canadian census enumerators in the city of Ottawa made with the approval of the government?


Mr. BENNETT:: This question is objectionable in its present form. The other day I directed attention to a somewhat similar ques-
Questions

tion, but apparently the hon. member still persists in making statements of fact, thereby, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said last year, giving rather than seeking information. I think the question as submitted should be struck out.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


PROVINCIAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Mr. BOULANGER:: What is the amount: (a) of the surplus; (b) deficit, by which was balanced the last financial statement of each province of Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we have no sources of information with which to answer this question other than those available to the hon. member himself. No returns are made by the provinces to the dominion with respect to the matters mentioned, and a letter to the departments concerned merely will bring the information to the government in exactly the same way as it would to the hon. member.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question not being
a proper one to ask of the government, will be dropped.
Question dropped.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DISMISSALS
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	How many passenger train conductors running between Montreal and Halifax were dismissed from the Canadian National Railways, since January 1, 1929?
2.	What are the names of each one, and the reason assigned for dismissal?
3.	Was one Mr. Mann, Canadian National Railways conductor on the branch line between Campbellton and Edmundston, previously dismissed from the eervice of the said railways?
4.	If so, why was he dismissed?
5.	Wa3 he reinstated, and if so, when and at whose order?


Mr. MANION:: Mr. Speaker, the railway
authorities take the attitude, and I think correctly so, that men who have been dismissed at various times for various causes have been punished sufficiently by such dismissal. If the cause of dismissal were published it might ruin a man's reputation as well as possibly preventing his obtaining a livelihood elsewhere. I would ask my hon. friend to permit this question to be dropped, and if any hon. member desires details of this kind, I will endeavour to give them to him privately but I do not think the publication of such information is in the public interest
Question dropped.
IMr. Bennett.1


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many ships or icebreakers, under the control of the Department of Marine, are there in the province of Quebec?
2.	What are the home ports of the said ships
or icebreakers?
3.	Who were the officers in charge and the crew of said ships or icebreakers, on July 28, 1930?
4.	What were their salaries?
5.	Are the same officers and employees on the said boats to-day?
6.	If any changes were made in the personnel of the said officers and employees, why were the changes made?
7.	Were complaints made against the officers and crew of said ships or icebreakers?
8.	If so, what was the nature of these complaints?
9.	By whom were they made?
10.	If new officers and employees were placed in charge of said ships or icebreakers since July 28, 1930, by whom were they recommended?
11.	Did these officers and employees pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?
12.	What is the present salary of said officers and employees?
13.	What are their addresses?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Mr. Speaker, there are thirteen questions under this heading and the officials of my department tell me it would take a long time to prepare answers. I would ask the hon. member to allow this question to stand as an order for return.


FORTY-MINUTE RULE INTERPRETATION OF STANDING ORDER 37-REPLY TO MOTION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: I wish to take this occasion to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a point of order concerning the discussion on the budget. I shall at once admit that it can have no bearing on the present discussion, but I think the point is of sufficient importance to warrant my bringing it up now, because I would not wish that the procedure followed be cited as a precedent for future discussions without having the point finally decided by the chair, I refer to an incident which took place on June 4. After the hon. member for Sheliburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), speaking for the official opposition, had discussed the budget resolutions and exercised his right under standing order 37 to speak for more than forty minutes, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) followed, and when his forty minutes had expired, the hon. member for

Forty-Minute Rule
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) directed the attention of the chair to the fact that the minister had spoken for forty minutes. I do not think Your Honour was in the chair at the time, but it was decided that the minister was quite within his right to follow up the debate for more than forty minutes, and without any grounds being given or any rule cited, the Minister of Trade and Commerce was allowed to continue. I submit that in that case there was a misinterpretation of standing order 37, and I do so not in the least spirit of animosity but merely because I think the house will agree it is very important that the rule be decided by Your Honour for future guidance in budget debates.
I shall read standing order 37 and endeavour to show that the decision as rendered was not according to the rule. Standing order 37 reads:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
I admit the rule may be confusing, but let me point out that there are three exceptions to the provision that members shall not speak for more than forty minutes. In the first place the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition may speak for more than forty minutes. In the second place a minister moving a government order and a member speaking immediately in reply after such minister may speak for more than forty minutes. In the third place a member making a motion of no confidence in the government and a minister replying thereto may speak more than forty minutes. It is evident that the third exception was interpreted as applying to the budget debate, but the budget debate, in my opinion, comes under the second exception. The Minister of Finance rises in his place and moves the house into committee of ways and means to consider certain resolutions which constitute a government order. The Minister of Finance thus moves a government order and the member immediately replying on behalf of the opposition may speak for more than forty minutes. But because another minister happens to follow in the debates, he has not also the right to expand the limit beyond forty minutes. The Minister of Finance, in opening the debate, places before the house a government order. He also has the right to close the debate after every hon. member has been given an opportunity to speak. But because casually another minister follows the official critic of
the opposition, that minister certainly does not come under standing order 37. The third exception provided for does not apply to the budget which is a positive government order moved by the Minister of Finance. It applies to a motion for committee of supply, where a member on this side moves an amendment and the minister who is involved in that amendment is allowed an opportunity of replying for more than forty minutes. But when we come to the budget, it would seem both unfair and not according to the standing order that after the Minister of Finance has spoken at length and the official critic of the opposition has also spoken at length, another minister just because he happens to follow, can also exceed the forty-minute rule.
I admit that I am raising that point a little late, but, I said, it is very important because the procedure followed may be cited as a precedent governing future debate. Therefore I would ask Your Honour not to rule on the point to-day, but to consider it and to give a written decision after careful study so that we may know where we stand in the matter.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: I admit that the language of the rule
is probably not as clear as it might be, particularly in regard to the third exception which my hon. friend has just mentioned. Nothing hinges on the first or the second exception, but the rule provides in the third instance:
Or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government.
That is perhaps where there is some uncertainty in regard to the language. I agree that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) moves the house into committee of ways and means, he is moving a government order and the hon. member who replies to him is unlimited in respect of time. But, on the other hand, any amendment to the motion to go into committee of ways and means has always been considered a want of confidence motion.
Mr. B0URA8SA: Not always.


Hugh Guthrie: Always.
Mr. B0URAS8A:	The hon. member will
find plenty of precedents to the contrary.


Hugh Guthrie: Please let me finish my
statement. My hon. friend may speak after me. It is a time-honoured custom both in supply and ways and means to move votes of want of confidence in the government, and that is done simply by moving an amend-
Forty-Minute Rule

ment to the motion to go into committee of supply or ways and means. A government may or may not accept this as a motion of want of confidence, but it is a motion of want of confidence all the same. That being the case, a minister who replies immediately after the mover of that motion is, under this standing order, entitled to unlimited time. No other hon. member would have that privilege, but the rule distinctly says that a minister replying immediately after the mover of a motion of want of confidence is unlimited in regard to his time. I do not express any opinion as to the propriety of the rule, but there the rule is, and having regard to the strict letter of the rule and parliamentary custom in the house and in England, I submit the ruling was correct as the standing order is now framed, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not limited as to time.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Will the minister admit
that this is the first occasion when the rule has been interpreted in that way?


Hugh Guthrie: It is the first occasion
within my recollection when a minister has replied immediately or has sought extended time. I do not recollect the matter being before the house on a former occasion. It may have, and I may have forgotten it. But the fact that this is the first instance does not affect the case at all if the rule is there and the rule has been followed.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask whether, according to the interpretation of the Minister of Justice, the mover of the subamendment will be entitled to speak for more than forty minutes? Is his motion one of want of confidence, or has he to wait until the government decides whether his motion is or is not a motion of want of confidence before he can speak for more than forty minutes?


Hugh Guthrie: The mover of a subamendment is not in quite the same position as the mover of an amendment, under this rule. The main amendment is a motion of want of confidence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is not the subamendment?


Hugh Guthrie: The subamendment is an amendment to the amendment which has been moved as a motion of want of confidence, and I doubt if it is covered by the rule.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister take the position that it is not a motion of want of confidence?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not take that position. It may be distinctly a motion of want of confidence, but I say that it is not expressly covered by this rule and I am now dealing with this rule.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: I think there is a great deal of truth in what the Minister of Justice points out. This all arises from the change that was adopted a few years ago. Under an old interpretation by one of the first Speakers in the Canadian parliament after confederation-Mr. Blanehet, I think-it was decided, contrary to what was practised in England, that on a motion to go into supply or ways and means there could be only one amendment, and that became the practice in this parliament. In fact, I was taught the advantages of that practice by my old friend Sir Wilfrid Laurier once when I wanted to bring in a motion against the government, and he told me how to do it, against his own government, which I thought was very nice of him. Under the old practice there was no doubt that the amendment submitted as against the motion to go into supply or ways and means had to be voted on before the main motion was taken up, but in the session of 1927-28, the last time the rules were revised, the rules were extended and it was decided that a subamendment could be moved after an amendment had been moved to a motion to go into supply or ways and means. As the rules have been framed, somewhat hastily, the interpretation of the Minister of Justice is correct. But I think it is nonsensical all the same. If the amendment moved by one member of one group or another is to be interpreted as a motion of want of confidence whatever it contains, then why should the mover of a subamendment be treated differently from the mover of an amendment. I think that is an important point.
There is one point in what the Minister of Justice said to which I desire to take exception, namely, that an amendment to go into supply or ways and means is of necessity a motion of want of confidence. Contrary to my habit, I interrupted the Minister of Justice to point out that that interpretation has been raised frequently, and one has only to refer to Bourinot, for example, to find out that that interpretation is not correct. In fact, there comes to my memory just now a very striking incident under the old Conservative government. I think it was Mr. Costigan who brought up a motion of sympathy with Ireland in her struggle for home rule on the motion to go into supply.

Riviere du Loup Station


Hugh Guthrie: That was in the session
of 1901, That was the case I had in mind when I spoke.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, I am referring to
the old Conservative government before 1896. It was pointed out at the time that Mr. Costigan's motion should be interpreted as a motion of want of confidence, but the Speaker ruled to the contrary. More than that, the government divided among themselves, some ministers voting for the motion and some against. The Controller of Customs, as he was then called, Mr. Clarke Wallace, nobody will be surprised to hear, opposed the motion. Some of the Conservatives voted against it, and some members of the government, including-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Would the hon. member
kindly confine himself to the point of order?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am challenging the
interpretation that a subamendment is of necessity a motion of want of confidence. I would not like that opinion to be maintained without resort to the Speaker for an interpretation of the rule. With regard to the other point, if the letter of the rule is as the Minister of Justice has interpreted it, I think the Speaker should point out to us whether it is so or not. Then when he has given his ruling there will be time enough to change the rule. Personally I think the mover of the subamendment should be placed in exactly the same position as the mover of the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Without any claim to
infallibility, I do not think there is any necessity of reserving my decision or presenting a written decision. With all due deference, I rannot agree with my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) in his interpretation of standing order 37. The hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), in replying to the Minister of Finance moving a government order, saw fit to move a motion of want of confidence in the government. He was not limited as to time. As I read the standing order, there is no doubt whatever that the minister replying to a motion of want of confidence is unlimited as to time. If the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth had not made a motion of want of confidence, the minister would have been limited to forty minutes.
As the matter has been mentioned, I am inclined to think the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) amounts to a motion of want of confidence, and he would not have been
limited as to time, and if the minister speaking in reply thereto had claimed the right to speak without limit as to time I think I would have held that he was so entitled, but the point was not raised.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but with all deference to the chair I do submit that the rule should be changed because I think that its spirit is not in accord with its letter.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Having given my ruling, the hon. member is not in order in continuing the discussion.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Would I be in order in suggesting that this rule be amended?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Make a motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is a proper way in which to bring that matter up.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then I give notice that to-morrow I will discuss that rule.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that under your ruling the hon. member for Battle River would have had the right to speak for longer than forty minutes?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That was my impression. I was not called upon to give a decision on that point, I have not been yet, and I am not now.


RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: May I ask the right hon. leader of the government when I may expect returns to be brought down to orders of the house that were passed on June 1, relating to correspondence between ministers of the crown and another person regarding the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup? May I also ask the Minister of Railways and Canals when he will be able to table the return to an order of the house on May 28 regarding government requests to the railway board?


Robert James Manion: The other day I tabled, I think, twenty-five returns for the hon. gentleman regarding Riviere du Loup station. I hope he has had time to read them all.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, and I found them so interesting that I am asking for more.


Robert James Manion: I will inquire as to the other returns and will table them when ready.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the leader of the government be kind enough to answer my request?

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was of the opinion that the Minister of Railways had answered the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: He answered one, but there were two in one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought he covered all the returns. As soon as they are ready they will be tabled.


RAILWAY COMMISSION VACANCY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals when we may expect an appointment to the railway board to replace Colonel Vien?


Robert James Manion: Some time ago in answering a similar question by my hon. iriend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) I said that I hoped the appointment would be made in the near future. I do not like to give my hon. friend a short answer, but I am afraid I shall have to answer his question in the same way. It is a question of decision by the government, which will be made in the near future.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 17, 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.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, for the last two
weeks we have been discussing the 1931 budget, and have been dealing with it in order to try to make plain the strong points, if any, in connection therewith. Also we have been endeavouring to point out the many weak points in the budget. They are legion. As I understand it the budget is the financial statement brought down to parliament from year to year by the Minister of Finance. The statement with which I am concerned to-day was presented to the house on June 1 by the right hon, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett).
I am striving to-day, so far as western Canada, Saskatchewan and my own riding are concerned to make a contribution to the debate now progressing and soon to end.

At the outset may I congratulate the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the remarkably fine address he delivered in this house on Tuesday last. It was truly a great oratorical effort.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McINTOSH:: My hon. friends do not need to become alarmed; I shall deal later with the leader of my hon. friends opposite to their heart's content. May I say that I believe the splendid address of my right hon. leader-and I do not wish to appear partisan-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I believe the speech of
my right hon. leader possessed-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: 'Just possess your souls in patience for a little while. The address of my right hon. leader possessed three of the outstanding attributes of any remarkable deliverance in parliament. It had the vision necessary to bring within its ambit all the important political questions in Canada at the present time. Consequently not only had it the objective and the remarkable vision possessed by a statesman but it had that fire without which there is no great or fine oration. Oratory has been defined as logic set on fire. If ever logic was on fire in this parliament certainly it was on Tuesday last, and I think hon. members opposite realize that fact. In addition to the vision required in a speech delivered on such an occasion and the necessary fire of a sentimental nature, the deliverance also showed brilliant executive ability, and the conclusions arrived at in the address regarding the questions before Canada at the present time demonstrated the finest scholarship, statesmanship and vision. Therefore I say the right hon. gentleman is entitled to hearty congratulations on his very splendid address.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I shall leave the budget debate for a few minutes to deal with the right hon. leader of the opposition personally. Since I came to this parliamentary chamber in 1926, I have heard statements of a somewhat derogatory nature from time to time, regarding the right hon. gentleman, which I do not believe should have been made in the budget or any other parliamentary debate. To my mind there are plenty of big things in parliament to talk about without getting down to political trivialities and base insinuations.
May I, Mr. Speaker, so far as the right hon. leader of the opposition is concerned, at this

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
time refer to a book entitled "Mackenzie King, the Man, his Achievements," by Senator John Lewis. If I may be allowed to digress for a moment may I say that the book now before me is practically a counterpart, in a political way, of, "Laurier, a Study in Canadian Politics," by Mr. John W. Dafoe, the distinguished editor of the Manitoba Free Press.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Will the
hon. member allow me a question? Has he read the book concerning his leader by Mr. Wilkins of Winnipeg?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No-a biased production. Some day there will be a book written about my hon. friend which he might not want to read.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is now.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If my hon. friend wants
that kind of stuff he will get it. We have some hon. members who do not seem to understand or realize just what the position of an hon. member in parliament signifies. Mr. Dafoe wrote his book at the time Laurier was living, and in it I have found two introductory and suggestive lines of poetry which I think I might quote at this time:
Ne'er of the living can the living judge;
Too blind the affection or too fresh the
grudge.
I think those two lines might very well apply to some hon. members opposite when we come to sizing up statesmen and public men. My plea, Mr. Speaker, at this time is for a wider conception of the duties of statesmanship and for a wider sympathy for leaders of all parties. I believe if we get that we will have a higher class of politics in this Canada of ours-something to be devoutly desired. The book of Mr. Dafoe dealt with the character, capacity, leadership and contributions made by Laurier, the great Liberal leader, to Canada. So in this book of Senator John Lewis we find that the senator deals in a capable manner with the character, the ability, the capacity, the leadership and the remarkably fine contribution made by the right hon. leader of the opposition to the building up of a greater dominion.
At this time I wish only to outline a running sketch to tell hon. members of this house that the right hon. leader of the opposition graduated, like many other eminent Canadians, from the public schools of the province of Ontario, that he is a graduate from the university of Toronto, a postgraduate student of the university of Chicago, a student in the post-graduate school of
Harvard university. At both Chicago and at Harvard alike he had won post-graduate fellowships, at Harvard he won as well a travelling fellowship which took him for a year in 1899 to the continent of Europe. His studies throughout his secondary school and public school and university courses, both under-graduate and post-graduate showed him at all times to be-


An hon. MEMBER:: Is this a biography?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Partly. Why not? If
my hon. friends will allow me to proceed they may ask as many questions as they like later on. I was saying that the right hon. leader of the opposition possessed unusual political capacity. That is one reason for his great success. Some of the hon. members opposite otherwise equipped would undoubtedly like to possess a similar capacity, but it is quite obvious that such a capacity is wanting. He also evinced as a student a special interest in political affairs and had the habit ever of a real investigator of the truth. Not only that but, like his paternal grandfather who was skilled in gunnery and military engineering, the right hon. leader of the opposition is also skilled in political gunnery and enveloping flank movements, as hon. members opposite only too well realize.
After the right hon. leader of the opposition finished his post-graduate course in Chicago, he returned to Canada and was responsible for investigating certain public contracts in this country and bringing about minimum wage legislation, which has proved to be a very important aid to labour. Then he visited Europe to continue his studies. In 1900 he became Deputy Minister of Labour, organizer of the labour department and founder of the Labour Gazette, with which we are all familiar. During his term as deputy minister he went ahead and courageously settled forty labour disputes, of which the following are examples:
The southern Alberta coal mines dispute in 1906, and an industrial dispute in the cotton factories of Quebec in 1908.
To emphasize what I have been discussing, Mr. Speaker, may I quote the opinion of Doctor Charles W. Eliot, president emeritus of Harvard university, respecting the ability of the right hon. leader of the opposition in the adjustment of labour troubles. Doctor Eliot said:
When one considers all the activities of the Department of Labour at Ottawa before and since the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, one sees clearly that the Canadian action on the labour problem has been and still is the most intelligent and successful in the world. It shows one safe way at least towards industrial peace.

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King invented this legislation and got it put into effect.
The leading ideas which appear in his writings, speeches and political career are that governmental investigations should precede the lockout or the strike in order to bring law and order into industry and to introduce joint control. Secondly, that the government should pass laws effective in uncovering wrongs and exposing injustice in industrial controversies, and that if the community is to pay regard to the rights of labour and capital on the one hand, labour and capital on the other must not be . indifferent to the well-being of the community; and thirdly, that the methods of preserving peace between nations are similar to those that obtain in industry, namely, conciliation, arbitration and the international support of a judicial tribunal whose decisions are enforceable by an international police.
Later, in 1908, the right hon. gentleman became Minister of Labour. In 1914 he became connected as a specialist with the Rockefeller foundation, but remained in Canada directing the work of research into industrial relations from Ontario, his native province. His connection with this institution was indirectly referred to yesterday by the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). I have before me the latest report of the foundation, and hon. members may be interested to learn what it is doing right now in Canada. At page 370, under the title "Canada," I find the Rockefeller foundation is giving aid to further these important activities:
Aid to local health departments; aid for research; epidemiology; fellowships; McGill university; university of Montreal; nursing surveys and visits; public health training station, Beauce county; school of hygiene and public health, Toronto; study of veterinary education and research; visits and surveys by medical staff members; visits of teachers and administrators; Canadian national committee for mental hygiene.
At page 168 I find that $262,500 was given to schools and institutes of hygiene and public health in Toronto. At page 20 I find that the University of Toronto secured $10,000, and at page 17 it appears that the Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene, Toronto, received $29,700; at page 15 I find that McGill university received $15,000, the University of Montreal $25,000 and Dalhousie university $7,000. I do not think I need go further to show the importance of the Rockefeller foundation in encouraging the work of health education in Canada. It was the industrial research branoh of the foundation that my right hon. leader was appointed director of. In other words, the direction of this branch of its activities required a man who knew its business-not a mediocrity or a tail man, but an outstanding man; and therefore the foundation got him from Canada. I think we should consider it a

great honour that any native son can be chosen within the boundaries of Canada to fill such an important position, for he not only adds lustre to his own community and to his own province, but also to the dominion of which he is an outstanding representative.
Now, we might as well know what this organization did to further the war efforts of Great Britain and the allied nations early in the struggle and later. It was the first organization in the United States to come to the relief of the Belgians with food and clothing and of the starving people in France, Poland, Serbia and Armenia; it contributed millions of dollars to Red Cross and Y.M.C.A. work; it equipped war demonstration hospitals; in peace its activities were confined to medical education and public health; it maintained industrial peace during the war and so brought about the maximum production of munitions. In this latter work it helped Canada to play her full part in the world war.
In connection with the Colorado strike, which required-


Robert James Manion: Will my hon. friend permit me just a word?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If as a result I am to
lose any time I want it made up.


Robert James Manion: I do not intend that my
hon. friend should misrepresent me whether he loses time or not.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am not misrepresenting the hon. minister.


Robert James Manion: I said nothing about the
Rockefeller institute. I did not mention Rockefeller's name, although I referred to him. I have every respect for the institute.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I accept the minister's
statement. If he did not intimate that the Rockefeller foundation was only a kind of millionaire foundation, I am all the better pleased. But all the same, intimations have been thrown across the floor from time to time with respeot to my right hon. leader's connection with the Rockefeller foundation that I thought I had better clear up absolutely any misapprehension in regard to the matter. Let me make it clear that Mr. Mackenzie King was at no time in the employ of the Rockefellers, directly or indirectly, nor did he reside in the United States during the period of the war or at any time, save at the time when he was in the universities of Chicago and Harvard as a post-graduate student and fellow during part of the years 1896-1899. While director of the industrial relations research studies of the foundation, he resided continuously in Ottawa, where

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
"Industry and Humanity" was written as a part of the studies he was making. In connection with the writing of this book he visited certain localities of the United States, as occasion demanded, to deal with the industrial problems into which he was inquiring, and industrial situations which required investigation in the interests of industrial peace and the maximum of production of supplies for the allied forces duirng the period of the war.
I was about to refer to the Colorado strike when the Minister of Railways interrupted me.	Let me quote a letter from Mr. Welborne, president of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company employing 12,000 men giving his opinion of the work done by our leader in the bringing about of joint control in that industry instead of exclusive control by the management. This very valuable work was done by my right hon. leader during the war. Mr. Welborne writes:
We are confident that the spirit and effectiveness with which our employees responded to the government's call for increased efficiency and financial help in the war are at least equal to what was done along similar lines in any other industry in this country, and we are very sure-


Mr. MALONEY:: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: -that too inuch credit for this accomplishment cannot be given to the machinery, controlling the relationships between the company management and its wage earners,-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I think the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney) is rising to a point of order.


Martin James Maloney: For my information, I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Martin James Maloney: Are the members of this house-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I want to continue my speech, I object to these interruptions.


Martin James Maloney: Are we to listen to
written speeches?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. I understand the hon. member is raising a point of order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No; he asked for information. If you were alert you should have heard that.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. It is objected that the hon. member is reading his speech, but I do not think he is.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: He may read his
speeches; I do not read mine. I deliver them.


Martin James Maloney: Are members of -this
house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I will conclude my quotation:
-which was proposed by you, and in the operation of which, since its installation, we have had the benefit of your frequent advice. Indeed, I feel that the part you have had in the establishment of the new and better relationships in our industry represents a contribution to the late war of inestimable value. I can consistently so express myself, because I had some misgivings as to the wisdom of the course you laid out for us, and am now convinced it has exceeded the most sanguine expectations expressed at its beginning.
I know hon. gentlemen opposite do not like to listen to statements of this kind, still I am going to quote them. They need them. May I put on Hansard a statement by the vice-president of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, which during the war employed 70,000 men. It is as follows:
At the time we asked for assistance, there was a great deal of unrest among our labour, and we believe that the advice you gave us was of material assistance in reducing this unrest and in correspondingly increasing the efficiency in the production of ships. As this company is far and away the largest ship-building concern in the world, and as it produced a very large percentage of all the ships actually completed in this country during the period of its participation in the war, i.e., something like sixty per cent of the destroyers, and over twenty per cent of the merchant craft, your assistance was evidently of real value from the standpoint of helping to win the war.
How do you like that? My right hon. leader became in 1919 head of the Liberal party in Canada, and I might say, Mr. Speaker, that as head of successful Liberal governments from 1921 to 1930 he showed such capacity for leadership, such vision of statesmanship and such anxiety to cope with all problems of concern to Canada that as head of that party to-day he has 'the unanimous support, the outstanding loyalty and the love of every Liberal in Canada.
I might just read what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said about Sir John A. Macdonald when he was laid to rest; when we read this we can better come to our own conclusion with regard to some of the desperately small and insignificant statements made against our leader by the heads of the Tory party in Canada, who work themselves up to stark frenzy every time we have an appeal to the country. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, when we read it we think more of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we think of him

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh

aa a real man and a Canadian just as when we read some of the statements of hon gentlemen opposite we think less of them. The time has come for plain speaking in this house, and I am going to do some of it. I might say that as far as Sir Wilfrid Laurier was concerned, I stood by him through thick and thin. I even stood by him in 1917, when many people thought he was wrong, but I am satisfied to-day, even more than I was at that time, that he pursued the only course he could pursue looking to a greater dominion. He stood for conscription of men and for conscription of wealth. If we. had conscripted wealth, Mr. Speaker, we would have had a billion or two billion dollars less of war debt hanging over this country to-day, and I would say that $2,000,000,000 would take care of a great deal of unemployment at the present time and put Canada absolutely on its feet. That is just a passing reference with regard to how the finances of Canada were handled in the past, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not at the helm. If I have time to-day I desire to deal specifically with Canadian finance and tariffs from 1867 onward.
To return to what I began to say, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had such faith in himself that he never refused to give to an opponent all the credit due him. Take his eulogy of his greatest political opponent, Sir John A. Macdonald. Standing before the grave of him who was by far the greatest father of confederation he said:
Let not our grief be barren grief but grief coupled with the resolution and the determination that the work in which Brown and Macdonald, Liberal and Conservative, united, shall and will live forever.
That is what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said about his political opponent, Sir John A. Macdonald, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the time is not far distant when we can produce political heads and public leaders in Canada who at least can be sympathetic to their rivals and at the same time true to Canada, the empire and the rest of the world.
Now I should like to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister upon the presentation of his first budget in the House of Commons. I am not satisfied with its contents, by any means; I do not think hon. members opposite or the people of Canada are satisfied, with it, and I believe hon. gentlemen opposite will hear from the people later on about the budget of 1931. It reminds me of a story, Mr. Speaker. A medical student had just graduated and was undergoing an examination or, as it is called, being put through his paces by a superior; he was being tested out, as it were. His professor said, "Now, you

are going out into the great world to practise your profession. Supposing some day you were at a place where an accident happened; supposing a gun powder explosion took place, a man was blown into mid air, and you were the only doctor present. What would you do?" The student said, "I would wait for him to come down". So, Mr. Speaker, we waited month after month and week after week, for the budget to be brought down and at last the budget came down. It has not come down or penetrated entirely into the minds of the people yet, but it is getting there gradually and I am more sorry for hon. gentlemen opposite the further it gets down or within the mental grasp of the people. When it was in thin air; while it was in the mind of the leader of the government and parliament had not its hands on it, it mhy have been all right, but it is not all right now for the hon. gentlemen opposite.
We find in the budget the different changes in the tariff and taxation brought down by the government at the present time. I would say the budgets of the late Hon. Mr. Robb were simple, brief, penetrating and compact. The budget of last year possessed clarity of vision; the arrangement of the material was satisfactory, and the new fiscal ground it covered was pointed out in a sensible way. With regard to the present budget I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is too long; it is rather loosely jointed. The presentation of the budget in Hansard does not show a good make-up.


An hon. MEMBER:: Won't you be a little
charitable?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, I am always so,
I would say, that the Prime Minister in connection with that budget showed hard work. He is a hard worker; he showed determination; he showed courage. These are fine qualities, but although he showed these qualities and typified to a certain degree the spirit of Can-adianism I would say the budget after all is very unsatisfactory.
As far as the outstanding features of that budget are concerned they are something like the picture which comes before a traveller crossing the prairies, when he sees the mountains in the distance. He first sees the snowcapped peaks of the Rockies. These peaks, I would say remind one of the budget, of the high peaks of taxation and protection which bulge out hero and there from the first line of it to the last. Not only does he see the peaks of the mountains in the distance, but in a general view of the mountains he sees also the great masses of prehistoric rock which hold up

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh
these peaks which make them possible, when we come to the budget we also see something akin to these great masses of rook, though not nearly as solid, namely the great masses of words, sentences, paragraphs, campaign promises and policies of a protectionist nature, all indicating that the work of the Conservative party before the election, during the election and since the election has been to advance against the interests of the masses the doctrine of high protection. Then beyond the mountains the traveller views the somewhat clear sky, indicating the impossible ambitions, the perfervid visions and the ideals held out by the Conservative party last year, when they said over and over again that if the people voted for the Tory party everything would be all right, and then beyond the mountains in the darkening firmament, what is noticeable? Is there not a sky filled with threatening clouds which indicate the doubts, the suspicions and the fears that the people now have of the party which promised them so much and gave them so little? More than that, Mr. Speaker, as the traveller comes up close to the mountains he finds here and there modifying agencies like rushing rivers, lakes and tumbling streams. These indicate as far as the budget is concerned, the modifying agencies of duty and responsibility which have come to hon. gentlemen opposite during the last eight months. They are modifying them considerably. They are now quite subdued and timid, they are in doubt as to their policies; they do not know where they are at. The great valleys surrounding the mountains indicate the depressions-the immense gap-in public business, in public finance and in national trade; how economic conditions have gone all to pieces, as it w'ere, under the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite. We should not be surprised at this, when we find that the budget, in a protectionist way, puts duties upon the follow-ipg-these are but a few of the necessities of life taxed. The list is an enormous one.
Duties are being placed on beef, veal, lamb, mutton, canned meats, poultry, extracts of meat and fluid beef; on quail, partridges and squabs, dead or alive; on rabbits, frozen, when used for feeding foxes; and on preserved meats, either as bacon, hams or pork. This government has covered almost everything in the way of meats.
The old duty on tea was 7, 10 and 10 cents; last year it was reduced and made free, nine and 10 cents; nothing was done at the special session but now it is being made four, eight and eight cents and 10, 10 and 10 cents. Every cup of tea will now cost more. The old duty on rice, cleaned, per hundred pounds, 22110-1761
was 50, 65 and 75 cents, and it has been raised to 50 cents, 90 cents and one dollar. A duty has been placed on prepared vegetables, such as beans, baked or prepared, corn, tomatoes and peas, dried, desiccated, pickled or preserved. Protection has been placed against plums, dried prunes, raisins, dried currants, dates, figs, oranges, lemons, jellies, jams, marmalades, preserves, apricots, peaches, pears and pineapples. Added duties have been placed on spraying and dusting machines, grading machines and pruning machines, as well as on building supplies such as building and paving brick. A man cannot build a house without being taxed to death. Flagstones, sandstone and building stone are taxed along with marble and granite, rough, partly rough, plain, manufactured or partly manufactured. A duty has been placed on common and colourless window glass and laminated glass. All forms of clocks have been taxed. Protection has been, placed against field seeds such as timothy, clover and bent grass. Root and garden seeds, such as mangel, parsley, parsnips, turnip, cabbage, radish, cucumber, lettuce, carrot, cauliflower, celery, onion, pepper and tomato. The previous rates on furniture such as house, office and store furniture of wood, iron and other materials were 20, 27i and 30 per cent, but they have been changed by this blackest of budgets to 20, 30 and 45 per cent. Other household requirements such as dolls, toys, buttons, brushes, pens, penholders, rulers, lead pencils, crayons and clothespins have been protected. A duty has been placed upon belting, leather, sole leather, East India kip, glove leather, leather garments and manufactures of leather. Duties have been raised upon woven fabrics, whole or in part silk. Musical instruments are protected, such as phonographs, gramophones- this should interest hon. members opposite- and parts thereof, such as cylinders, records and mechanical piano and organ players.
The budget discloses that sporting goods of all kinds are to be taxed, A man will be unable any more to play a game of golf or baseball without being taxed. This tax covers such items as racing shells, racing oars, trawls, trawling spoons, fly hooks, sinkers, swivels, fishing reels, fishing rods, bait and hooks, fishing tackle, walking sticks and canes, golf clubs, skis, baseball hats and racquets. Pruning shears, dehorning instruments and sterilizing apparatus are being taxed. These should stir all horned and high protectionists opposite.
Anthracite coal is put at free, 40 and 40 cents per ton; coke, free, $1, and $1 per ton; coal screenings or coal dust, 35, 75 and 75 cents per ton; charcoal, free, $7.50 and $7.50 per ton, and bituminous coal, 75 cents per
The Budget-Mr. McIntosh

ton. Protection is provided also on iron and steel goods. The free items mentioned mean nothing to the consumers or users of these commodities or products.
When we come to the free list we find such articles as hospital and operating apparatus, but these items were free under the Liberal regime. Then we have printing machinery, but this item also was free under the Liberal regime. Also glass eyes for human use, and I commend that to hon. gentlemen opposite.
There is' one phase of the sales tax to which I would call attention. School books used by our boys and girls in the public and separate schools of Canada are being taxed, which means a tax on education and mental development. This may suit the Tory party but it certainly does not suit the Liberal party. We believe that the books used in our schools should be made as cheap as possible, and I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, the cabinet and the Prime Minister that this item be given the fullest consideration. The sales tax should be removed root and branch from the public school books of Canada.
A statement appears in the budget speech in connection with wheat, reading as follows:
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. That provision is effective this year. That amount is taken into consideration in the estimates I have given of the expenditures for the year.
The first thing which should be cleared up by the government and by the Prime Minister is just what is meant by that five cent proposition. Who gets the five cents?


An hon. MEMBER:: Mackenzie King.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, he did not insert it in the budget. The real five centers, as usual when it comes to helping the farmers, are the leaders of this friendly multi-millionaire government. I submit that every farmer who ships a bushel of wheat should receive that five cents; I do not believe that only the farmer who ships export wheat should get it. It should apply to every farmer who ships wheat and coarse grain; if it is given only to the man who ships wheat it will affect only the wheat areas and not apply to the mixed farming areas of western Canada or other parts of the dominion. That should be changed so that every farmer will receive five cents per bushel for every bushel of wheat shipped for export and also for non-export. I hope the farmers of western Canada will not fall for this sop of protection. I do not believe the farmers and producers will fall

for this because the high protection policy is taking 31 to 33 cents out of every dollar they have, and five cents per bushel in return does not amount to very much. I say to the western farmers and producers, and to all of Canada: Be on the alert, size up clearly and definitely the policies of the Conservative party and do not let them put over a policy which will spell ruin and non-development for the three prairie provinces and the rest of the country.
My time is drawing to a close, but I would like to conclude with a comment upon the problem of finance as the basis of righting war debts, reparations and tariff trade barriers. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, Premier MacDonald, along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Snowden, and the foreign minister, Hon. Arthur Henderson, recently met representatives of Germany to discuss the question of international finance. After this meeting the following statement was issued:
Both parties were agreed that in addition to efforts and measures of a national character, the revival of confidence and prosperity depended upon international cooperation. In this spirit both governments will endeavour to deal with the present crisis in close collaboration with the other governments concerned.
That means that there must be close collaboration among the European countries, and out of this will come that international action and cooperation so necessary for the revival of European trade and commerce. Then this European movement will spread to this continent and Canada will have to play her part in directing aright the financial reconstruction of the world.
Complementary to this question of international finance is that of higher and higher tariffs-now so dangerously high as to have brought about a condition of economic nationalism rather than that of universalism, without which all quack fiscal remedies will bring about a dangerous trade and credit breakdown throughout the world. I should like to put on Hansard what Sir George Paish, the eminent British economist say3 about this question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I wish I could allow it, but the hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Alfred Duranleau: During the last two weeks we
have listened to a great number of speeches from our hon. friends opposite; we have heard many things from them, but I think I can safely say to-day that so far nothing very important has been said against the budget now under discussion and that no really strong and serious objections have been

The Budget-Mr. Duranleau
raised against it. I say this even after the long speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and after the very interesting speech that has just been delivered by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). What we have heard during the debate are only expressions along party lines under the rules of what we call the game of politics. But this is a first class budget and one point at least which my hon. friends opposite have to accept is that it contains a general policy which was accepted by the people at the last election.
If we go outside the house, we shall realize that there is an almost unanimous opinion that we have before us to-day the most comprehensive budget that has been presented to the house for many years. According to the issue of June 6 of the Financial Times of Montreal:
To all intents and purposes it is a business man's effort to take care of a national deficit of $75,000,000.
This budget is clear and definite, and I shall ask those who come forward with the declaration that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) had gone too far to remember, as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said a minute ago, that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have been elected on a policy of tariff protection. It is true, as the hon. member said, that we spoke during the last election not of higher protection, but of sufficient protection, but to-day we are putting into acts the very proposals that we laid before the people and that have been accepted by a great majority of the electorate.
We have now only one thing to do: wait for results, and on that we confidently rely. Of course we have heard some recriminations from certain sources. This was to be expected. There is no doubt that nobody likes taxation. This government likes taxation less than anybody else, but as was said by the Vancouver Sun:
While some people feel good to-day, others distinctly do not, and it is all in the manner in which the Bennett tariff revisions strike their particular business.
There is no doubt that tariff makers are bound to step on somebody's toes, and some people have corns. May I add that after the speeches to which we have listened from hon. members opposite, there seem to be corns also on that side. But one must bear in mind that in the matter of budgeting, we have to consider not party politics, not the game of politics, but the first business of all, namely, the business of the country. The cabinet has also to defend the greatest and most sacred
of all causes, the cause of this motherland of ours. That means that we have to take good care of all fields of national activity: agriculture, manufacturing, industry, development of natural resources; in a word, everything that goes to increase the pay of the workingman and the bank account of the producer. I claim that that is what is undertaken by the budget now under discussion. But of course we shall have to meet conflict between those who have tendencies toward free trade and those who believe in protection, the former promising the country lower prices for commodities but with insufficient and sometimes no money to pay for them, and the latter arguing rightly, I suggest, that even high prices are sometimes beneficial when there is plenty of money to pay for the goods.
In that connection, it may be well to point out that we still have, in Canada, people who appear to think that large imports of manufactured or of agricultural goods are a sign of national prosperity. This is what the Calgary Herald has to say in this regard:
They are ready to ignore the fact that busy Canadian factories mean more work for Canadian workmen, and that national well-being cannot be fostered by sending out of the country every year hundreds of millions of dollars for goods that can be made just as well at home.
But what is this budget if it is not a determined effort for the development of the country along lines of self-preservation? Let me quote the Financial Post of Toronto of June 4 of this year. While complaining of some of the new schedules of the tariff it has this to say on the policy it reflects as a whole:
The policy of the government in endeavouring to build up Canadian industries and Canadian institutions for the benefit of the Canadian people by direct methods is strongly in evidence in the budget, although the increases in the tariff are not so great as had been generally expected. Certain branches of the steel, textile, woodworking and other manufacturing industries receive more protection, and there are further safeguards in the case of "dumping" of foreign products.
At the same time the agricultural industry benefits by increased duties on a number of farm products, including live hogs, fresh meats, dairy products, fruits and vegetables. The tendency to build up Canadian institutions is further made evident in the heavy taxes placed on premiums of British and foreign insurance companies.
Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from another paper, the Star of Vancouver, which is well known to our friends representing the city of Vancouver. As we all know, this paper is not very sympathetic to this government. After mentioning the problems whieh have had to be solved within a few months by this government, the Star says:
The Budget-Mr. Duranleau

Mr. Bennett has had problems of this sort in mind for many months past.	He has
wrestled with their complexities.	He has
finally attempted to solve them in the best interests of the country as a whole. And since his has been a sincere effort, based on his fundamental convictions, he has earned the thanks of Canada to-day, even though criticism begin to-morrow.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, to-morrow has come to an end and criticism has had its way in this house for over two weeks. I dare say, Mr. Speaker, that no hon. gentleman opposite, not even the leader of the opposition, with his four and five cent speech-I beg pardon, four hour and five minutes speech-has so far brought forward any sound and constructive suggestions, either to improve the situation or to improve the means of improving the situation.
As I said in the beginning of my remarks, public opinion in this country is almost wholly in favour of the budget now under discussion. Public bodies, outstanding business men and financial papers, are almost at one in commendation of what is now known, and justly known, as the Bennett budget. A survey of this country I am sure would disclose everywhere, not so much a love for taxes because nobody likes taxes, and this government less than anyone, but a real willingness on the part of the people to make a determined and common effort for the restoration of contentment and prosperity in this country. I would call that a real sentiment of cooperation. It is the cooperation that has been invited by the Prime Minister since he has been empowered with that great trust which was accorded to him by the people of Canada on the 28th of July last. As I said a moment ago, public 'bodies, outstanding business men and financial papers in this country are almost at one in commending this budget. May I now be allowed to quote a few opinions from our neighbours across the line, and from some in the old country. But first let us hear from Montreal, our great metropolis, and the greatest grain-distributing centre on this continent.
Among the opinions expressed by the leading citizens of Montreal none is more striking than the one expressed by Mr. Charles Duquette, ex-mayor of Montreal and presently the president of the ohamibre de commerce of Montreal. Speaking on June 3, Mr. Duquette, approving the sales tax and the budget revisions as a whole, said:
I am confident that the revisions announced in the budget will bring back prosperity by protecting all lines of industry, that they will procure work for everyone wishing to work, and that they will increase the purchasing power of individuals and of the community.

Speaking of one industry in particular, that of leather, Mr. Paul Galibert, an outstanding business man and leather manufacturer of Montreal and, by the way, a good Liberal, said:
An increased tariff on leather will revive the almost stagnant leather business. It cannot increase the price of leather.
Approval of the budget has come from both the east and the west. In British Columbia we have heard the manufacturers assembled in convention at Victoria express their belief that the new one per cent excise tax will not only raise a large revenue for Canada, between $15,000,000 and $25,000,000 per year in their estimation, but will also stimulate the production of raw materials and encourage manufacturing. But apart from the quotations that I have just made, I think that, perhaps the most just appreciation of the effect of the budget may be found in the comments that have been made by our neighbours on the other side of the line because, as we know, it is they, the United States, that will suffer most from the results of our tariff revision. What do they say about it? I desire to give only a few extracts, and first a despatch from Washington to the newspapers, dated June 3:
The Democrats and the low-tariff politicians characterize the action of the government of Prime Minister R. B. Bennett as retaliation against the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act which two years ago raised the schedules of the United States to the highest point in history.
Let me add, Mr. Speaker, that the supporters of the United States tariff denied that assertion, and in that they are supported by a public declaration which was made by the Prime Minister of Canada not long ago.
I proceed. Chairman Jouett Shouse, of the Democratic national executive committee, said:
We can make no complaint to Canada, for we set the fashion of levying embargo duties. Canada frankly states that her purpose is to attract American investors so they will manufacture goods for Canadians in Canada.
Representative Collier, Democrat, of Mississippi, is of the same opinion. He says:
Canada is forcing American manufacturers, particularly steel and automobile producers, to go to Canada and set up plants, if they are to continue to supply that market.
Chairman Shouse-I quote him again- charged that through the Hawley-Smoot act "normal business of the United States with Canada is cut in half." Probable effects in dollars and cents upon exports from the United States to Canada have been calculated by American experts. A rough estimate indicated that from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000 worth of United States trade would suffer.

The Budget-Mr. Duranleau
Senator Lafollette, Republican-Progressive from Wisconsin, who opposed the Hawley-Smoot bill, said:
Canadian action will contribute to the already alarming decreases in American exports.
Senator Couzens, Republican, of Michigan, describes the Canadian increases as "an effort to aid Canadian fanners, and not retaliation." This all sounds very good, Mr. Speaker. I wish, however, to quote an extract from a Washington despatch dated June 3, two days after the presentation of the budget. This despatch addressed to the New York Times, reads as follows:
The revision, according to Doctor Klein-
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce,
-was inevitable if Canada was to retain its protectionist policy and equalize employment irregularities which have become accentuated in recent months with the further recession of industrial activity in the dominion.
His statement follo-wed indications given by Secretary of State Stimson earlier in the day that the United States would make no protest against the new Canadian tariff rates.
Mr. Stimson remarked that for years the United States as a general proposition had insisted that the tariff was a domestic matter for the country which imposed it, and that the state department had so asserted repeatedly in answer to foreign inquiries and protests concerning its tariffs. There would have to be some extraordinary features in a foreign tariff, he said, to make the United States break its own rule with any good face.
For two reasons I have read the last quotation to the house, first, to show that official circles in Washington admit the justification for our tariff revisions and, secondly, to reassure certain hon. members-who, after hearing the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition, and I am afraid there are some who still require reassurance-express fear at the very idea of asserting our commercial rights before a powerful neighbour.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to another point, that of our consideration of imperial interests in the drafting of the budget. Owing to the fact that the Imperial economic conference which was to take place this summer in Ottawa has been postponed to a later date I believe the consideration of this matter is of some importance. Hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister and his colleagues who went abroad to attend the Economic conference were assailed by our hon. friends opposite concerning the attitude they had taken in England. If I remember correctly, my hon. friends opposite took strong exception to some of the statements made in London by the Prime Minister. Up to date the right hon. leader of the opposition has stated that on those
occasions the Prime Minister was speaking not in the name of Canada but in the name of the Conservative party. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the former Minister of Justice, stated in this house he was glad that the Prime Minister in London had not spoken in the name of Mr. Lapointe and his friends. Well, I concede to my hon. friends opposite the right to dissociate themselves from any important undertaking which involves Canada and her empire trade. I might add that the fact that they watched from our shores the work of the Imperial economic conference was not a calamity so far as Canada is concerned. But I wish to emphasize the fact that the attitude of the government as expressed in the present budget has shown conclusively to the whole empire the sincerity of the Bennett proposals in England as well as our earnest desire to help to build on a mutually advantageous basis a larger empire trade. If our attitude is so well understood by our neighbours and by public opinion in London how is it that it seems not to be understood in this house? On this point I should like to quote another American opinion. Doctor Klein, to whom I have already referred makes the following statement:
It is obvious from a study of the commodities involved-
Speaking of our new tariff schedule.
-that a considerable portion of the increases has been made in preparation for the coming conference on reciprocal tariffs among the British dominions, which is to take place next fall. Canada is obviously and quite naturally putting herself in a favourable position for these negotiations.
Now let us see what the British opinion is on this subject. I have before me a Canadian Press despatch from London published by the Sun of Vancouver on June 3, 1931, under the title: "London Opinions." The despatch is as follows:
"The attitude of Canada toward empire trade is more than a gesture, says the Financial Times to-day in referring to the Canadian budget.
"The fact that tariff alterations are made so as to affect only in minor degree the British preference throws into relief the reality of the attachment of the Canadian statesmen to the idea of imperial development, the Financial Times continues.
"Canada Looks Ahead" is the heading of the Morning Post leader on the budget.
"Any doubt regarding Canada's power of recuperation should be dispelled by the triumphant success of her recent conversion scheme."
That is a London opinion, nothwithstand-ing opinions which have been expressed concerning the conversion loan by hon. members opposite. The article continues:
The Budget-Mr. Duranleau

What chiefly impresses the Morning Post in the budget is, first, its courageous facing of facts and next its persistence in the policy of preference for British goods.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with some other important questions relating to the budget. I shall turn first to the promises which were made by the Conservative party during the last election campaign and the fulfilment up-to-date of those promises. As my time is very limited however there is another question with which I should like to deal; I refer to the tactics employed during the last election campaign by the Liberal party, the Grit party in the province of Quebec. Throughout this debate we have been told many times that the Conservative party during the campaign of July, 1930, spoke too much of butter and of unemployment. Mr. Speaker, we spoke concerning those questions because they were real questions of fact and real questions at issue before the electors. We referred to unemployment because at that time the state of unemployment in our country was worse than it is now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, worse than it is now, in spite of our friends' regrets. The Liberals in Quebec were denying by telegrams, which have lately been repudiated by the premier of Quebec, that there was any question of unemployment in that province, when its then and present premier knew perfectly well that he was one of the greatest factors in that unemployment. Now, Mr. Speaker, they have resorted to these tactics for years in order to keep their grip on the province of Quebec, although that province has always been protectionist. I should like to refer to a speech made last Sunday by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desroehers) when he stood beside the premier of Quebec. Mr. Taschereau is introducing into the campaign for the impending provincial general elections those questions which are issues in the federal field. What was said by the hon. member is almost incredible, Mr. Speaker, and he should be called upon before this house to substantiate what he then said. I propose to quote the speech as reported in Le Devoir. It was heard by the people of Quebec over the radio and I think it is a shame for any member of this house to have so spoken. He said:
Following the principle of economy, Mr. Bennett has suppressed the autos of the ministers. I have passed recently by the federal garage in Ottawa, and I have found that there were no automobiles. Where are those vehicles,
I Mr. Duranleau.]
have I asked? The ministers have gone out with them, was the answrer.
To compensate that suppressed privilege Mr. Bennett will increase by $2,000 the annual treatment of the ministers so as to allow them to pay for the expenses of their automobiles.
And listen to this, Mr. Speaker:
They will continue, I am sure, to use the automobiles they had before and which the government does not want to sell, and that is Mr. Bennett's way of practising economy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Alfred Duranleau: It is not necessary to draw the attention of the house to the nature of this statement, as everybody knows that it is an absolute lie. The good people to whom this was delivered were listening to a lie.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Alfred Duranleau: It is a tissue of falsehoods, it is an invention.


Mr. POWER:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. minister has no right to say that a member of this house has told a lie.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a lie.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Mr. Speaker, the statement so characterized by the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) was not made in this house, it was made outside.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) has pointed out, the hon. Minister of Marine was dealing with a statement made outside this house, when he characterized it as an untruth or a lie. I do not think he is out of order in doing so.


Charles Gavan Power: To characterize as a lie a statement made by an hon. member is certainly most injurious to that hon. gentleman.


Mr. STEVENS:: It would be out of order only if the statement was made in the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The characterization may be regrettable, but I do not think it is out of order.


Charles Gavan Power: I am very glad to know that, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Duranleau: I say, Mr. Speaker, it is more than a lie, it is an invention from first to last. The statement is not supported by the facts, and it was made with the deliberate intention to deceive the people of the province of Quebec. Another of the tactics followed by the Grit party in Quebec at the last election was the revival of the old war scare. Two days before the voting, Le

The Budget-Mr. Rinjret
Soleil, the official organ of the Grit party published the following:
London, the "Bleus," the war.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Duranleau: Hon. members opposite laugh, but this is a very serious matter. It is a shame that the Grit organization in Quebec should have adopted such tactics at the last election. How many of my friends opposite would be at home to-day if such a cry had not been broadcast two days before the election? For those who were returned by small majorities it looks Like "stolen goods." What about the member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) who was elected by a few votes? What about the member for Yamaska (Mr. Boucher), who was elected by one vote? And what about other members on the Liberal side who were returned by very small majiorities and whom I have not time to mention? They wiould have been defeated by substantial majorities if that cry had not been raised two days before the election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, I say to those hon. members who resorted to such tactics and whio are now laughing that the attempt to deceive the people, to steal-if I may so express myself-from the electors their right to judge the issues on their merits by such a cry at the last minute, when we had no opportunity to deny it, is so grave that in my opinion an inquiry should be ordered by this house to bring to light the conspirators and to brand them before the public for being guilty of such reprehensible practices. I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: We shall allow you two hours.


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: You are doing well, proceed.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have five minutes more; go ahead.


Alfred Duranleau: Then I will give to the house what Le Soleil published on the Friday and Saturday previous to the voting:
London, the "Bleus," the war.
That heading was in large type across the whole page.
In great Britain they are looking for a Conservative victory-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Duranleau: It semes to hurt my hon. friends opposite.
In great Britain they are looking for a Conservative victory

Will hon. members kindly note this:
-they are looking for a Conservative victory in Canada so that war against Egypt and India could be undertaken.
The house will note the suggestion that the British people could not declare war against India and Egypt unless the Conservative party in this country was victorious Major Newman says "England will be forced to have recourse to military measures. The subject will be discussed by the next Imperial conference. Whom shall we send to London?" That is how the question was put before the electors of the province of Quebec by the Liberal organizers

"Whom shall we send to London?" they asked. These comments should be inquired into in order to discover where that cablegram came from. These statements were published together with a supposed cablegram from London; they were both to the same effect, that there would be war questions discussed by the Imperial conference, and that if the Conservative party were victorious in the election there would be support in Canada for conscription and for war, if necessary. I say, Mr. Speaker, that an inquiry should be held and these men branded before the public.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked very much to show my usual courtesy to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) and commend him on his maiden speech in this house, if he had adopted a different tone. Lest I be understood as endorsing in the least anything he has said, I will at once withdraw any compliments I had contemplated uttering when he first rose.
The Minister of Marine, in his initial words, made the extraordinary statement that although he had listened to this debate for a number of days, he had heard nothing important with regard to the budget and that nothing of any significance had been advanced by any hon. member who had spoken. He even included the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), who made such a wonderful speech the other day, a speech which I am sure the country has read with great interest. I do not know what the Minister of Marine had in mind in making a statement of that kind; I think the budget has been assailed both by Liberals and by Progressives. That statement reminds me very much of a well known character in Quebec, a late member of the legislature, who fell into the habit of making statements such as that made by my hon. friend. This gentleman would appear at meetings and would be accused of everything under the sun. Then he would rise and merely say, "Well, you see, Mr. Chairman, they have nothing against
The Budget-Mr. Rinjret

me, only a few insignificant passing remarks. Therefore I will not bother to answer what has been said."
I will not say the same with regard to the speech of the Minister of Marine. I think, if only because of the impudence of certain of his statements and the inaccuracy of others, his speech is indeed very important. I regret that I am not moving a motion of want of confidence, or replying as a minister, because I would require much more than forty minutes to reply to everything the minister said, and I am afraid if I endeavour to do that I will have to neglect the notes I prepared very carefully in order to say something important myself with regard to the budget.
Let me point out, however, the very extraordinary situation in which the Minister of Marine has placed himself. He has heard the tariff, taxes, and many other features of the budget discussed by the most prominent members of this house, but he has found nothing important in what they have said. When he rises in this place to discuss the budget, however, he speaks of everything except the budget itself. He discusses automobiles and wars and everything else except the budget with which he thought we had dealt so lightly in the past few days. The Minister of Marine then went on and said the government had implemented in this budget every promise made during the last campaign. I may have time later on to go into certain details of the budget, but let me say right now that if the Prime Minister instead of going around the country promising everything, had gone before the country in July, 1030, and merely submitted this budget to the electorate of Canada, not only would this government not be in power but I dare say very few hon. gentlemen opposite would have been returned to parliament. The Prime Minister promised that he would end unemployment at once. The Prime Minister promised that he would put an end to agricultural distress. The Prime Minister promised that he would relieve the common and modest people from the burden of taxation under which they were sweating. The Prime Minister promised old age pensions to the extent of 100 per cent. The Prime Minister promised railway branch lines, and said that those who would travel on them would not have to pay very large fares. The Prime Minister promised bridges and said that those who passed over them would not have to pay tolls. The Prime Minister promised anything; he promised moonbeams and prosperity for this country, so I say that if instead of doing
[Mr. Rinfret.l
that he had told the people he was going to raise the sales tax from one per cent to four
per cent; that he was going to impose a one per cent tax on all the imports of this country; that he was going to do that most infamous thing, relieve himself and his wealthy friends of 25 per cent of their income tax, not only would be not have won the election but in certain parts of the country he would have been stoned away from his meetings.
Then, after saying we have offered no criticism to the budget, the Minister of Marine went on to say that while he had no time to prove it, the budget implements the promise of last year. With all the respect of which I am capable I say that is one of the most childish things I have ever heard in this house. The minister says, "Oh, of course there are taxes in the budget, but we do not like taxes. The government do not like taxes." I should say, from what we have seen in the income tax schedules, that at least the Prime Minister does not like taxes when they are [DOT]imposed upon himself. I am not concerned; I am not a millionaire and I do not expect to become a millionaire. I am a newspaper man; I do not belong to a class which usually possesses great fortunes in this world, but for once I regret that I am not a millionaire for I will say that this budget makes it very attractive for anyone to be a millionaire in this -Country.
Instead of giving his own oipinion about the budget, the Minister of Marine went on to give a series of quotations, very likely clipped for him by one of his secretaries, and he was astonished to find that there were some people [DOT]in this country and the United States who liked the budget. For instance, he quoted the opinion of former Mayor Duquette of Montreal, and apparently he was surprised to learn that he likes the budget. He forgot to add that ex-Mayor Duquette is a staunch Conservative; if there is one man in the province of Quebec who is likely to swallow anything coming from a Conservative government, certainly it is Mr. Duquette. Then he went on bo quote a leather merchant; he was also surprised to find that this gentleman, who trades in leather, is perfectly satisfied with the -protection he will get in his business. What an extraordinary situation. You protect leather, and the leather merchants say that is all right. Really that is a great discovery, and I congratulate my hon. friend upon making it. Then, to my great surprise my hon. friend, although belonging to this government, went across the border and quoted opinions from the nation to our south, the United States. He went along and quoted a

The Budget-Mr. Rinjret
large number of them, and whilst he was doing that there was still resounding in my ear the voice of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) who only a couple of days ago said that the policy of the Liberal opposition was not Canada first, but Washington first. How did the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) dare to quote American opinions? Probably he did so because the Minister of Railways was not in his seat. I venture to say that at the next council meeting an explanation will pass between these two ministers upon that very question.
The minister went on and ventured the opinion that unemployment in Montreal had decreased. We cannot be definite on this because we have been unable to obtain the proper figures from the government. We have no statistics before us which would enable us to decide that question with any degree of finality.


Alfred Duranleau: I never said that unemployment in Montreal had decreased; I said that the unemployment situation was worse during the last campaign than it is at the present time.


Charles Gavan Power: That is worse still.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The hon. minister is not saying it is dark, but he is suggesting it is becoming .very blue. I do not know whether he means Montreal or other parts of the country, but if he has any figures on the matter I would like him to supply them to the house. Judging from my own experience and from what I hear everywhere, I am afraid that the situation, at least regarding Montreal -the hon. minister should be better acquainted with that district than with other parts of the country-is no better. It may be slightly improved due to the fact that Montreal is a city where there is a great deal of seasonal employment. There are many men, not only from Montreal but from different parts of the province, who have been able to secure work as longshoremen or with the harbour commission. That happens every year, but I fancy that there are fewer people enjoying that class of employment this year than has been the case in other seasons. I have been told by a number of men who have called upon me that they are receiving only part time employment. These men who work in the harbour of Montreal have to provide for their maintenance throughout the winter; they have to put by a part of their wages for the next winter. They tell me that they are being employed only part time and are able to earn barely enough to live during the summer season and they are very fearful indeed that the situation will be worse this next winter than it was last year.
If I were to look around me I would find my genial friend, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), who did his very best the other day to overcome the intricacies of the procedure and to remind the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon), who is the Acting Minister of Labour, that the situation in his province is very bad. If the government would listen to representations which have been made it would realize that the situation this summer is not any too good. This is so, because of the reasons which I have indicated and which obtain in many parts of the country. It is feared that next winter will be a very severe one.
I do not charge that this is all the fault of the government; I will not fall into the same error as did the Conservatives during the last campaign when they did their best to put the responsibility for a world-wide depression upon the Mackenzie King government. I find fault with the government because its candidates and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself actually promised in the most precise terms that if they were elected they would end unemployment at once or perish in the attempt. That would mean that the Prime Minister would resign and give up any power which had come to him because of that promise. I find fault with the government for not implementing that promise when they know very well that the labour and unemployment situations have not improved. In order to justify themselves before the electorate, in order to give themselves a standing in this parliament, they try to cover up thq situation. They exaggerated the situation last year in order to defeat us, and now they are trying to minimize it to save their faces before the Canadian people.


Mr. SPENCE:: Is the hon. member hoping that unemployment will get no better?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have the greatest confidence in this country, but I must admit that there are times when the country is badly handicapped. If history is studied it will be found that these times, by a very strange coincidence, always happened under Conservative regime.
I will make only a passing remark as to the attitude taken by the Minister of Marine in regard to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). I cannot understand how an hon. member who had not seen anything of importance in the prolonged discussion on the financial policy of this country, who had remained so remarkably cool during all the debates which have taken place in this house, should have at once become inflamed and incensed on a
The Budget-Mr. Rinfret

matter like that. I understand why a mention of automobiles may incite a certain degree of regret in the mind of my hon. friend and I listened with deep emotion to the funeral oration delivered by him on the tomb of the departed automobiles of the ministers but I would remind him that if they have not got their cars, they are getting $2,000 per year to provide a few flowers for the tomb of the departed cars. Instead of becoming incensed at the statement which he read to this house, perhaps my hon. friend could find a little solace or solution in his bank book, which should show a balance to the good at the end of the year amounting to $2,000.
However, there is something much more important than the question of whether my hon. friend rides in a government car or in his own, and that is the reference he made to the war cry. We have had presented today in this house the very same situation which has been faced in Quebec for the last ten years. Every time the war cry is discussed in our province-if it were to be discussed to-day it would be the same-it has been raised in the first place by the Conservative party. My hon. friends have only to look behind them to see the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette) who moved that famous amendment. During the last three or four general elections the newspapers which sustain the Conservative cause in Quebec, as well as the Conservative speakers, have assailed the Liberal candidates. What did they say? Did they say that the Liberals were against conscription? Not at all, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in favour of conscription! The hon. member for Berthier and his colleagues say:	When we were in the house
-the Deputy Speaker (Mr. LaVergne) will remember those days-an amendment was suggested to do away with conscription and that awful man Laurier and all those hypocritical Liberals voted against the amendment. When we hear that the Minister of Marine expects us to cross our arms and say: Well, that is true, we were in favour of conscription. We are combated in other parts of the country, and cursed in our own province because it is claimed that we were in favour of it. I say again: I know it. I have had to a certain extent the direction of my party in Quebec, and in the last campaign or in previous campaigns we never intended to bring forward that conscription cry. Every time it has been discussed, it has been brought up by members of the Conservative party trying to place the Liberal party in a false light.
Let me give my own experience. During the last campaign I was travelling through Ontario and discussing the issues of the day.

I am not saying this with any degree of animosity, but my good friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) put questions to me through the press, and when I returned to the province of Quebec I had a whole file of clippings containing questions put by the Postmaster General, by Mr. Boyer, who was so thoroughly defeated by the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier), and by other Conservative candidates. What were the questions? I regret that I do not have my file before me, but I can indicate the trend of them. The questions were of this nature; What would Mr. King do if there were a war in Europe? What would your leader do if there were a call for soldiers from the other side? This was inviting us in the most provocative way to discuss these very matters that the Minister of Marine now says we raised ourselves, to save our skins, and it is due to them that we are sitting in parliament to-day. I am going to tell my hon. friends that the moment they drop that sort of thing, the moment they forget about that amendment, the moment the Postmaster General ceases to put any more questions to us, the moment my hon. friend himself raises no more such issues, he may be sure that he will never hear any more war cries of that kind.
Let me remind the Minister of Marine that while, as he says, he did not indulge in war cries, he made promises to his own electorate in order to ensure his return to parliament. It was my great privilege to be sent to a joint meeting in Longueuil at which my hon. friend and I were speakers. A tremendous crowd attended; some had come to hear and others had come to see that we were not heard. It was very difficult to get a hearing at that meeting, but I shall be fair enough to say that my hon. friend also had his difficulties. I was, however, close enough to him that, despite the noise made by some of his friends, and perhaps some of mine, I could hear him quite plainly, and he made a solemn promise to the electors of Chambly-Vercheres. He was discussing the Montreal harbour bridge. If there were a county which had benefited by the building of that bridge, a county that had asked for it for a number of years, it was the county of Chambly-Vercheres. My hon. friend is a clever lawyer and he knew this was going to count heavily against his chances. Do hon. members know what he chose to tell his electors in order to remove from their minds the spectacle of this wonderful bridge that had been given? He made them in my presence the solemn promise-and I heard it-that if he were

The Budget-Mr. Rinjret
elected, he would at once abolish the tolls on the Montreal harbour bridge. I did not expect to have the pleasure of following my hon. friend this afternoon, and my file is upstairs in my office. I did my best, a humble Liberal worker, to be frank with the electorate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes; I did my best to explain to them why we had to charge tolls on that bridge. I told them that when the bills for constructing the bridge were put through, one objection was raised that if the harbour commission had to bear the whole interest on the cost, this would increase wharfage dues in the port of Montreal, and it was not fair to have those dues charged against products that might come from every part of the world. I could demonstrate that by reading certain papers, but perhaps I would not be allowed to read them. Let me, however, summarize them. I contended it was fair that the interest should be paid by those who used the 'bridge. I remember reading later that the present Minister of Marine had been hailed and applauded by the electors because he had promised them freedom from tolls, and that the then Secretary of State had been hissed because he tried to point out why those tolls should remain for a little while. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien), speaking in the house the other day and referring to some railway branch in his part of the country, pointed out that the then Minister of Railways, Mr. Crerar, had been too frank in stating to the electors that it was not possible to build that branch, while the Conservative speaker had taken the much more facile and easier course of promising it without any reservation. The same situation existed in regard to the tolls on the Montreal harbour bridge. I did my best to exiplain that the tolls could not be removed the next day, but the present Minister of Marine, I am willing to admit, was cleverer than I, and he said that he would abolish the tolls at once. If he does not owe his seat in the house to any question pertaining to the w:ar, perhaps some of those who thought they were going to cross that bridge free of all tolls, felt they might vote for him.


Alfred Duranleau: I have to deny the
statement made by my hon. friend. Nobody in my constituency, not even myself, said that if we should attain power we wrould immediately abolish the tolls on that bridge. What I said-and I repeat it-was that I was in favour of free bridges in my province and that as soon as the exchequer would permit, we would try to reduce and abolish tolls on our bridges.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In that case I must have been very deaf. If that be true, there should not have been any recriminations on that point, because I am also in favour of abolishing bridge tolls when the exchequer will permit. Whether that means this year or one hundred hence, I do not know. I am going to give some friendly advice to my hon. friend, whom I like very well notwithstanding the fact that we differ politically. It would be well for him to explain the matter to his electorate, because some of them are under the misapprehension that very soon they will be able to visit me in St. James without having to pay any tolls on that bridge.
Another promise that he made to his electors is that if he were elected-and perhaps he knew he might become Minister of Marine- he would build part of the harbour of Montreal on the south shore. That is a rather extensive promise. Maybe he was going to move the elevators that were already erected or build new ones, but he said that he was going to see that the Montreal harbour was built on both sides. Possibly he had in mind that when the harbour was built on the south shore, the tolls on the bridge would not be so important, because nobody would need to cross it seeing that they could transact business on either shore of the river. If I remind my hon. friend of these things in a very friendly way, it is merely because in the first place I was not able to tell him some of them in Longueuil owing to the fact that his friends made such a noise on that occasion that I could not be heard even by my immediate followers around me, and in the second place to show him there is a certain danger in claiming that someone else was elected on a certain pretence unless one is sure he has made his own campaign entirely on the general policies of the country.
In following the Minister of Marine I have been drawn away from the subject immediately before the house, so that there remains little time for me to deal with the budget proper. I differ again from my hon. friends opposite when they claim that they were elected on a policy of protection, or even higher protection, that gives them full mandate to raise the tariff in every imaginable way, sometimes in the most whimsical way, and they are merely following their mandate when they bring before the house such schedules as will be presented to the committee of ways and means. I did think, Mr. Speaker, that when the Prime Minister had raised the tariff on four hundred items in the special session of last fall he had done quite a day's work, and I- thought that at this session, instead of having a general increase of the tariff on many other items,
The Budget-Mr. Rinjret

there might be only certain readjustments. I am sure that if the Prime Minister were dealing with this matter in a business way, and not from a political point of view, not with any desire to favour and satisfy a few of his wealthy friends, he himself would admit, and the government would have to admit, that while there are items in the tariff that can stand an increase, there are certainly other items in respect to which it would be in the public interest to decrease the tariff.
I do certainly protest against this doctrine of protection which says that there is only one way of encouraging industries in this country, and that by raising a high tariff wall. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that by developing trade with foreign countries through trade treaties, as we did during the ten years we were in office, we have given to a large number of the industries of this country an export trade which was more favourable than any benefit that could have accrued to them under the protection of a tariff such as we have now. When the Prime Minister begins to place a tariff on such commodities as oranges or tea or meats, or any other things that are used daily in the most humble homes of this country, I do submit that it is not protection at all. It is either a desire for more revenue or it is merely an aberration. Has any hon. gentleman ever seen in this country a shrub growing tea? I have been travelling a great deal in this country but perhaps I have missed the particular spot where tea-plants are grown in Canada. If there is no tea grown in this country, what is the good of taxing tea? In many a humble home in Canada this very commodity is the daily beverage, and the increase in the tariff on tea will impose a very great burden indeed on some of the humble citizens of Canada. The same applies to oranges, and the same to coal. I realize that the government has tried to satisfy the ever-mounting cry for protection for the Nova Scotia and Alberta coal industries, but until I am shown that that coal can be transported with any degree of economic efficiency to the homes of Ontario and Quebec, I protest against such a tariff, which will not protect Canadian coal and will only have the effect of making Canadian citizens in the central parts of this country pay more for the coal they must use.
I find further fault with the government in connection with all the changes made in the tariff at the special session and at this session. All their decisions in these matters have been based on no information at all except what has- been communicated to the Prime Minister himself or what information

he has drawn from his great source of knowledge on matters such as this. What is the good, Mr. Speaker, of having a bill to create a tariff commission when the whole tariff is readjusted before the commission is given any chance to sit? What is the good of changing the tariff in so many instances, and then, after all that has been done, appointing a commission to offer advice? The Prime Minister might as well say, when he moves his bill creating a tariff commission:	Now
that we have done it all, we will institute a commission to tell us how to do it. The fault I find with this budget is that it is not based on any information secured in any public way. By destroying the tariff commission instituted by the former Liberal administration, the government, if there was any logic at all in the course they took, condemned themselves to delay any tariff changes until the new commission had undertaken its duty of advising the government. But I am afraid that this tariff commission is not at all intended to advise the government, but merely to confirm its decisions after they have been arrived at in the little room where the Prime Minister sits with his colleagues, and where they are supposed to discuss matters of state.
It is intended, further, and this is another objection that I have against the policy of the government, to give to that commission the power to change the decisions of this house. The Minister of National Revenue went very far indeed in the last special session when he put through this house, in a hurried way, a bill which empowered him to change the tariff on certain commodities. We have shown the danger of that, citing the case of glass, on which the government at the special session put a tremendous duty and later withdrew the whole protection.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: May I ask if my
hon. friend was one of those on the Liberal side devoting themselves to filling the country with false propaganda about glass, and in that way interfering with the glass industry?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In reply to my hon.
friend I would say that I do not derive my information from any such propaganda, but from that very good Conservative paper in Montreal, the Montreal Gazette, which said that this question of glass had been a tragedy of errors. I am glad to say to my hon. friend, who is an author, and a very excellent one, that this is another instance where Shakespeare has had a commanding voice in this house.

The Budget-Mr. Willis
Before I sit down I wish to place on Hansard, and have it copyrighted perhaps if my hon. friend desires it, a very simple order in council which shows the dangers of dangling and playing with the tariff inside the council room, and there will be the same danger when the matter is submitted to a tariff commission. On May 5, 1931, the Canada Gazette contained a very remarkable order in council, which reads in part:
At the Government House at Ottawa
Friday, the 1st day o-f May, 1931.
Present:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council
His Excellency the Governor General in Council on the recommendation of the Right Honourable R. B. Bennett, the Prime Minister, for the Acting Minister of National Revenue, is pleased to order that the order in council of the 22nd April. 1931 (P.C. 937) be and it is hereby amended by deleting from the list of products which the Minister of National Revenue is authorized to fix the value of for duty purposes, "potatoes," and substituting therefor "radishes."
Here is the situation, Mr. Speaker. The government had decided to place a certain valuation for duty purposes on potatoes. Then they found that it would not work, and instead of rescinding the order in council and passing a new one, they merely amended the previous	order in council, substituting
"radishes" for "potatoes". In all humility I would suggest that if the government does not know the difference between potatoes and radishes, if they think that a potato is simply an expanded radish or a radish a concentrated potato, they certainly require the advice of a tariff commission. That may be an argument advanced to favour the establishment of a tariff board.
As my time is about up I shall merely repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks, that is instead of railways, bridges, moonbeams, relief for unemployment and agricultural distress, raising the price of butter by replacing the diabolical product from New Zealand with the angelical product from Australia-if instead of making all these promises the Prime Minister had been courageous enough to say to the electors, "In my first budget to the house I shall tax fuel, I shall tax tea, I shall tax oranges, I shall raise the sales tax from one per cent to 4 per cent, I shall put a tax on small cheques, I shall add to the tax on postal service, and when I have done all that and have received from the humble people of this country more money that I need I shall detax myself by 25 per cent of my income"

I say if my right hon. friend had done all that, not only would
he have been sitting on this side of the house but he would not have been able to complete such a speech before an intelligent electorate.
When the Prime Minister states that he has received a mandate from the people to detax himself by 25 per cent I say he is exercising only one more deception after his deception of last year to the Canadian people. Unlike the Minister of Marine I say that the questions before us are most important, and on behalf of the modest, humble people whom I have the honour to represent and whose interests I am.here to defend, I protest most vigorously.
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris): Mr. Speaker, at this time I am taking the liberty of making certain observations in regard to the problem of wheat in some of its important phases in view of the fact that the sale of our wheat crop is at the present time acknowledged to be the greatest Canadian problem.
The recognition of the fact that the sale of our crop is of extreme national importance is of recent date and has been brought about by the fact that commencing in 1929 the flow of wheat from western Canada to the markets of the world was suddenly checked, with the result that grain growers ceased to purchase in the usual way and general business felt the effect by reason of the fact that the purchasing power in western Canada was reduced over four hundred and twenty-five millions of dollars as between 1928 and 1930.
The government of the day is well aware of the seriousness of the problem, and the Prime Minister stated in London that it was Canada's greatest problem, and the Department of Trade and Commerce has instructed its trade commissioners in all corners of the world to bend their efforts to sell our crop.
For these reasons I am taking the liberty of placing before the house certain fundamental considerations and facts concerning this great problem. I do so, not by way of furnishing a solution, but rather by way of a survey, because I believe that there are many in this house and in this country who do not fully appreciate the facts of the situation. Greater knowledge will lead to a speedier solution, and the more minds engaged on the problem the better for the wheat growers of this country.
In the first place, it might be well to consider the trend of production in Canada during the last five years:
Years	Bushels
1926		 407,000,000
1927		 479,000.000
1928		 566,000,000
1929		 304,000,000
1930		 397,000,000
The Budget-Mr. Willis

The Budget-Mr. Willis

There never was a commodity which could be sold without salesmanship, and every week and every month it becomes more apparent. For instance, in 1928 Argentina capitalized on the fact that they had a crop of unusually high quality, and through salesmanship, ousted Canadian competitors to a large extent from the British market, and opened the doors for their own wheat. If, in Great Britain or any of our markets, salesmanship is consistently brought to bear upon buyers in attempting to sell wheats other than those from Canada, and statements are made to the effect that these other wheats are just as good, then, of course, large amounts of competing wheats will be sold, just the same as a good argument will sell a certain amount of any type of goods. Just recently you have the very specific case of the Prince of Wales advising Great Britain that they must use salesmanship in South America in order to sell their products.
Quality is a great factor in any commodity, but the commodity itself must first be placed in the hands of the consumer or else its quality will not be tested, and its place will be taken by an article of an inferior type which is backed by salesmanship. For instance, .tests have now been made which prove beyond any doubt that the highest type of bread can only be made with the addition of not less than 20 per cent Canadian wheat flour. Experiments were conducted in the grain research laboratory of the Board of Grain Commissioners in Winnipeg, which show that even small additions of Canadian hard wheat exert a marked improvement on the wheats commonly used in Europe, and the degree of improvement is measured by increased loaf volume, better texture, and better quality of bread, in accordance with increasing percentages of Canadian wheat present in the mixture. The degree of improvement obtained therefore is directly related to the amount of Canadian wheat used in the mixture.
If there were available, therefore, in the different trade centres of the world, Loaves of bread on exhibition indicating the tremendous superiority in quality of bread baked from Canadian flour over that of any other flour, then the different places of the earth would hesitate before purchasing flour which would make brown, heavy and unpalatable bread. We must remember that in this particular instance it is a matter of applying salesmanship to an article of universal use, of which much the best quality comes from Canada, and if that article, on those facts, cannot be sold to the bread eaters of the world, then the greatest need of the Canadian people is a course in salesmanship.
tMr. Willis.]
For instance, we all well remember the day when durum wheat was unknown, but when Mark Carleton brought that hardy, bearded, rust resisting wheat from the mountain fringes of Russia and planted it in the dry areas of the western states, that when the first crop was grown it was found that there was no market. Millers did not like it for flour, and bakers stated that good bread could not be made from such flour. Mark Carleton was neither discouraged nor depressed, but set out to make the people appreciate its qualities, and, although he was essentially a botanist, he became in effect a dietician, and by means of recipes and education, and by means of mixing, created through macaroni and other outlets, the tremendous market for this wtheat, and it is now stated that durum wheat covered in 1930 millions of acres of land on this continent. The district from which I come would certainly have been ruined long since had it not been for its discovery by Mark Carleton and the subsequent discovery by him of a market for its .use.
One of our greatest needs, therefore, is salesmanship in the different markets of the world, and any action taken by this government or any other organization which will interfere with the close cooperation which must exist between ourselves and European selling agencies, will be an action which the grain growers of this country will neither forgive nor forget.
It may well be stated that the future of the wheat producer has its bright spots. The population of the world increases 20 million per year, and as the average consumption of wheat for every man, woman and child in the world is 21 bushels, it follows that 60 million new additional bushels of wheat are required to feed the world every year. It is also noteworthy, that while, in the past, wheat acreage has increased on the average of between two and three million acres a year, at the present time it is being decreased, and we find that this year, the acreage decreases in a number of countries are as follows:
Per cent
Australia	 30
U.S.A	 16
Argentina	 [DOT] [DOT]	12
Canada	 8
World movements of grain have been greatly increased in the last few months and the sale of Canadian grain has been very successful as shown by the fact that for the eight-month period ending March 31 last, our exports exceeded those of the same eight months of the previous year by over 61 million bushels.

The Budget-Mr. Willis
We must remember that we have had depressions in regard to wheat before, and it is well to remember that in the summer of 1920 some wheat sold at a price of S4.02 a bushel, and by October of 1922 tihe price had dropped to 96 cents a bushel, which is the most severe decline that has ever been experienced in this country. That decline was followed by one of the largest world crops in 1923 to that date, and yet the returns for that crop cannot be regarded as being unsatisfactory to the wheat grower.
Although the Canadian farmer is the most efficient wheat grower in existence, that efficiency is continually increasing and must necessarily do so, and that increase will be necessarily brought about by better methods, better seed, by the use of fertilizers, by the greater use of summer fallow, and by those various means which, from year to year, are making themselves apparent through the work of our agricultural colleges and departments of agriculture. It must always be remembered that as compared with our real competitors, with the exception of the United States, we are competing under conditions which are vastly better than those in the other wheat producing countries of the world.
A new departure has been inaugurated under which eight new junior trade commissioners are being, or have been sent out to the various trade centres of the world, including also one commissioner at Cairo newly reappointed. All these commissioners have been specially instructed to bend every effort in order to sell the Canadian wheat crop, and, inasmuch as the exports to foreign countries for the eight months' period ending March 31 last have been some 61,000,000 bushels in excess of those for the same eight months in the previous year, it leads us to believe that the trade commissioners, as appointed, are doing us a great and useful service.
Constant improvements in production are being noted. In the past we have had durum wheat, created by Mark Carleton of whom mention has been made, which made a tremendous contribution to agriculture in this country by giving us wheat which would stand up against both drought and rust. Then Charles Saunders created marquis wheat, that tough, early maturing wheat which permitted us to grow it in districts more northerly than ever before. These improvements we have had, and we believe that the great menace of rust will eventually be conquered by the chemists and botanists of this country.
The fact that wheat now can be purchased at a lower price than for many years is not without its advantages, inasmuch as by this
22110-177J
cheaper price the wheat consumption has been increased in various countries, and it is only reasonable to suppose that once these people have commenced eating the products of Canadian wheat they will not desire to discontinue merely because of a slight increase in price.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. WILLIS:: Mr. Speaker, there is always on the wheat horizon that great menace of Russia, but it is very interesting to read the summary of the present situation as indicated by the observations of Andrew Cairns, statistician for the Canadian wheat pool, which are here summarized:
Mr. Cairns spent some time in Soviet Russia in October and November of 1930, and out. lines the reasons for the present large exports as follows:
1.	Considerably above average crop, particularly in the regions near the export outlets.
2.	Practically no winter killing, in place of a high normal.
3.	Unusually favourable weather for both winter and spring sowings, resulting in considerably above average yields.
4.	The undoubted ability of the government to collect grain.
5.	The strict rationing of bread supplies.
Mr. Cairns also indicates that the tendency
towards larger exports will be materially checked by the following factors:
1.	Many sections are overrun by Russian thistles, and crops fluctuate very widely in volume.
2.	Home consumption of cereals is increasing very greatly owing to increasing population and acute shortage of other foodstuffs.
3.	Russian railroads are inefficient and there are not sufficient railroads to carry grain to export markets.
4.	Acute shortage of live stock for animal power will tend to check the increase in production.
5.	There is an acute shortage of skilled workers for operating machinery.
6.	Russia has been selling wheat very much below its real cost of production, and, despite their low standard of living, Russia cannot conceivably continue to export wheat in any volume, at present prices.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Nor can
we.
The Budget-Mr. Willis


Errick French Willis: Mr. Cairns' seventh reason
is that Russian estimates of increased acreage have in the past not been lived up to. Mr. Cairns sums up by saying:
The inability to date_ to replace the lost animal power by machinery, the failure to provide suitable management, the very grave shortage of skilled workers, mechanics and agriculturists, and the general disorganization, all indicate that the possible results of collectivization are still very far from having been accomplished.
According to the International Institute of Agriculture, Russia's exports for 1928 were only 122,000 bushels, and practically none for 1929. Broomhall states they were 89,000,000 for 1930-31 but this is far above official statistics; many figures are stated for the purpose of gaining political advantage by way of international agreements, even as the exaggerations of the past were used for advertising purposes.
One cannot attempt to gauge the possible effect of the Russian crop, but it must be remembered that they seed about 100,000,000 acres of land on which the yield per acre has in the past varied as much as five bushels per acre, and this variation is almost equal to the world's visible supply.
Experience is now teaching us that by the proper application of trade treaties we can enlarge our markets, with t'he result that, for instance, we have this year, been able to ship to France during the past five months 7,350,000 bushels as compared with 1,821,000 bushels for the same five months of 1930. The milling companies of this country have also their part to play in the creation of new uses for wheat by way of new foods, and by advertising of such new wheat foods in the different countries of the world. And, even though the price of those foods is too high for consumption by most of the people in foreign lands, whose incomes are not great, there is, also, a restricted market for high quality products, and, in each country there are always people who are willing to pay good prices for the food they eat.
I am not of the opinion that there is any patent scheme by which the present difficulty may be overcome, but rather am I of the opinion that salesmanship will always sell a good product, and that the problem being an economic one, and production depending to a degree upon price, it will by that very fact solve itself, but we should, at the same time, hasten the solution.
In my opinion the home market is not a solution, inasmuch as it has not solved the problem for the United States, although I think we would be in a much happier position if we could sell 75 per cent of our crop

within this country and need only worry about the remaining 25 per cent, as is the case in the United States, whereas our local market only absorbs 25 per cent of what we produce.
It is stated by many that reduced production will, on the old economic law, solve the problem, but the production of a farmer cannot be controlled like the production of a factory. If you go to an individual farmer and ask him to cut his wheat acreage 25 per cent, he will at once ask you how you know that the price of wheat next fall is not going to be one dollar per bushel, and he will also ask you as to whether you may not be doing him out of 50 per cent of his profits by such a reduction. You can, however, make out a good case by stating to a farmer that if he will summer-fallow more land he will ultimately produce more bushels at a lesser cost. You may by such an argument, which is really well founded, be able to reduce the acreage.
The world is not suffering from a long period of over-production, but it is suffering from the fact that since life began man has been attempting to supply enough food for the world by growing wheat only to find that by reason of increased rainfall during the last four years as compared with the previous four years the average yield per acre was increased by two bushels per acre on a world acreage of 300,000,000 acres, and produced our present surplus of about 600,000,000 bushels. Without that increased yield per acre we would to-day be facing a shortage of wheat, and it would take very little to place us in that position again. A few inches of rain may nullify the effect of any attempt at decreased production and the lack of it may leave the world's supply of wheat exhausted.
I think the survey as given will indicate that we have a surplus of wheat on hand due to increased production in 1928, brought about by increased rainfall on 300.000,000 acres. It will also show that that surplus in Canada is rapidly being decreased and that in spite of tariffs and other barriers, our wheat is being sold in Europe as never before on a quality basis through the efforts of trade commissioners.
The situation in Russia may change at any time through the fact that their production per acre varies to an extreme degree due to the fact that they are now cultivating poor lands by way of increased acreage. The lessening of production per acre in Russia alone might decrease their crop by an amount greater than the world surplus, and a change in rainfall of one or two inches on the wheat-lands of the world would leave us with underproduction rather than over-production. In the struggle of the survival of the fittest, the

The Budget-Mr. Willis
Canadian grower is the most efficient, has the highest quality product, and can feed himself by mixed farming, and in the end will succeed.
The situation may change from a surplus to a condition of under-production at any time by variation in the amount of sunshine or rainfall which may come from the heavens during this year. Bread even at prices which have prevailed in the last few years is still the world's most. economical food and the chief commodity upon which the commerce of the world depends for life. Finally, it is well to remember that although man cannot live by bread alone, yet millions of the people of this earth are going to continue to eat bread and other products made from Canadian wheat.
I think I should be recreant to my duty if, before I sat down, I did not pay tribute to the most courteous and, in my opinion, most efficient department of the government, namely, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. May I pay tribute particularly at this time, because I got most of my figures from him, to Doctor Grindley who is in charge of the agricultural branch? May I thank at the same time the government of the day inasmuch as in regard to the wheat situation we now have a subvention of five cents a bushel? In Canada we export normally around 200,000,000 bushels annually and if one multiplies that by five cents, one finds it amounts to a gift to the Canadian wheat growers of around $10,000,000. May I also thank the present administration for the duty of twenty-five cents a bushel on corn? I have had occasion previously to discuss in the house the question of corn and barley. May I call attention to the fact that last year we imported 8,000,000 bushels of corn for purposes of feed and that we paid for that corn to Argentina and also to the United States in the neighbourhood of $6,000,000. Now we shall be able to keep their corn out and we have increased to a tremendous extent the market for Canadian barley which needs that market so badly.
May I finally pay my respects to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) whom I regret, is not in his seat? I do this because on two occasions the hon. member did me the honour of giving me some advice in this house. I do not belong to the Scotch nationality and I am not one of those who believe things should not be returned, so I am going, just for a moment, to give some advice to the hon. member for Provencher. I trust I shall not harm him, because he is not. in his seat and it wtould not be right if I
were to do so. But may I explain to the house the great ignorance under which I laboured when I came here? I looked up in the Parliamentary Guide the name of the hon. member for Provencher, and I found there that his party is the "National Progressive Party." When I entered the chamber first,
I looked for the hon. member for Provencher because he comes from my province. I had this idea, rightly or wrongly, on account of his being a National Progressive: I thought first, he being a nationalist, will probably sit close to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr, Bourassa) who, as I understand the matter, leads all the members of the Nationalist party in the house. Then, rightly or wrongly,
I had the further idea that as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) leads the Progressive group in the house, this will place the hon. member for Provencher in a dilemma, but perhaps he will sit between those two hon. members. So I looked for the hon. member for Provencher when I came to the house, and by way of explaining my great ignorance, I was not able to find him in the seat which I expected he would occupy. I expected he would be in the seat now occupied by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), which is the only seat between the two hon. members whom I have mentioned.
I looked around for some time to find the hon. member for Provencher as a National Progressive.. Imagine my surprise when I found him sitting in the second row, right in the centre of the Liberal party! Imagine my surprise when I saw ham sitting in a seat in which normally a cabinet minister*would sit, right iii the heart of the Liberal party! Therefore it seems to me that having been disillusioned in this very abrupt manner, I should give some advice to my hon. friend. May I suggest to him that he approach the hon. member for Battle River and ask him whether he will not vacate his seat in his favour, lest in the house he be done the great injustice of being accused of being a Liberal.


Edward Joseph Garland: May
I in my opening remarks pay tribute to the last speaker, the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) ? One of the new members from the west, he has already demonstrated an eloquence and an ability to study that do him great credit. I sincerely trust he will continue in the good path he appears to have laid out for himself in studying the statistics of economics at the feet of Doctor Grindley and the bureau of statistics. In time we may hope to find him one of our allies. No real student
2790	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
of economics can ever sit long with the Tory party; true economics and Toryism do not go together.
It is not, however, my purpose in my earlier remarks to deal at any great length with the shortcomings of the budget. As a matter of fact it would probably take me four hours, as it did the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), to do justice to its injustices, but I wish to make reference to some remarks made by the leader of the opposition the other day in regard to our subamendment. It may, of course, be personal prejudice, but I feel that my right hon. friend somewhat spoiled an eloquent and magnificent effort by a determined attempt to destroy the effectiveness of the only concrete proposal that has been put forward from this side of the house in regard to the budget. Let me point out that in so far as the general criticism set forth in the Liberal amendment is concerned, we are in complete accord; we have said almost the same thing in our own amendment. The leader of the opposition agreed with that; in fact he pointed it out to the house, but if hon. members will read the proposals contained in the amendment of the Liberal party, they will find them to be so vague as to be mistlike, wraithlike. They are the ghosts of old Liberal principles wandering around homeless in the guise of an amendment to a budget. There is no specific proposal of any land. Let me remind hon. members of that phase of the amendment.
This house is of the opinion-
Says the Liberal party.
*-that the existing economic depression can only be overcome by policies which are of a character-	.
-to do so and so. Of course, but what are the policies? They do not say. There are no definite proposals with regard to either legislation, treaty matters or anything else; they are merely vague generalities: First, to relieve unemployment; second, to restore to a condition of parity the relation between the purchasing powers of all classes; third, to bring about more equitable distribution of the burdens of taxation; fourth, to encourage the extension of the external trade of the country. As a matter of fact, the Conservative party could vote for every one of those without any difficulty as being mere declarations of an objective. But they could not vote for this last one in their present frame of mind. It reads: "To restore to parliament its full authority over tariff and taxation." I regard that as the only definite point in the amendment. The whole amendment is a generality too vague to be worthy of 
the crisis in which, as the leader of the opposition himself admitted, this country finds itself, and so we found ourselves called upon to move our own amendment.
Before I reach that, let me say this in passing, that I have rarely in this house listened to a speech that so interested me throughout or so held the interest of the entire house and galleries as the speech of the leader of the opposition. It is seldom that any hon. member can afford to devote three, or worse still, four hours to an address in a debate on any subject, and that the right hon. leader of the opposition could do so, and do it effectively, is a great tribute not only to the material contained in his speech but to the manner of his delivery. I pass to our own amendment.
Our own amendment agrees with the Liberals in so far as the general analysis of the crisis is concerned, at least as to the extent of the crisis, but not as to the causes. Then we continue and we propose:
That the present economic conditions demand intelligent and intensive study and definite planning upon a national scale, with the view of substituting well defined cooperative principles in respect of production and distribution, together with the mobilization of our natural resources, technical equipment and financial machinery, in place of the highly competitive system under which we are suffering at the present time.
As it is apparent that these fundamental changes cannot be put into effect in the immediate future, and that the present situation requires some prompt action.
And as the present financial situation is in many respects similar to but more serious than that which prevailed in 1914 at which time extraordinary measures were taken by the government, including the suspension of the redemption of dominion notes in gold:
That is a specific recommendation, and our object in doing that is set forth in the following subclauses:
(a)	Commodity price levels may be raised, thus increasing the purchasing power of those engaged in agriculture, mining, forestry, fishing and other primary industries and in this way promoting a corresponding increase in the volume of employment;
That refers to the primary industries, in whose interest the leader of the opposition was so eloquent. The amendment continues:
(b)	That the burden of both public and private debts and the interest thereon may be lightened;
(c)	That the amount of currency and credit available for the purpose of trade and commerce within the country, may be increased;
(d)	That through the increased volume of
trade thus secured there might result larger revenues without any increase in the rate of taxation.	*

The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
Dealing with that, which was a specific recommendation, having for its objective exactly the same goal that the leader of the opposition himself pleaded we should seek, in his criticism of it the leader of the opposition said that it did not refer to the fiscal policy of the Conservative party, that it did not refer to tariffs, and that in that regard it was unworthy of the hon. members in this comer of the house. In the first place the right hon. gentleman is mistaken. Whilst we do not refer to fiscal policy in so many words, if he would have read with closer attention the very first paragraph of our amendment he would have noticed that it says this:
This house further regrets the proposed decrease in the income tax as applied to the larger incomes as a retrograde step and wholly unwarranted in the present state of the national exchequer and especially in view of the heavy additional taxation imposed upon the consumers of the country.
I do recognize that the tariff has an effect, an evil effect, on the welfare of the consuming dlasses of this and other countries. That certainly is not sufficient reason for the condemnation of our amendment by the leader of the opposition. We propose something besides platitudes. We propose something besides what the budget proposes, which, in effect, if I may generalize it, proposes relief for the rich at the expense of the great masses of the consuming people of this country. It may be described as a budget which is calculated to gratify the cold-blooded, callous creators of a condition of enslavement of the masses of the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, this and other countries, if I read aright the authorities on economic history like Doctor William B. Munro of Harvard and others, ever since democracy pretended to function, have been in the hands and under the control of the financial class. The evolution of the political and economic conditions within the state have been consistently dictated by organized wealth. Professor Munro himself in a magnificent article in the Atlantic Monthly not many years ago made that statement, and it is as true to-day as it was then. Mr. Lloyd George, speaking in regard to the Dawes plan, now discredited, and which was the great production of those financial rulers whom governments follow said:
Agreement would never have been reached without the brusque and brutal intervention of international bankers. They swept statesmen, politicians, jurists and journalists all on one side, and issued orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs who knew that there was no appeal from their ruthless decrees. This settlement is the joint ukase of king dollar and king sterling.
The condition under which this country and the world to-day suffers is the direct result of following out the same ruthless, brutal and callous policy of king sterling and king dollar.
Hon. members to my right in this debate are inclined to stress the importance of fiscal policy. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) nods his head in approval. I shake hands with him on that. Fiscal policy, is immensely important to the well-being of any country-immensely important-but fiscal policy, even free trade at this moment, cannot remedy the existing situation, and I will show why before I get through. I do agree to this extent, that the fiscal policy of this administration is one destructive of national interests, destructive of international amity, and destructive of foreign trade, but behind it all there is a gleam of hope because it is destructive of the veiy party that is responsible for it. They cannot long sustain themselves in office with a policy of this kind in the face of existing conditions throughout the world and against the advice of every economist of standing in the world to-day. But let me, on the other hand, retort to my hon. friend from Weyburn and those enthusiasts who ignore other factors and concentrate their attention on tariffs, to this effect, that in spite of the existence of what they were then pleased to term prohibitory tariffs throughout the world in 1928 and 1929, the existence of those tariffs did not prevent the tremendous flood of alleged prosperity that swept over all of North America and even over other parts of the globe, but principally North America. Why was it that prosperity was able to sweep across this continent and had its effect and repercussions throughout the world? Prosperity came, in spite of protective tariffs, because at that time there was a policy of credit relaxation and there was a flow of currency into the blood stream of the commerce of the nation. As my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) has just said, there was deliberate inflation, an inflation to which if carried to excess my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) very properly takes exception.
While I am on that point may 'I assure my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre and my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary), who spoke the other night in criticism of our proposal, that the very last thing we would suggest would be any policy of inflation. What we are recommending is a policy of anti-deflation. We are recommending a policy of depreciated exchange, an altogether different
2792	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
policy from that of inflation. In Germany there was inflation-wild, uncontrolled, and followed by serious results. In France there was controlled inflation. The franc had depreciated under unguided inflation to a serious point. But a point was reached where the statesmen of France determined they were going to stabilize the franc, and they were successful in their efforts. The prosperity of the country was restored, internal debts were paid off, and the satisfactory condition of France is now well known throughout the world. France was in a comparatively prosperous condition through all that period in 1920 and 1021 when the rest of Europe and we on this continent were suffering so in matters both of trade and of finance. Only recently has France begun to experience the repercussions of the distaster which has come upon the rest of the world.
I say therefore that tariffs, protective or otherwise, are not the fundamental cause of present problems. I agree with men like Mr. Neill of the Royal Bank, and for once, even with Sir Herbert Holt-just imagine how he must feel about it-and others, that the principal cause of the present condition in this country and throughout the world is a wrong monetary policy. If hon. members were to consult yesterday's newspapers they would find in one of them a statement made by Sir Basil Blackett, one of the directors of the Bank of England. I would like hon. members to notice how radical he is becoming. Even the Tory members opposite might recognize the respectability of what I am saying when men like Sir Basil Blackett are in accord. Sir Basil Blackett is quoted as follows:
The basic cause of the present difficulties lay in the banking methods, in a too rigid gold standard and in the monetary policy generally.
Note the words "in a too rigid gold standard." Could anything be more definite than that, coming from an authority of that type?-"a too rigid gold standard" that has placed world commerce in a strait-jacket. The gold standard is doing what strait-jackets can be made to do, namely, acting as a ligature which has a repressive effect upon the whole blood stream of the body politic. Sir Basil Blackett attributes the difficulty to a too rigid gold standard and monetary policy.
Then Sir Josiah Stamp steps in and states that the difficulty lies in the inability to control or regulate internationally, gold and credit distribution. He continues-and with all due respect I ask my hon. friends to my right, because I think there is some hope among them, to listen to this:
Many of our troubles would pass if bankers- 
And may I add, statesmen.
only could be weaned from their traditional beliefs.
I ask my hon. friends to note that phrase,- "could be weaned from their traditional beliefs." Until we reject the gold mentality, in the face of existing conditions there is no hope for general trade recovery. At this stage I cannot do better than to refer to men such as Gustav Cassel, than whom there could be no more distinguished witness, a man who was retained by the League of Nations to make an investigation into the causes of the deflation period of 1920 and 1921. He is reputed to be one of the greatest economic authorities in Europe. At that time Gustav Cassel made the following statement, which is as true to-day as it was then:
The downward movement of prices has not, as is sometimes assumed, been merely a spontaneous result of forces beyond our control. It is entirely the result of a policy deliberately framed with a view to bringing down prices, and giving a higher value to the monetary unit.
That was the effect in 1920 and 1921, and it is the effect to-day.
Now, if you please, the chief objection to our proposals from the great Liberal, the leader of the opposition himself, is that it would be a measure of fraud. I must state that he did not use the word "fraud" but I have no doubt that is what he meant. He suggested that if our proposition were carried into effect it would perpetrate a fraud upon those who had recently subscribed to the new conversion loan and expected payment in gold. In effect he said that if we were to adopt this new policy as set out by hon. members in this corner of the house we. should have made an announcement to the public before the conversion bonds were issued to the effect that they would not be payable in gold. I say that If the right hon. gentleman had studied the question a little closer he would have found that many of the bonds which were being converted in the first place were not made payable in*gold; many of them were not. For that reason no fraud has been perpetrated upon the bondholders and our proposal would have the effect of restoring to the people that which has been taken away from them by the fraud of deflation. Gustav Cassel has said:
A prolonged fall of prices must necessarily have an extremely disturbing effect upon production and trade.
Obviously that statement is as true now as it was when it was made.
I now turn to another authority which was quoted with great pleasure and satisfaction a few years ago by the Minister of Trade and

The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
Commerce (Mr. Stevens), Mr. J. M. Keynes a well-known British economist and authority who says "deflation"-and that is what we have to-day-
Deflation involves a transference of wealth.
I ask hon. members to note this statement:
Deflation involves a transference of wealth from the rest of the community to the rentier class and to all holders of titles to money.
That, of course, includes bonds and bondholders. The leader of the opposition thinks it would not be fair to accept our proposal, even after we have been forced to give everything by way of reduced prices and increased purchasing power of moneys and bonds. The value of those bonds was advanced enormously through the deflation policy of the banking fraternity. I continue the quotation:
Tn particular it involves a transference from a)ll borrowers to lenders.
I repeat that, "a transference from all borrowers to lenders"-of wealth. Our debts as primary producers have been doubled in terms of our products.
It is unfortunate that Lord Milner died, because he was reaching the very height of his effectiveness as an advocate of the new economics. Lord Milner said:
Just as productive industry welcomes raising prices-
The very thing we must have, if there is to be restored prosperity in this country or throughout the world-
Just as productive industry welcomes raising prices the moneyed interests must always be in favour of falling prices, because they render its own wares-money-more valuable.
We have referred to authorities such as Gustav Cassel, Lord Milner, Blackett and others and equally as expert authorities are scattered throughout North America. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that if Benjamin Strong, one of the greatest minds in the banking circles of the United States of America, had only lived I venture to say he would have been strong enough to prevent the political policy of the federal reserve board from almost destroying the trade of the world. I do not think there is a single student of this subject that will be willing to release the federal reserve board of the United States in particular and the other cooperating central banks of the world in general from direct responsibility for the world conditions.
Going back for one moment to this question of tariffs, I want to make clear what my own position is. I say-and my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) may enjoy this part of it-I say that the world could become
quite accustomed to, and even make progress, under moderate tariffs. Yes-if they were stabilized. Just as when you fix a ligature around an artery or a vein the natural process begins to operate and transfer the blood stream into the other smaller channels, which gradually expand in order to take up the abnormal flow, and only a temporary effect is created. The member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) can explain that better.


Mr. McGIBBON:: The effect is permanent.


Edward Joseph Garland: The effect is permanent on that spot, but the general effect is not. The general healthy condition and usefulness of the part can be restored- unless they do what my hon. friends opposite are d'oing and ligature every blood stream.


Peter McGibbon: That would bring death.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is exactly what it is doing-it is bringing economic death, it is bringing trade stagnation, and their policy can do nothing else but that. I ask my hon. friend to read what Sir George Paish said in an interview reported in the New York Times of June 9. He points out that the world is facing complete destruction to-day if the nations continue to obstruct by restrictive tariffs the channels through which the blood stream flows. Trade is not the blood stream, the blood stream itself is finance. Without that little will move. The body politic cannot operate without the flow of the blood stream without credit, without the necessary purchasing power in the hands of the people of the nations of the world. You have in this country and in otheT countries a state of economic war that followed the physical war, brought on by the narrow economic nationalism of selfish trade patriots who do not possess sufficient economic intelligence to realize the madness of their proposal. The nations of the world have all been guilty of this folly

yes, almost all of them with perhaps the one exception of Great Britain; she has refused to be tied up to this strangling and crazy policy. May I venture to remark that I would not be at all surprised to find that Great Britain would be the first nation to recover. She will recover first because she will not be faced with the same restrictions in the way of the free flow of credit and the free flow of goods.
I have said in passing that in spite of a moderate tariff we might succeed, we might progress. But neither this nor any other country can make progress, even if the blood stream of credit is ample, in face of the obstruction to external trade. We might
2794	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
have a measure of well-being under such a condition of isolation, but I doubt it. I doubt if isolated we could even be prosperous, but certainly we would not progress in proportion to the progress made by the other nations of the world under those conditions. It is as insane to starve the nations of the necessary blood stream of credit, purchasing power, money, call it what you will, and to restrict the channels through which resulting trade can flow, as it would be for each of us individually to tie ligatures around every important artery and vein in our system and so prevent the flow of life-giving blood to the various organs-just as insane. As a result of these fiscal policies throughout the world we are sick umto death. Sir George Paish points it out in telling language. Let m'e give his words; they are too effective to pass over. He said:
World-wide economic disaster oan now only be mitigated, it cannot be avoided.
Why, of course it cannot; it is here; we are in the midst of it-the greatest economic disaster the world has ever seen in my lifetime. Sir George Paish continues:
In a measure, we are going to fight probably the greatest peace battle tliaf 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.
But, Mr. Speaker, this country stands in a strange position. Are we lacking in sufficient intelligence to be able to take the initiative? This proposal of ours is not a new thing; it has been done before, and done effectively. When war was declared, what happened? The bankers rushed down to Ottawa and saw Sir Robert Borden and Sir Thomas White, and a meeting of council was called. They sat all night. What followed? Next day a law was illegally altered in the interest of the banks so they might not be required to redeem their notes in gold. Of course, later that illegal step was legalized That action was taken to meet a national emergency. We are confronted with a national emergency to-day. We are faced with more poverty, more destitution, more bankruptcy than ever we had at that time.
I think it was Maurice Colbourne who said that war was economic peace and that peace brings economic war. We are facing a war condition to-day. Yes, unfortunately through our administration, in part, and through the

policies of the various narrow, nationalistic governments throughout the world we have economic warfare as intense and destructive as physical warfare. The wheat growers and the other primary producers of this country are struggling for their very life in the face of a trade war with countries that are in the favourable position because of depreciated exchange of being able to sell goods at prices below ours. All we ask is that you give the wheat growers a chance. I say to the government:	Since you assert willingness to give
all Canadians a chance, give the Canadian farmer a chance. Five cents a bushel! Well, the manner of introducing the five-cent-a-bushel proposal indicates the lack of thought given to it. I am satisfied the Prime Minister cannot have sat down in cold and solemn consultation with himself, or with anybody else, to find out what that five cents means to the farmer.


Peter McGibbon: Would you like to have him withdraw it?


Edward Joseph Garland: Just a
minute. That is always the specious question of the mind that has no grasp of economics.


Peter McGibbon: We all recognize your
omniscience.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are we to regard that five cents a bushel as a compensating adjustment for the losses that result to us under the new tariff, under the sales tax, under the other taxes that this government has imposed upon us?-for primary producers like the farmer must carry the great load of taxation. The primary producers are the only great class in the community that cannot pass on the load of taxation to somebody else. We pay freight both ways; we buy retail and sell wholesale; we buy at a protected price level and sell in the competitive markets of the world.


Peter McGibbon: You don't know the
ABC of economics.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hon.
gentlemen opposite are getting prodded where they do not like it. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister offers us five cents a bushel on our wheat. If that is to be regarded as a compensating adjustment, I reject it, I do not want it. It cannot be regarded as a compensating adjustment. If it is a measure of direct relief, if it is a dole, then we have to accept it, for that is the position in which western agriculture is to-day. The western farmer has reached the position

The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
where even doles are acceptable to carry him through the period of penury that is facing him, notwithstanding the promise of the Prime Minister to blast a way to the markets of the world for his products.
The right hon. leader of the opposition was guilty of one thing for which I was sorry; he used a purely Tory argument against our subamendment. He said we were not sufficiently enlightened in regard to this gold standard subject.


Peter McGibbon: Probably he spoke the
truth.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hon. members in this corner, and economists-from whom my hon. friend opposite might take a lesson-have been trying to get politicians and statesmen to study the problem for the last fifteen years. We' in this part of the house have been trying to study it for the last nine years. We are offering to you what suggestions we can of a constructive character in this crisis; you have not a single one of your own. These tariffs, bounties, subsidies and bonuses are all hopeless, uneconomic and unworthy of intelligent economists, who do not sanction them. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition will not be satisfied merely to say there is no general consensus of view which is accepted. Why, the general consensus of economists to-day, with one or two Tory exceptions perhaps-like Professor Swanson, who might not like the gold standard to be abolished, and a few others-is in favour of the modification of the gold standard. The majority of international economists today such as Gustav Cassel, Maynard Keynes, Professor Irving Fisher and all those other people, are satisfied that we must meet -this present crisis upon some basis other than the monetary system based upon gold.


Mr. ILSLEY:: What other basis do you
suggest?


Edward Joseph Garland: It is all in our amendment; I have not time to repeat it now. Why should the parliament of Canada take the initiative? I will tell you why. Canada is facing a depression such as we have never faced before, and why should not we in this new country, fresh, virile, vigorous and courageous, have sufficient internal stamina to take the plunge? We cannot be any worse off; economists show us that we will be better off. More than that, even the leader of the opposition must know, as a student of economics, that there cannot be any general recovery in trade until the volume
of credit and currency in this and the other countries of the world increases. How far should it increase? It must never increase beyond the point of absorbed production. It can be regulated; it can be more intelligently regulated than the world has been able to regulate the gold standard. The gold standard never has regulated the vo'ume of currency permanently in favour of the people; it has brought attenuating fluctuations upward to the benefit of the speculative classes, and then downward to increase the wealth of its controllers.
Let me just give this one illustration from an article on "Credit Control" by Professor Curtis; this will illustrate my statement that you have wild and uncontrolled inflation, under the gold standard:
Current loans in Canada, which were well below a million in 1925 and 1926, increased to a maximum of $1,473,000,000 in 1929; call loans in Canada which in 1925 were running around the $100,000,000 point increased to $280,000,000 in 1929; call loans elsewhere than in Canada, which in 1923 and 1924 were below the $200,000,000 mark, increased in 1929 to over $330,000,000. Total loans in Canada, which were around the $1,100,000,000 mark in 1925, amounted to $1,856,757,000 in October, 1929. From this it can be seen that there was a large absolute growth in all classes of loans. . . . And that it caused .... "a substantial price inflation in Canada and the virtual abandonment of the gold standard."
Of course it did. The advocates of the gold standard abandoned it during the period of prosperity through which we have just passed, and after it had carried North America to that peak of production the federal reserve board policy, following the election of Mr. Hoover in the United States, burst the bubble and crashed the whole thing down about our ears.
I am sorry I have not much time left, because there is much more that should be said in connection with this matter. Let me do my best once more, in pleading, to ask hon. members of this house not to shut their minds to the certainty that reform of our present monetary system is essential before there can be general trade recovery in this or any other nation of the world. You must always have a volume of purchasing power in circulation in any nation sufficient to take up the volume of production within the nation at any given time. That volume of currency should never exceed the volume of production, nor should the volume of production ever be permitted to exceed the volume of currency. On the one hand you have deflation and on the other hand inflation. That matter surely can be regulated; we can regulate almost every other matter.
2796	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
It can be done, and it must be done. Mr. Neill, of the Royal Bank, is no faddist or crank; he says it can be done and must be done. Other authorities to-day are saying the same thing.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Do not be afraid.


Edward Joseph Garland: I was only afraid I could not give my hon. friends a little more of the same thing. The leader of the opposition was perhaps at his best when he described the economic feudalism into which the policy of the present administration was thrusting this country. I share his opinions in that regard; I think he is absolutely correct in his analysis, but I ask him this: What does he think of the financial feudalism we now have, which is more effective, more feudal in character, more enslaving than the economic feudalism of which he spoke so eloquently? Our boasted freedom is but a myth. We can talk about our political status; it is all right; it makes good talk. We can talk about the evil of annexation, Mr. Speaker, but the effective annexation of this country took place long ago. We are the tail of the United States dog to-day, and we wag as the dog wishes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I have order, please, Mr. Speaker? Let me tell you this-


Mr. SHORT:: That is a nice thing for a Canadian to say.


Edward Joseph Garland: I will tell you that so long as hon. gentlemen opposite and hon. gentlemen to my right permit the federal reserve board of the United States of America to dictate the financial policy of this country, we are just wagging as directed; that is all. Mr. Neill of the Royal bank, my indignant friend-


Harry Bernard Short: Mr. Neill never made any such statement as that.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, Mr. Neill did make the statement that the federal reserve policy is chiefly responsible for this depression in Canada, and he is not the only one. The principal economists of this and other countries place at the door of the federal reserve system the responsibility for existing world conditions. Is my hon. friend proud of the fact that the banking policy of the United States of America has brought Canada
LMr. E. J. Garland.]
to this depression? What I want to see is a Canada free; I want to see us declare our own monetary policy. I am not, as hon. gentlemen. are, blinding my eyes to the existing conditions. I ask them that we should dictate our own policy and go off the gold standard. Let us create our own credit for our own purposes, as we need it, and we will help build up a prosperous country. We will never make it prosperous by a restrictive policy of fiscal tariffs a strait-jacket of gold and nothing else.


Mr. YOUNG:: Before the hon. member
takes his seat, would he mind giving us his definition of purchasing power?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid I would need another forty minutes for that.


Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the budget. Were I to do anything else I would be recreant to my duty to the province which gave me birth, and to the people whom I have the honour to represent in the parliament of Canada. In the maritime provinces, in respect to our greatest and most basic industry, that of coal, it is conceded by Liberals and Conservatives alike that this budget was the best budget for the province of Nova Scotia ever brought down in this house.
I shall deal, in a few minutes, with the budget in its application to Nova Scotia, but before doing so may I follow briefly the arguments presented by the official critic of the Liberal party, my good friend the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). May I at the outset congratulate my hon. friend upon the distinctive honour which his right hon. leader conveyed upon him when he selected him to be the critic of the Liberal party in so far as this budget is concerned, but when I do convey to him my congratulations I must mingle with them my sincere regret that that political preferment which he obtained from his leader was obtained by sacrificing and betraying the interests of one quarter of the population of his native province.
His first argument, if argument it might be called-1 think perhaps instead of using thi3 contention he should have allowed it to be used by the other financial critic of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), namely-that the budget was late in being brought down. Perhaps it was, but we have had two budgets within a little over six months. I desire to reecho his words throughout the province of Nova Scotia. We all know that but recently my hon. friend shook the dust of his province from his heels

The Budget-Mr. Macdougall
and settled in the city of Montreal. When he was in Nova Scotia his plea used to be for the downtrodden and oppressed, for the agriculturist, for the fisherman, for the miner, and so on, but why does he protest against this budget being so late? He is looking through the umbrae and shades of big business in the city of Montreal and he protested in the interests of big business of this country.
His second argument, if it can be dignified by that term, was that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was not doing right in occupying the dual position of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. The official leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) reechoed that statement in his very admirable speech delivered the other day. He spoke about Gladstone in 1880, but, I believe, had he gone further in the very book from which he was quoting he would have found that the official critic who criticized Gladstone at that time because he occupied these two positions was defeated at the next general elections in England. My right hon. friend may have had in his mind his colleague the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth. Let me assure him that if that hon. gentleman ever enters Nova Scotia, that little province which he loved and left, seeking reelection to parliament, we will be minus his bland and smiling countenance when the election is over.
My hon. friend, the official critic of his party, then referred to the Imperial conference. He said that the Liberal party were trying in every conceivable way to make it a success. How were they trying to make it a success? My right hon. friend said that he had locked himself up in the fastnesses of Kingsmere in order that he might not embarrass the government. He said nothing and did nothing, and as we all know, of nothing nothing comes. No success was ever made out of nothing. Let the impartial readers of the records of this house read the speeches delivered by my right hon. friend and his supporters on the address and I am confident that they will come to this conclusion, that there was a studied attempt on the part of the opposition to create in this country an atmosphere of prejudice should the Imperial conference sit in the capital city of our dominion


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: If my hon. friend
wants to ask a question let him stand up in his place and do so, but he should not subject this house to the groans and grunts which five thousand years ago ceased to be the language of humanity.
Anyone who is unbiased, reading the speeches of my hon. friends, will come to
the conclusion that there was a studied attempt, on the part of hon. members of the opposition, from their right hon. leader to his humblest supporter, to create an amosphere of prejudice should that conference sit in the capital city of Canada. It is not going to sit.


Jean-François Pouliot: It will lie and die.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: They say it ought
to sit anyway. Australia and New Zealand cannot send their delegates to the conference, yet my hon. friends opposite say, have that conference this year. We are going to have a conference next year with all the component parts of the empire represented for the first time in the capital city of our country.
The next point raised by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth was in regard to the withdrawal by New Zealand of the British preference, and hon. gentlemen opposite have had the audacity to say that this action was occasioned by an amendment introduced by the Conservative party when in opposition. What are the facts? If there ever was a man who paraded this country deriding orders in councils, it was the right hon. the leader of the opposition, but by an order in council his government extended to New Zealand the same conditions which prevailed under the Australian treaty. It is a misnomer to call it the New Zealand treaty, because there never was a treaty; there was an order in council. The two points about this New Zealand arrangement are these; either that arrangement was good or it was bad. If it was good, my right hon. friend's govemement should never have given notice to New Zealand that they were going to abrogate it; if it was bad my right hon. friend's government should never have passed the order in council. But they did both; they were not content with getting on one horn of the dilemma, they got on both horns. The statement that we were in any way responsible for the action taken by New Zealand is mere eyewash. That action was taken because of an injudicious order in council passed by my hon. friend's government which drove a coffin nail into the dairy industry of Canada. When the dairy industry had to protest in order to survive, then my hon. friend gave a six months' notice for the abrogation of that agreement.
The next point I will refer to-


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask my hon. friena a question?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is not
ready to answer a question?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: My hon. friend next dealt with the Canadian National Railways,
The Budget-Mr. Macdougall

and in that subterranean method which has been employed by the Liberal party during recent years, he tried to make out that the Conservative party was opposed to the Canadian National system. Why? Because the Conservative party, mindful of its duty to the taxpayers of this country, wanted an accounting of the financial transactions of the Canadian National Railways. That railway is the people's road and it is paid for by the people's taxes and we have a right to know what is going on. No man in this country can be adjudged an enemy of that system who wants to have the facts made known for the benefit of those who pay the shot. But if there be any party in Canada that should never raise its voice above a whisper in regard to the Canadian National Railways, it is the party led by my right hon. friend opposite. Older parliamentarians than I in the house will remember the strenuous efforts made by my right hon. friend and his party to prevent the formation of the Canadian National system. If anybody desires proof of this, let him turn to Hansard of the second session of 1919, volume 2, and he will find it there in abundance. When the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, supported by every Conservative in the house, was attempting to put through the formation of the Canadian National Railways; when he was putting through this first great experiment in public ownership, he was bitterly opposed by the official opposition. One amendment after another was introduced, and if hon. members will look at Hansard of that date at page 1746, they will find one of the most ridiculous amendments ever introduced in any parliament in any part of the world. I have not at my disposal the time to read it all, but I shall read some of it. It was moved by Mr. Parent, and a part of it reads:
That the ownership by the Canadian government of the American section of the Grand Trunk railway would involve this country in international troubles respecting labour administration and public policy;
That for the above-mentioned reasons, the acquisition of these lines means a serious danger of the annexation of Canada by the United States.
If hon. members look at the yeas, they will find the name of my right hon. friend who to-day leads the Liberal party. No sooner was that amendment defeated than the late lamented James Robb moved that the bill be given the six months' hoist, and the name of my right hon. friend will be found in support of that motion also. The point about the Canadian National railway system is this, that the Conservative party, instead of being the enemies of public ownership in this country,
fMr. Macdougall.]
were the people who brought public ownership into being, and the Liberal party were the people who tried to prevent it.
The leader of the opposition then went on to tallk about expenditures and he criticized the government because their expenditures were too great. He said that they were expending $430,000,000, while last year the Liberal administration had spent only $440,000,000.	1
mention this just to show the utter lack of consistency on the part of my hon. friend, because immediately after making the statement that we were spending too much money, he turns around and in a very hostile manner criticizes the government because they were not going to increase their expenditures by paying 100 per cent old age pensions.
In regard to old age pensions, what is the situation? We all know the act which was passed under the administration of my right hon. friend and under which the provinces would have to pay 50 per cent of the cost. The provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, being the older provinces, and having, in regard to population, a larger number of aged people than the other provinces, were unable to take advantage of the act as it stood. My right hon. leader has promised the people that the federal government will sustain this burden. At the present time, in the bitter economic straits in which not only Canada but the whole world finds itself, it is impossible for him to do this now, but he has shown his good faith by increasing the amount to 75 per cent. Already a leader in public life in Prince Edward Island has notified the people that that offer will be accepted, and as far as Nova Scotia is concerned I feel quite certain that offer will be accepted until such time as the federal government may find itself in a position to bear the total burden resulting from old age pensions. What is the position now of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth? What is the position of the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley)? What is the position of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff)? They are supporting an amendment which will make it impossible for the old men and old women of their native province to get this old age pension. Ever since this question became a live issue in 1925, they have played polities with grey hairs in Nova Scotia. No longer will they be able to do that. They introduce an amendment to-day which, if it passes this house, but which of course it will not do, will make it impossible for the old people of Nova Scotia to receive this need of social justice.
I wish I had some little time to. devote to the excellent speech of the leader of the

The Budget-Mr. Macdougall
Liberal party, but unfortunately I have less than forty minutes at my disposal. There were some high lights in that speech. My right hon. friend is making quite a reputation as a marathon orator. He spoke for four hours and thirty minutes on the address and for four hours and ten minutes on the budget. I wish to draw this to the attention of hon. members whose notice it may have escaped, because I think it may amuse them:	After
my right hon. friend had been speaking on the budget for four hours and five minutes, and making a very excellent address, he started his peroration. Let us remember that my right hon. friend is a man of great educational ability; he is a man who has occupied an outstanding position in Canadian public life; he has been Prime Minister of Canada for ten years; he represents a certain element of public opinion in this country and many thousands of people were waiting for this statement of his. Knowing the difficult situation in which Canada is at present in common with every other country in the world, they were anxious to learn his solution for the problems that confront the dominion. They had a natural right to do that and to think he would offer some constructive criticism. If hon. members will turn to page 2710 of Hansard of this year, they, will find the beginning of his peroration. After he had spoken, mind you, for four hours and five minutes, he has this to say:
If I may I should like to conclude with one constructive suggestion.
After speaking for four hours, he admits puiblicly to the people of Canada that he cannot give them anything that will be of assistance in ameliorating their condition or in solving their problems. But what was the constructive suggestion that he gave? It was that a board should be appointed, composed of almost every element in the population, to deal with unemployment. It would take about a year to get such a board constituted. This session of parliament would be over long before such a board would be set up, and when it was constituted, a remedy for unemployment must necessitate the spending of money. This board, therefore, would be called upon to spend money, and my right hon. friend, who is so strong on the constitution, would take away from parliament and from the government control over expenditure and taxation and vest it in the hands of an irresponsible board. If that suggestion were made on our side of the house, would my right hon. friend not go up and down the countiy raising a new constitutional issue?
May I now come to the last part of the speech of the official financial critic, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, in connection with the coal industry of the province of Nova Scotia. I noticed how little time he devoted to that, how his eyes were fastened on the clock, and I felt sorry for my hon. friend; for I felt at the time that he was sacrificing his native province because he wanted to do a service to his party.
He started in by telling us that he would welcome any tangible assistance to the coal industry of the province of Nova Scotia, and then immediately after that he moved an amendment that would make it impossible for this tangible assistance to _ be given to the coal industry of Nova Scotia. He then proceeded to quote an old Latin adage, and I think before I get through he will be sorry that he ever mentioned this proverb. It was a proverb that became current in Rome in the time of Nero, "Equi donati dentes non inspiciuntur"-do not look a gift horse in the mouth. This proverb dates back to the time of Nero in Rome, and you all know that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. My hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth will be remembered by future generations of Nova Scotians as the man who fiddled while the Conservative * party and the representatives of the Conservative party from Nova Scotia were trying to put through this house the best measure of assistance that has ever been accorded to the Nova Scotia coal industry.
But may I proceed further with that proverb. If my hon. friend will look up G. L. Apperson's English Proverbs he will see that the proverb he quoted the other day became current in England in the fourteenth century, and in 1674 there was a great pageant in which different proverbs were exemplified for the edification of the people. In that pageant a man came out riding a horse backwards, and they put into the mouth of this buffoon the words, "I ride in this manner with my face to the horse's tail that I may make good the truth of the proverb, Do not look a gift horse in the mouth". So I think my hon. friend very unfortunate in selecting that proverb when he started to denounce the coal provisions of this budget which have been brought down to assist the coal industry of Nova Scotia.
I want to call this to the attention of the house for the edification particularly of the Halifax Morning Chronicle, an organ that has a very high regard for my hon. friend, and for the edification of the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Nova Scotia, my esteemed opponent in the last election, who
The Budget-Mr. Macdougall

is now going up and down the province of Nova Scotia in the interests of national unity, I suppose, telling the people that Ontario and the other provinces are crushing the lifeblood out of Nova Scotia, and that they can get nothing except by fighting for it. Yet ' my hon. friend the leader of the Liberals of Nova Scotia in federal politics, stands in his place and says that what we get for the coal industry of Nova Scotia in this budget is a gift from the rest of Canada. I entirely disagree. There is no gift involved. What this government has done has been simply to do belated justice to that great coal industry in the province of Nova Scotia, justice which the government of my right hon. friend opposite was either unwilling or afraid to do. That was the position in regard to the coal industry.
My hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth said, and I suppose the wish was father to the thought, that these measures taken to protect the coal industry of Nova Scotia and to extend our sales in the market of Canada and give more employment to our 13,000 miners, would not .mean the movement of sixty thousand tons of Nova Scotia coal. My only reply to that is that he does not know what he is talking about. Take anthracite screenings, for example. Anthracite screenings from the United States were supplied to the province of Quebec alone to the extent of 250,000 tons. Authorities on the coal industry in Nova Scotia, and some of them are Grits, tell me that as a result of the new duty we can capture that market for Nova Scotia soft coal. I need not detain the house with a further discussion of this subject, which has been very ably dealt with by my good friend the Minister of Fisheries in an estimable speech, except to say that I believe that with the assistance that has been given to the coal industry of Nova Scotia by this budget the industry -will have a chance to supply 800,000 tons a year more of Nova Scotia coal than we did before.
There is one other point in the speech of my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth to which I wish to allude, and that is the conversion loan. My bon. friend is a hidebound Grit. He cannot see any good politically in anybody who is not a Grit, and he could not even give any commendation to the government for its success with regard to the conversion loan. As a matter of fact, he tried to damn it with faint praise. He would have had us believe that it was a very ordinary transaction, something that anybody could do, something of no importance. Let us turn back to the past for just a [Mr. Macdougail.l
moment, to the year 1923, when the Liberals started to put through one of these very ordinary transactions, a conversion loan. At that time a good grey head from the province of Nova Scotia, who has since gone to his eternal reward, was finance minister in this country, a man who had made a distinctive place for himself in his native province and in the dominion, a man who had earned for himself by splendid traits of heart and mind the affection and esteem of his fellow-Canadians in every part of Canada. I refer to the late lamented Right Hon. W. S. Fielding. What did this great Canadian Minister of Finance have to say in his budget speech presented on May 11, 1923. At page 2542 of Hansard of that date, dealing with the question of loan operations, he has this to say:
The loan operations of the last year are partly known already to the house. I mentioned last session the New York loan of $100,000,000. The five-year bonds at 51 per cent, 1917 victory loan, amounting to $182,834,500, matured on December 1, 1922. The holders of these bonds were given the privilege of exchanging maturing bonds-
Here is what my hon. friend calls an ordinary transaction:
-for new bonds bearing 5J per cent interest-
The same rate of interest as the old ones:
-and taxable as follows: Five-year bonds due November 1. 1927; ten-year bonds due November 1, 1932. The holders of the maturing bonds took advantage of the offer to the extent of ' $114,449,250, leaving a balance of $68,385,250 to be redeemed in cash.
There is the result of their conversion loan.


Mr. RALSTON:: Did my hon. friend take
notice that those were five-year and ten-year bonds, not twenty-five and thirty-year bonds?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That makes it all
the worse. Did my hon. friend notice this, that the Fielding conversion loan carried the same rate of interest as the old bonds to be retired, while the conversion loan of my right hon. leader paid one per cent less than the bonds that were being converted? He asked for $250,000,000 and got 8640,000,000. The Liberal party asked for a conversion loan of $182,000,000 at the same rate of interest, and it was under-subscribed 33 per cent.


James Layton Ralston: It was only a short term loan.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That may be a very ordinary transaction, but to my mind it is proof positive of something I knew before-' that the Liberal party is not capable of doing even a very ordinary thing.

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull
I have not much more time at my disposal, but there are one or two further points to which I should like to refer. In speeches such as that of my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) we have heard a great deal of pessimism, groaning and croaking about conditions in this country. May I say that I have the greatest confidence in Canada, in its resources, in its people, and in the courageous man who leads its government. When men at this admittedly difficult time of our nation's history, a time which might be termed difficult in the history of any nation, go about with wringing hands and running noses preaching the philosophy of despair, they get no sympathy from me, because I do not think that type of psychology will help Canada in its present economic difficulties. As the descendant of a highland Scot may I be pardoned if I prefer to give my allegiance to a man such as my right hon. leader, who has shown, as has no other leader in Canadian public life, the virtue of courage-courage, as Sir James Barrie once termed it-"the lovely virtue; the gift of himself that God gave to His children." I prefer to follow the leader of the house and not those who preach pessimism and suggest nothing. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that this country is not bankrupt; we have resources, and we have men of ability. Canada will emerge triumphantly from this temporary depression, and sooner than any other country in the world.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall not vote for the subamendment, I shall not vote for the amendment, but I shall vote for the budget, because I think it good.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, probably I ought to apologize for taking part in the debate at such a late hour. There have however been things said during the progress of the debate which affect the particular portion of the country from which I come. Statements have been made which to my mind should be corrected before the conclusion of the debate.
I listened with a great deal of attention to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other afternoon and evening. I heard him call upon my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) to declare his principles in such terms that the people of Canada would know exactly where he stood on public questions. I had thought there could be no person within the borders of Canada or for that matter of the British Empire who did not know exactly where the right hon. leader of the government stood on all public questions.
I had hoped that when the right hon. leader of the opposition was begging his opponents to declare their principles, he himself would have done his duty by declaring the principles of the party he leads. I am prompted to say that by reason of statements which have been made within and without the walls of the house. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) speaking in the house on June 10, is reported at page 2492 of Hansard in the following words:
Throughout the last election campaign the Prime Minister on many platforms in the country advocated a tariff which would admit of competition and equal opportunity for producers within our own country. I do not think any hon. member could find a great deal of fault with such a tariff.
In fact I might go a little further and say I would be a little bit inclined to favour the Canadian producer over the foreign manufacturer.
There we have evidence of what might be called a fair example of the protectionist sentiment rampant within the ranks of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
At page 2502 of Hansard appears a statement by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). I quote as follows:
Never were truer words spoken than those of the British chancellor of the exchequer who said: Once begin a policy of protection and you are on a slippery slope which leads to a bottomless pit.
I wonder if the hon. member for North Waterloo appreciates the direction in which he is heading. I wonder if the right hon. leader of the opposition will advise this house as to which of those two policies he purposes to follow, whether he is going with the hon. member for South Huron into the bottomless pit, or whether he will follow the principles of protection advocated by the hon. member for North Waterloo.
Out in my native province, of Saskatchewan other principles are being preached. We are told by the Liberal leaders in the province that the Liberal party throughout Canada is one, and that the provincial party represents Liberal thought in Saskatchewan. On February 4, 1931, Mr. T. C. Davis, the Attorney General under the Liberal government of the province of Saskatchewan, referred to the Dunning budget as "the first step in the carrying out of the five year plan for free trade with Great Britain as an exemplification of the resolution passed by the provincial legislature that year." I would ask my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, on the first occasion which presents itself, to say to the people of Canada in tones that Canada may



The Budget-Mr. Turnbull
hear, and in clear definite language incapable of double interpretation, where his party stands, so that when next we go to the country there will be a clear issue upon which we may get a clear-cut positive decision.
In the province of Saskatchewan there is a gentleman named Mr. George Spence who was at one time an hon. member of this house, and who is now Liberal organizer in that province. On February 4, 1931, Mr. Spence, speaking in the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan, is quoted as follows:
In reply to a question across the floor of the house from Premier Anderson the speaker intimated that he was in favour of free entry into Canada of goods from Germany, Japan and Russia. He proceeded to declare that the race for increased tariffs which had been pursued in the world was now over.
I would ask my right hon. friend as early as possible to tell the people of Canada if his organizer in the province of Saskatchewan truly represents Liberal policies in Canada, so that the people of Ontario, Quebec and the rest of Canada will know whether or ndt he is in favour of free trade with Germany, Japan and Russia. I think the right hon. gentleman owes the country and his party a statement to clear up this point. In justice to the voters of Canada a statement should be made at once containing a clear declaration of principle from the right hon. gentleman.
The question has been raised in this house as to whether the tariff provisions of the present government have resulted in the establishment of new industries in Canada, and the suggestion has been made that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was not correct when he stated that about 87 industries had been brought into this country. Perhaps my hon. friends opposite will take the word of a gentleman outside of Canada who is not politically interested in the fortunes of any Canadian political party. I place before hon. members of the house a statement by William Philip Sims, foreign editor of the Scripps-Howard press, writing in the New York World-Telegram. I quote the following:
Profiting by America's blunder, Canada today aims at nothing less than making herself perhaps the greatest manufacturing and exporting nation in the world,-greater than England and greater than the United States.
The newspaper comment continues:
Mr. Sims promises to tell of one single American industry that has lost 22,000 jobs to Canada since Premier Bennett came into power.
Surely that is worth something to the people of this country. Discussing Canada's aims Mr. Sims is further quoted as follows:
[Mr. Turnbull.1
No less than 107 important concerns established branches on this side of the boundary in 1930, more than doubling the 1929 exodus and quadrupling the number that migrated in 1928.
Compare those figures with the figures quoted by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). He stated that from 500 to 700 new industries were supposed to have been established in this country in 1929 and 1930. Compare them with the figures given by the right hon. leader of the opposition in his speech the other day, when he said some 300 new industries had been established along the main line of the Canadian National Railways in 1930 alone. These gentlemen well knew that they were not talking of industries coming in to this country from other parts of the world, but of little industries established here and there by Canadian capital venturing to come out into the open and set up industries of their own. Mr. Sims continues:
No less than 107 important concerns established branches on this side of the boundary in 1930, more than doubling the 1929 exodus and quadrupling the number that migrated in 1928.
And the rush continues.
Canada is extending an open invitation to American industry to establish plants on this side of the line, and her inducements are
many;
1.	Location in a country that is closer both to Europe and the newly awakened Asia by several hundred miles than is the United States, and with only a slight disadvantage in reaching the twenty republics of Latin America;
2.	Cheap and plentiful hydro-electric power, as indispensable to industry to-day as was coal yesterday-power over which the government keeps strict control;
3.	An unsurpassed base for foreign trade, with the benefits of preferential rates with the other members of the British empire and special trade relations with twenty-three other foreign nations;
4.	Her own expanding domestic market.
I may add that the figures that were quoted by my right hon. leader are confirmed by the bureau of statistics. I have the figures before me, but I will not quote them to-night.
In my own city of Regina we find already some benefits from the policies of this government. All last winter the local General Motors plant stood idle, but in the spring of this year the discount rates on imported automobiles was changed, and as a result that plant started operations again, and the last news I had was that 520 men were at work and that the plant was making greater sales than had been expected.
The duty on corn is a benefit to western Canada, for it will assist our farmers to dispose of their barley crop. If my hon.

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull
friends opposite from the province of Alberta had looked more carefully through the tariff they might have found some reductions, for it is not purely a tariff of increases; in it will be found several items now on the free list that were subject to duty under the Liberal regime. The placing of those items on the free list is going to be of assistance to industries in Saskatchewan.
Then there is the assistance to wheat. I understand that some of my hon. friends opposite are a little troubled about this assistance given to the wheat industry. We have heard in this house from time to time of a number of new industries having been established in the eastern provinces which would to a very large extent take care of unemployment in those parts of the dominion. That benefit to the east must be balanced by something that will take care of unemployment in western Canada, and there is nothing that will do so more effectively than giving a fair price to the people of western Canada for the things they produce. When the western farmer gets his remittance of five cents a bushel on his wheat I do not think he will thank the member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) for the scoffs and sneers with which he greeted that proposal in the budget.
In my constituency a new experimental station has been established by the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of dealing with two great troubles of the farmers of Saskatchewan-soil drift and the cutworm.
Some reference has been made to the public debt. We are told that under the Liberal regime it decreased by a considerable amount. I believe that to be true. We are also told that under the Liberal regime the Canadian National debt, which is really part of the public debt, increased very largely. There has been some discussion as to how much of the national debt is war debt and how much is ordinary debt, and the question has been raised whether there should not be a sinking fund established to take care of its repayment. I should like to see the national debt divided into three columns: first, ordinary debt; second, war debt; third, railway debt. That information should be published every time the national debt is referred to, so that our people will not be misinformed regarding the exact standing of the three great divisions of the debt for which the country is responsible. Then I should like to see a sinking fund established to take care of the war debt. I believe our people would be willing to bear a pretty heavy taxation if they were satisfied their taxes were going to repay the debt in-
22110- 178J
curred during the four years of war. If a sinking fund could be established for that purpose,and special taxes levied to retire that particular debt, I feel confident that the people would wholeheartedly endorse such action. It might be a little difficult under present conditions when revenues are low, but in a few years when we get back to normal I think that step should be taken.
I have heard a good deal during this debate in regard to the sales tax and the tremendous burden it is supposed to impose on the common people by its having been increased to 4 per cent. I am not so much afraid of that result as some hon. members appear to be. I was talking the other day with a merchant on Sparks street who is in the clothing business. He told me that he had received a new price list from the manufacturers soon after the budget was brought down, and that that price list will absorb so much of the sales tax that his company will be able to sell their goods to the people of Ottawa at no increase in price. I have also a statement from the manager of one of the large mail order houses in the city of Regina that their goods will not be increased in price in consequence of the increased sales tax, that the tax will all be absorbed before the goods reach the consumer. With the present depressed prices and the keen competition for business, I feel quite satisfied that while some part of the added sales tax may reach the ultimate consumer, the major part of it will be absorbed by the manufacturer and wholesaler.
We heard something the other night with regard to gasoline. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) regaled the house with a long list showing the profits the oil companies made during the regime of his right hon. leader. That right hon. gentleman while in opposition railed against trusts, combines and mergers, but his voice was strangely silent for the nine long years he was in power while trusts, combines and mergers flourished in this country as they never had before in our history. They made considerable profits during the nine years that the Liberal party was in power. Apparently they are making some profits to-day. But my hon. friend from Swift Current would have been fairer to those companies if he had told the house that during the period between September of last year and the day he was speaking the price of gasoline in Saskatchewan had been reduced by four cents a gallon. He did not tell us that. I understand a similar reduction took place over the whole of Canada. So instead of taking $24,000,000 out of the pockets

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull
of the farmers of Canada the oil companies put $24,000,000 into their pockets. On the very day the hon. gentleman was speaking the newspapers published the further information that the Imperial Oil Company Limited -which he was reviling-had reduced the price of tractor kerosene by five cents a gallon. That kind of kerosene is used by the farmers in operating their tractors. Gasoline is what motorists use in their automobiles, to run up and ' down the highways, but the farmer is much more interested in tractors than in automobiles. The Imperial Oil Company has also announced a reduction of 15 per cent in the price of lubricating oil for these tractors.
The hon. member for Weyburn, speaking in the house the other day, declared that our trade had fallen off by $300,000,000 last year, and that the average duty on imported goods was 26 per cent; that 26 per cent on $300,000,000 was just $78,000,000; and that that was exactly the amount of our deficit. He tried to lead the people to think that this deficit was arrived at by taking 26 per cent of the reduction in our imports. The bureau of statistics will tell you that if you take the wholesale prices of goods in 1926 at 100 per cent, the wholesale prices of goods to-day represent 73 per cent. That is, there has been a reduction in the wholesale prices of 27 per cent since 1926, and I venture to say that all of that reduction has taken place since 1930. That 27 per cent practically coincides with the falling off of the imports and exports of this country. I am inclined to think that it is not a question of falling off in volume, but rather of price, and that the volume of our trade with foreign countries is just as well sustained to-day in spite of the depression as it was in the palmy days of 1929 and 1930. Later in his speech he stated that the average was 30 and not 26 per cent. One of my hon. friends to-day, who wished to be a little more exuberant than the hon. member for Weyburn, announced that the average duty was 33 per cent. That is the way they talked in western Canada. Mr. Speaker, and that is why the farmers of that country have so long been deluded by this free trade talk. That is why they had an exaggerated idea of this tariff and what it means. As a matter of fact the average duty on goods coming into this country is not 33 per cent, or 30 per cent, or even 26 per cent; the average rate is less than 15 per cent bn the whole amount of goods imported.
I thought it my duty to place these facts on record so that the people of western Canada as well as the people of the east might know exactly the facts in regard to these matters dealt with by my western friends. I thought perhaps the right hon. leader of the opposition,

having it called to his attention, might take the first opportunity to tell western Canada *whether he is in favour of free trade with Great Britain in five years, or whether he is in favour of free trade with Germany, Japan and Russia right away, so that there will be no delusion in western Canada as to where the Liberal party really stands.
This budget has regard for the essential needs of the country; by building up a prosperous Canada it will promote our own welfare and that of the empire, and for that I propose to support it.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I thought it my duty in this debate to speak on behalf of the citizens of Laprairie-Napierville and state, as it is within my province to do, what they believe to be in the 'best interests of this country. Of course I do not intend to say anything new on this budget. It has been discussed by both sides of the house in a very interesting manner, and as far as I am concerned-and I believe I interpret the sentiments of hon. members on this side-my right hon. chieftain has said all that could have been said in regard to this matter. Nevertheless, as a representative of the people, I think I should say a few words on the budget.
I am glad to congratulate all the hon. members who have taken part in the debate on both sides of the house, and particularly I should like to congratulate the ex-Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) who so well described and characterized the sentiment we all feel, particularly in the province of Quebec, with regard to the budget presented by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I remember that when I studied the history of the world, one of the reasons given for the American revolution was this slogan: "No taxation without representation." That was about a century and a half ago, 'but to-day in this very country it is our duty to repeat the same words in this chamber: "No taxation without representation."
As the hon. member for St. James said this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, hon. members to your right went around the country during the campaign making speeches and promises which no men who had any respect for themselves would have dared utter on public platforms. So far as the citizens of Laprairie-Napierville are concerned, they understand the public questions before the country at the present time; they read every day what goes on in connection with the great problems which are now facing Canada. I repeat that no man in this country with any self-respect would have dared say to the citizens of Canada such things

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis
as were said by the Prime Minister in the last campaign, knowing that he would be unable to fulfil his promises, just for the sake of winning power. During the last campaign the right hon. Prime Minister was only a candidate for the position he now occupies; he Was anxious to become Prime Minister and believed that he would derive great pleasure from doing so. I would remind him of what Constance Bennett said with regard to a similar situation:
I have learned from life and experience that pleasure is transient.
My right hon. friend, in passing from the position of leader of the opposition, must find himself in a difficult situation, and he must be convinced, as was Constance Bennett, that pleasure is transient, realizing as he must that it is no pleasure to occupy his present position.
I come now to the fiscal policy of the Conservative party, not of the present party but of the party of days gone by, to use the words of the Prime Minister. Is the policy of the present Conservative party similar to that of their predecessors? I dare to say that it is not. Where is there a leader of the Conservative party who made such drastic changes in the tariff as did the present Prime Minister during the special and present sessions? It is unnecessary for me to repeat the policies of Sir John A. Macdonald, of Sir Robert Borden and of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. That has been done ably by my right hon. leader, but I should like to quote from utterances made during the electoral campaign of 1921. At that time Mr. Meighen was speaking about the fiscal policy of the Conservative party, and I dare say he was very anxious to bring about a situation which would meet the interests of the people of Canada in general. Speaking in Hamilton on September 1, 1921, presumably in answer to the leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Mackenzie King, after first explaining his general policy, Mr. Arthur Meighen, as quoted in the Montreal Gazette of September 2, 1921, said:
Nor has all this been accomplished by insistence on a high protective tariff.
Apparently in an effort to defend himself against the charge of believing in a high protective policy, he said:
Quite the contrary. For years back our tariff has ranged around 16 per cent on the total of goods imported. It is now less than 15 per cent. Our duty on dutiable goods alone averages under 22 per cent, the lowest since 1878, the lowest indeed of any considerable country in the world save Great Britain alone and I doubt very much if it is higher even than Great Britain will be under the tariff that has just passed their House of Commons.
That is the declaration made by the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen when he was speaking on the tariff and apparently in reply to the charge made against him that he was the gramophone of Mackenzie and Mann. He then said:
The man who talks of the tariff of Canada being a high tariff-especially if he is a man who maintained a higher tariff himself when we did not need a tariff half as much-that man, I say, is a humbug.
That nickname came from the mouth of Mr. Meighen. He said that the man who propounded a high tariff is a humbug. Is it permissible for me, Mr. Speaker, to say that the first man to give that name to the right hon. the Prime Minister is not Mr. Thomas of London, but his predecessor, Mr. Arthur Meighen?


Jean-François Pouliot: That was the way he
returned the compliment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Vincent Dupuis: Do I hear hon. members
say "question"? That they should do so seems a little out of place after the speeches from the other side of the house, and the speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) who said that no matter what might be said in this house the Progressives would vote for their subamendment, the Liberals would vote for their amendment and the Conservatives would vote for their motion. Apparently those hon. members, who are calling "question" believe that democracy is only a by-word. That, however, is not my belief. I am the representative of a county which believes in democracy. I am the representative of the common people. I am the representative of those who believe that in 1837, when our forefathers fought for liberty-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Vincent Dupuis: Hon. members may cry
"hear, hear", they may laugh at me-


An hon. MEMBER:: There, there.


Vincent Dupuis: -but the citizens of this country will not laugh at me, they will laugh at my hon. friends at the next general elections.
Generally speaking, I do not like to speak from sentiment, but I should like to follow that great Liberal chieftain who is named in history as the leader of our cause, of our system and of our liberty. I am pleased to follow the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and that of his immediate successor, the rigfc hon. leader of the opposition.
What is said with respect to this budget? Speaking for the people of my county and
2S06
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis

also, I believe, for the people of this country in general, I think I have a right to say that this budget is not a popular one. I am sorry that this budget has been presented by the Prime Minister. I have a great respect for the right hon. gentleman; I have a great admiration for his talents and experience as a business man. But I believe he is overburdened with the responsibilities that he has voluntarily assumed. He holds three positions: Prime Minister, Minister of External Affairs and Minister of Finance. This is too much for any one man, and I believe he was unable to take time to pause and consider the interests of the people in general. I think he is acting in good faith in bringing down this budget, but had he had time enough to pause and reflect upon the future of this country, upon the interests of the people in general-and I am here to speak for the common people-he would not have put upon the record of the house such a speech as the one he made upon the- first of June.
I shall not recite the series of taxes that have been thrown on the shoulders of the citizens of this country, and, in particular, the citizens of my county. The citizens of my county are composed of farmers and workingmen. During the last campaign the farmers were promised by the Conservative candidates and their friends that if they gave their confidence to the Conservative party, they would have a paradise on this earth; they would sell their eggs, not at from thirty-five to forty cents a dozen as they used to do prior to the election, but at from fifty to seventy-five cents a dozen; they would sell their butter, not at forty-five cents a pound, but at a much higher figure, they would sell their potatoes-and the people of my riding are potato growers-not at $1 but at 12 a bag, and they would sell their other vegetables at proportionately higher prices. But, thank heaven, the citizens of my county were not so easily deceived by these demagogues; they voted against them, and to-day if it were possible to open my constituency of Laprairie-Napierville, when the electors see that their eggs are selling at fifteen cents a dozen at the stores, their potatoes at fifty cents a bag, their butter at fifteen cents a pound, and their cream-because the citizens of my county sell their cream on the Bonsecours market-at five gallons for $1.50, I do not believe ten per cent of the electors of my county, whether Liberal or Conservative, would vote for the government at present in power.
[DOT] .


An hon. MEMBER:: Try it out next time.
TMr. Dupuis.]


Vincent Dupuis: I do not know who is yelling on the other side, but I am sure that after the next election he will not have the privilege of yelling, because he will not be a member of the house. Notwithstanding the fact that the farmers of my riding and of the country in general are unable to sell their products at prices that will net them a small return over cost of production; notwithstanding the fact that the" workingmen in my riding are unable to find jobs, the budget of the first of June has thrown upon their shoulders taxes on the commodities which they have to buy although even without these taxes they are finding it hard enough to buy them. They have to pay taxes on their income, on their coal, on their food, on whatever they buy. On whatever they buy, they have to pay a 4 per cent sales tax and a one per cent excise tax; in fact, they have a litany of taxes that they will never be able to learn by heart, that they will learn only by having to pay them. But I believe, if Providence will help us a little, as it used to do, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier used to say, it will not be long 'before the Liberal party once more takes hold of the ship of state and guides this country , into the harbour of prosperity whereas the present government is trying to direct it toward starvation and destruction
We find in Montreal and other large cities millionaires. I have in Montreal a friend who informed me that according to the Bennett budget, owing to the fact that the maximum income tax is reduced to 25 per cent, he will save approximately $260,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: His name?


Vincent Dupuis: There are too many names to give them. It would take all my time to name them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, ohl


Vincent Dupuis: Hon. members opposite laugh at that, but the people of this country, who are the people of their own country, are not laughing; they are crying. Last Saturday, to be precise, a lady came into my office. Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh at that. They should not laugh; it was an old lady. Hon. gentlemen cannot stop me by laughing. I remember reading in history that when Disraeli was making one of his earliest speeches in the House of Commons of England the members laughed at him, but they did so only once because they saw in Disraeli

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis
a man who was working for and giving his life for his country. And so do I-I am speaking on behalf of my people. This old lady came to see me about her husband, who had been employed for fifteen years in the same position on the Canadian Pacific Railway, but who was then out of work and had been unable to obtain employment since December, 1930. This man had six children who he was unable to provide with the necessaries of life, and this old lady asked me to try to get a position for her husband. She told me that one of her children was sick in the hospital and that she was unable to buy the drugs and medicines that were needed. It was not until she came to speak of her sick child and began to cry that I realized how discouraged she was. I am unable, of course, to finance all the poor people who are made even poorer by the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite, but I did not look at my balance sheet; I gave her enough money to buy the drugs she needed for her sick child. Laugh now if you are able to laugh. Where is the man among you who would not have done the same thing to help relieve the misery of a poor old lady under such circumstances?
But that is only one instance, Mr. Speaker. If you go and observe the work of the religious and charitable institutions in Montreal, even right now, in the summer, you will see as many as a hundred people in a line waiting their turn to get soup and bread-and hon. gentlemen on the other side laugh when I speak of that. Well, it is the last time they will laugh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Vincent Dupuis: Ask the question of yourselves. If you really believe in democratic institutions you will jump over to this side of the house pretty soon. When I hear hon. gentlemen opposite laugh when I speak of the misery of the poor people of this country, who are suffering to-day as they never suffered before, I think of what a poet said, and I should like to give them a little prayer to say, if they do pray. If they were only a little bit Christian, they would pray. They would notice as they enter this building that on either side of the door are inscribed the words, "Honour thy God," "Honour thy king." Do they pray, Mr. Speaker? I do not know, but I will teach them a little prayer:
I want to go forth with my head erect;
I want to deserve all men's respect.
But here in the struggle for fame and pelf
I want to be able to like myself;
I don't want to look at myself and know
I'm bluster and bluff and empty show.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Before the debate proceeds further, I wish to refer to an incident that occurred this afternoon. The hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), referring to a statement reported to have been made by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Des-rochers) outside of this house, characterized the same as "a lie, an absolute lie, a tissue of falsehoods, more than a lie, made with the deliberate intention to deceive."
The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) raised the point of order that such expressions were out of order.
The hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), opposing the point of order, pointed out that the statement so characterized by the hon. minister was not made in this house, but was made outside.
At the time I was of the opinion that as the expressions were applied to a statement made outside this house, they were not out of order. However, I have examined precedents and the English and Canadian authorities and find that I was probably in error. May, at page 325, says:
It is not parliamentary to accuse a member of misrepresentation or to charge him with falsehood.
Bourinot, at page 364, says:
Or to say of a member that he stated what "he knows not to be correct," and such statement must be withdrawn.
At page 362, Bourinot says:
Or to say of a member he went about the country telling palpable lies.
Some of these expressions are milder than the words in question, some are about on a par, but all are held to be unparliamentary. Therefore, in order that decorum in debate in this house may be maintained and that my ruling referred to may not be a precedent for departing from decorum, I am bound to say that in my considered opinion the words, "a lie, an absolute lie, a tissue of falsehoods, more than a lie, made with the deliberate intention to deceive," are unparliamentary, notwithstanding the fact that they were used in reference to a statement made outside this house, and I ask the hon. minister to withdraw or modify them.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling, agree that the words expressed are unparliamentary, and therefore beg to withdraw them.
The Budget-Division



W 66S6.

[Stage Direction]
Weir (Melfort),
White (London), White (Mount Royal), Willis,
Wright,
Young.-165.
[Stage Direction]
(The list of pairs	is furnished by the chief
whips.)	
Messrs:	
Barrette,	Denis,
Beaubier,	Ahearn,
Bell (St. Antoine),	Raymond,
Black (Halifax),	Dubuc,
Bowen,	McKenzie
Cotnam,	(Assiniboia), Hurtubise,
Embury,	Bothwell,
Geary,	Mercier (Laurier),
Gott,	Rutherford,
Johnstone,	Donnelly,
Lafleche,	Girouard,
Laurin,	Fontaine,
Lawson,	Gray,
MacDonald (Cape	Urquhart,
Breton South),	
MaeLaren,	Fiset, Sir Eugene,
Matthews,	Moore (Ontario),
Ross,	Roberge,
Short,	Heenan,
Simpson (Simcoe),	Fraser
Smith (Cumberland),	(Northumberland), Duff,
Spotton,	Hepburn,
Stevens,	Malcolm,
Thompson (Simcoe),	Robitaille,
Turnbull,	McPhee,
Wilson,	Vallance,
Fortin,	Fafard,
Pettit,	Bouchard.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.

The Budget-Division


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. THOMPSON (Simcoe):: I was paired with the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Robitaillie). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc).
Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. BOWEN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Harry Bernard Short: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I
was paired with the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. FONTAINE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I was paired with the hon.
member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ontario, (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Robert James Manion: I was paired with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Joseph-Théophile-Adélard Fontaine: I was paired with the hon. member for Jaoques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROBERGE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert James Manion: I was paired with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I
was paired with the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. OASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Harry Bernard Short: 1 was paired with the
hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment and for the motion.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I was paired
with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment and for the motion.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauhamois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment and for the motion.


Fred Wellington Bowen: I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. FAFARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Joseph-Théophile-Adélard Fontaine: I was paired with the
hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Alfred Burke Thompson: I was
paired with the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Robitaille). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I was paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GIROUARD:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BEAUBIER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Ahearn). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
(Owing to the impossibility of recording pairs announced simultaneously, this list is incomplete.)
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The house having resolved itself into committee, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
It being twenty-three minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 19, 1931.