1931-06-04

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
[DOT] * '
o' pp
*o;j V .
[Stage Direction]


Mouse of Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 4, 1931

Mr. A. B. THOMPSON (East Simcoe) moved:: That all correspondence and other communications relating to the preparation of the voters' list for the municipality of Port McNic, n the riding of East Simcoe, and a copy c le original list prepared by the enumerator, and of the revised list as prepared by him for use on election day, together with a copy of any communications exchanged between the chief electoral officer and the returning officer or any other person as to the conduct of the poll on election day, laid on the table of the house on Wednesday, the 27th of May, 1931, be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections with instructions to inquire fully into the registration and polling of the votes or other related matters in connection with the election in the electoral division of East Simcoe, on July 28th, 1930.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table the report of the royal commission appointed to inquire into trading in grain futures.



COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on standing orders.
Mr. Bury moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. SENN:: 1.	What was the cost of telephone installation on Canadian National Railway trains running between Montreal and Toronto?
2.	What monthly revenue is derived from this service?
Mr. MAN'ION:
1.	$37,156.70. In addition, there were expenses on experimental work, station in-22110- 145
stallations at three points, and miscellaneous expenditures bringing the total capital outlay to $83,333.21 to April 30, 1031.
2.	Average monthly revenue for 12 months ending April 30, 1031, $73.43.


MINISTERIAL PRIVATE RAILWAY CARS
Mr. HURTUBISE:: 1.	Who are the ministers or government officials who had their private railway cars repaired since August 7, 1930?
2.	What is the full cost of repairs in each
case?
3.	If said repairs have not been completed yet, what is the estimated cost of same?


Mr. MANION:: 1,	2 and 3. Three private cars are maintained by the Department of Railways and *Canafa for ministerial use. These cars are, and always have been, repaired as necessity arises and are overhauled periodically. The cost of such repairs and maintenance since
August 7, 1930, has been:
Car 100 (Prime Minister)	$ 309 47
Car 101 (General)	 7,043 62
Car 104 (Minister of Railways). .. 2,406 72


DR. M. C. SALMON
Mr. GERSHAW:: 1.	Has Dr. M. C. Salmon of Calgary, been employed as R.C.M. Police Surgeon for the last two years?
2.	Have his services been dispensed with and for what cause?
3.	Who has been employed in Ms place and at what salary?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. To promote efficiency in the service.
3.	Dr. J. H. Birch, same salary, $50 per month.


SPRAYING AND DUSTING MATERIAL-NOVA SCOTIA IMPORTS, 1930
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	What was the^ total value of all spraying and dusting materials, insecticides and fungicides, entered at the ports of Nova Scotia, during the calendar year 1930?
2.	What is the value of all spraying and dusting materials, insecticides and fungicides, entered at the same ports since January 1, 1931?

Questions


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 
$43,846 1,273 SPRAYING AND DUSTING MACHINES-NOVA SCOTIA IMPORTS, 1931
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	What was the total number of spraying and dusting machines entered at the ports of Nova Scotia, since January 7, 1931?
2.	What was^ the value for duty purposes of such spraying and dusting machines so entered?
3.	How much duty was paid thereon?
4.	What was the total value of all agriculture implements and machinery entered at the said ports during the said period?
5.	What was the total amount of duty paid thereon during the said period?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: ,
1.	Number of spraying and dusting machines not recorded.
2 and 3. Value of imports of spraying and dusting machines entered for consumption in the province of Nova Scotia, and duty collected January 1 to April 30, 1931: Value, $14,361; Duty, $3,590.25.
*4 and 5. Value of all agricultural implements and machinery entered for consumption in the province of Nova Scotia, and duty collected, January 1 to April 30, 1931: Value, 824,918; Duty, $5,338.95.
year 1930, 1,422,512 pounds; (b) during the month of April, 1930, 168,000 pounds.
3.	See answers to questions 1 and 2.


FARM BUTTER-WHOLESALE PRICES, 1930-31
Mr. DUPUIS:: .
1.	What was the average wholesale price of farm butter per pound, in Canada, during the month of April, 1930, and the month of April. 1931?
2.	What was the lowest wholesale price per pound at which farm butter sold in Canada, during^ April, 1930, and April, 1931?
3.	What was the lowest wholesale price per pound at which farm butter sold in Canada during the month of May, 1930, and May, 1931?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1,	2 and 3. In recent years the amount of farm butter marketed has been decreasing steadily. At the present time it is not being marketed regularly in wholesale quantities, although retailers undoubtedly handle considerable amounts received direct in small lots. For this reason it is not possible to give definite prices as requested.


BRICK IMPORTS
[Stage Direction]
"Including spraying and dusting machines.

Mr. DUPUIS:: 1.	Was any butter imported from Australia to Canada during the year 1930?
2.	If so, how many pounds: (a) during the whole year 1930; (b) during the month of April, 1930?
3.	If not, why?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Canada's imports of butter, in pounds, from Australia were: (a) during the calendar


Mr. DUPUIS:: 1.	Was any brick imported to Canada since August 1. 1930?
2.	If so: (a) what quantity; (b) what kind; and (c) what was the value of said brick?
3.	From what countries was said brick imported, and what was the quantity, kind and value from each respective country?
4.	What is the duty charged on imported brick?
5.	Was the duty on brick increased since September 1, 1930?
0.	If so, what was the increase?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: 1,	2 and 3. Yes.
Imports, by Countries, of Brick Entered for Consumption in Canada: August 1, 1930, to
April 30, 1931
Item
Brick, building	
Country	M.
Great Britain	203
United States	11,438
Value $ 8.095 285,496
Totals.. ..

11,641



MOUNTED POLICE BARRACKS, PRINCE ALBERT- COAL SUPPLY

Mr. TOTZKE:: 1.	Who is supplying coal to the mounted police barracks at Prince Albert?
2.	What price is being paid for said coal?
3.	Were tenders asked for?
4.	If so, who sent in tenders and what was the amount of the tender in each ease?
5.	If not, will the department call for tenders ?
Questions


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	The McDiarmid Lumber Co., Ltd.
2.	$8 a ton.
3.	Yes.
4.	The McDiarmid Lumber Co. Ltd., only tender received.
5.	Answered by Nos. 3 and 4.



ESCUMINAC EAST POST OFFICE-MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Escuminac East post office, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been closed, and for what reason?
2.	Has the mail contract held by A. W. Richardson for that office, been cancelled, and is it the intention of the Post Office Department to give the contractor three months' salary in compensation for the cancelling of his contract?
3.	On whose recommendation were these changes made?
4.	Were any complaints made against this office, and what was their nature?
5.	Has any application been received to reopen an office in that district, and from whom?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Instructions have been given for the closing on June 1, 1931, on account of limited usefulness.
2.	Yes; no, contract expires on June 30, 1931.
3.	The District Superintendent of Postal Service, Quebec.
4.	Yes, charges of active political partisanship.
6.	No.



SAGUENAY AND NORTH SHORE INDIAN RESERVES -HIGHWAYS

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What was the total amount of money expended last year in order to repair, improve and maintain the various highways, roads and bridges, within the limits of the Indian reserves in the county of Saguenay and on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence?
2.	Where were the said moneys expended, and what amount in each case has been so expended?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to expend some money this year for the same purposes?
4.	Where will the said moneys be expended?
5.	How much in each place?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	$4,698.97.
2.	Seven Islands reserve, $699; Bersimis reserve, $3,999.97.
3.	No.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.



PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT-DREDGING PROGRAM, QUEBEC

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What dredging program does the Department of Public Works intend to execute during the summer and fall of 1931 in the province of
Quebec?
2.	Where will these works be done?
3.	By whom were they recommended?
4.	What are the names and numbers of dredges which are to be used in said works?
5.	When will these works be started?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker,
this question in its present form is out of order, as any program that the Department of Pubiic Works has is tenative from time to time. I submit that the question should be dropped.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I should like to know
where these various works are to be undertaken and when?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot give
my hon. friend any information. As I have said, the program is tentative and in the making.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I sustain the objection of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) that the question as framed is out of order. It will have to be dropped.
"iLE AXJX COUDRES PIERS"-LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who was appointed lighthouse keeper of the lie aux Coudres Piers?
2.	How many candidates applied for this position?
3.	Were any of the candidates ex-service men?
4.	If so, were they not appointed, and why?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Mr. Joseph Pedneault.
2.	Fifteen.
3.	Yes, one.
4.	No. The only returned soldier candidate was a resident of the mainland, and as there were a number of fully qualified men resident on the island, the Civil Service Commissioners were of the opinion that preference in appointment should go to one of these.



CHARLEVOIX, MONTMORENCY AND SAGUENAY- LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Were any lighthouse keepers, and light-keepers dismissed in the counties of Charlevoix, Montmorency and Saguenay since July 28, 1930?
2.	If so, why were they dismissed?
3.	What were the complaints made against these light and lighthouse keepers?

Questions
4.	By whom were the complaints made?
5.	Who are the new incumbents, if any, appointed since July 28, last, to replace them?
6.	By whom were they recommended?
7.	Did the new incumbents pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	One lightkeeper was dismissed for neglect of duty; two lightkeepers were dismissed for political partisanship.
3.	Complaints of neglect of duty were made against one lightkeeper; charges of political partisanship were preferred against two light-keepers.
4.	Complaints of neglect of duty were made by: D. G. Burgess, Thomas Grant, Georges Methot, Damas Gagnon, Joseph Methot. Charges of political partisanship were made by: Francis Gauthier, Sylvio Desbiens, Gerard Pare, Wellie Simard, J. A. Gilbert, Someon Ratte, Adrien Ratte, Charles Desbiens, Albert Giroux.
5 and 6. Thomas Grant, lightkeeper, Long Point of Mingan, recommended by Thomas Maher; Albert DeBlois, lightkeeper, Ste. Anne de Beaupre front light, recommended by Thomas Maher; Gaudiose Pare, lightkeeper, Ste. Anne de Beaupre back light, recommended by Thomas Maher.
7.	The appointments are not subject to the Civil Service Act.



TELEGRAPH LINE CHUTE-AUX-0TJTARDES EASTWARD

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What is the program which the government intends to carry out during the summer and fall of 1931, in connection with the reconstruction of the telegraph line on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, from Chute-aux-Outardes eastward?
2.	When will these works start?
3.	Who will be in charge of these works, under the direction of the Department of Public Works at Ottawa and Quebec?
4.	Who are the superintendents appointed to supervise said works in the various sections of the line where these reconstruction works are to be done?
5.	By whom were they recommended?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the objection which I took to question, No. 29 I wish to urge in connection with this one; it is of the same class and out of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The objection is sustained and the question will be struck off.



ST. ARSENE-VIGER MAIL TENDER

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	WThat was the original amount of tender of Mr. Ovide Lebel for carrying the mail between St. Arsene and Viger, Quebec?
2.	Did he reduce his tender?
3.	If so, by how much?
4.	On what date were tenders for this service received by the department?
5.	Was Mr. Lebel's tender submitted to the department after the other tenders were received?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1. $373 per annum.
2 and 3. No.
4.	On January 16, 1931.
5.	No.



FARM LOAN ACT-LOAN APPLICATIONS

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What are the names of the persons, in the parish of Sacre-Coeur, county of Saguenay, who have applied for loans on their properties under the provisions of the Farm Loan Act?
2.	For what amounts were loans requested?
3.	Were these applications granted?
4.	If so, when; if not, why?
1.	What are the names of the persons, in the parish of Bergeronnes, county of Saguenay, who have applied for loans on their properties under the provisions of the Farm Loan Act?
2.	For what amounts were loans requested?
3.	Were these applications granted?
4.	If so, when: if not, why?
1.	What are the names of the persons, in the counties of Montmorency, Charlevoix and Saguenay, who have applied for loans on their properties under the provisions of the Farm Loan Act?
2.	For what amounts were loans requested?
3.	Were these applications granted?
4.	If so, when; if not, why?


Richard Bedford Bennett: These three questions,
Mr. Speaker, are all in the same class and, as you will observe, they cannot be answered. The suggestion that we should give the names of persons who have applied for loans on their properties under the provisions of the Farm Loan Act is something that, I think the house will admit, cannot possibly be entertained.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: My purpose in placing
these questions on the order paper was to find out what loans were at present in sufferance so that if need be, I could help the people concerned.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The information asked
for being confidential, and the questions being objected to by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett), they will be struck out.
Questions



INTERIOR DEPARTMENT TRANSLATORS

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1. How many translators were employed in the Interior department on August 1, 1930?
, 2. How many translators are now employed in the Interior department?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Ten.
2.	One.



*MANUFACTURERS-WOLFE COUNTY, QUEBEC

Mr. LAFLECHE:: Who are the manufacturers and saw-mill owners in the county of Wolfe, Quebec, who have made their income tax and sales tax reports to the government during the years 1919 to 1930?
Mr. BE'NNETT:	This question, Mr. Speaker, as I think you will readily agree, is of a type which thus far has not been answered in the House of Commons, on the ground .that the department could not make known the names of individuals or firms. That was the attitude taken by the former administration.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This question being out
of order, it will be dropped.
Question dropped.



DISMISSAL OP POSTMASTERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GOBE1L:
1.	How many postmasters were dismissed in Canada from January 1, 1922, to August 4, 1930, and how many for each year?
2.	How many by counties were dismissed during the above mentioned period?
Mr. SAUVE:: 1. (a) 1,160.
(b) 1922	 57
1928	 164
1924		 HO
1925		 61
1926		 154
1927		 378
1928		 123
1929		 69
1930		 44
1,160
2.
Nova Scotia:
Antligonish-Guysborough	 55
Cape Breton North-Victoria	 38
Cape Breton South	 6
Chichester	 3
Cumberland	 8
Digby-Annapolis	 17
Halifax	 20
Hants-Kings	 9

Nova Scotia-Con.
Inverness	 56
Piotou	 1
Queens-Lunenburg	 22
Richmond-West Cape Breton	 27
Sheiburne-Yarmouth	 5
Prince Edward Island:
Kings	 i
Prince	 7
Queens	 3
,	11
New Brunswick:
Charlotte	 2
Gloucester	 42
Kent	 19
N orthumberland	 14
Restigouche-Madawaska	 21
Royal	 24
Saint John-Albert	 5
Victoria-Cadeton	 10
Westmorland	 21
Y ork-Sunbury	 5
.	163
Quebec:
Argeniteuil	 2
Bagot	 3
Beauce	 7
Be!auharnois	 1
Bellechasse	 6
Be rthi er-M asbin onge	  3
Bona venture	 37
Brome-Missisquod	 5
Cartier	 2
Ohamibly-Vereheres	 4
Champlain	 6
Charlevoix-Saguenay	 33
Cbateauguay-Humtingdon	 3
Chicoutimi	 7
Compton	 9
Dorchester	 17
Drummond-Arthabaska	 10
Gaspe	 47
Hochelaga	 1
Hull	 1
J'acqmes-Cartiar	 2
Jolieibte	 2
Kamouraska	 7
Labelle	 4
Lake St. John	 14
Laprairie-Naipierville	 2
L'Assomption-Montcalm	 5
Laval-Two Mountains	 5
Levis	 5
LTsllet	 3
Lo.tbinie.re	 6
Maisonneuve	 1

Questions
Quebec-Con.
Matane	
Megantiic	
Miontmagny	
Mount Royal	
Nicollet	
Pontiac	
Por.tneuf	
Quebec-Montmorency.. .
Quebec West	
Richelieu	
Richmond-W olf e	
Rimouski	
St. Denis	
St-Hyacinthe-Roimlle.. .
St-Johns-Jberville	
Sheftord	
Sherbrooke	
Stanstead	
Temisoouaita	
Terrebonne	
Three Rivers-St. Maurice Vaudreuil-Soulanges.. ..
Wright	
Yamaska	
Ontario:
Algoma, East Riding	
Algoma, West Riding	
Brant	
Carleton	
DufferinJSimeoe	
Durham	
Elgin West	
Essex, East Riding	
Essex, South Riding	
Fort William	
Fromtenac-Addington	
*Grey North	
Halton	
Hamilton West	
Kemora-Rainy River	
Lincoln	
Muskoka-Ontario	
Nipissing	
Norfolk-Blgin	
Northumberland	
Ontario	
Ottawa City	
Parbdale	
Parry Sound	
Perth South	
Port Arthur-Thunder Bay. Prince Edward-Lennox.. ., Renfrew, North Riding.. . Renfrew, South Riding.. ..
Russell	
Stormont	
Timiskaming, North Riding
Ontario-Con.
Timiskaimdng, South Riding
Toronto East	
Toronto East Centre....
Toronto-High Park	
Toronto Northeast	
Toronto Northwest	
Toronto-Scarborough.. ..
Toronto South	
Toronto West Centre.. ..
Waterloo North	
Welland	
York South	
York West	
Manitoba:
Brandon	
Dauphin	
Lisgar	
Macdonald	
Marquette	
Neapawa	
Nelson	
Portage la Prairie
Provencher	
St-Boniface	
Selkirk	
Souris	
Springfield	
Saskatchewan:
Assiniboia	
Humboldt	
Kindersley	
Last Mountain.. Long Lake.. .. Mackenzie.. .. Maple Creek.. .
Melfort	
Melville	
Moose Jaw.. .. North Battleford Prince Albert.. .
Regina	
Rosetawn	
South Battleford Swift Current..
Weyburn	
Willow Bunch.. Yorkiton	
Alberta: Acadia.. .. Athaibaska.. Battle River Bow River.. Camrose.. .
9
1
9
3
3
3
5
4
2
3
2
4
. 6
. 2
. 1
.	4
. 1
. 1
. 2
.	3
. 2
.	3
. 1
. 1
. 2
.	7
. 1
. 6
.	7
. 2
. 1
. 2
. 2
. 1
.	4
. 2
.	3
.	5
. 1
. 2
.	7
. 2
. 14
Questions

Alberta-Con.
Edmonton East	 1
Edmonton West	 2
Lethbridge	 1
Maeleod	 l
Medicine Hat	 3
Peace River	 16
Vegreville	 3
Wetaskiwin	 2
British Columbia:
Cariboo	 3
Oomox-A'lbemi	 5
Frazer Vailley	 1
Kootenay East	 2
Kootenay West	 3
Nanaimo	 3
Skeena	 2
Vancouver North		1
Yale	" .. ..	2



W. P. CRAIG

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	_ On whose recommendation was W. F. Craig, preventive officer at Perth, New Brunswick, dismissed?
2.	What was the reason assigned for his dismissal ?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: 1 and 2. On a charge in writing of a member of parliament that to his personal knowledge the officer had been guilty of active political partisanship.



POST OFFICE REVENUE-1931

Mr. VENIOT:: 
Mr. SAUVE:: 1 and 2. Revenue figures for the year in question not yet complete.
'[DOT]'CENSUS ENUMERATORS


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Is the government aware that in the city of Ottawa the French Canadian element constitutes 28-31 per cent of its population?
2.	Is the government aware that out of the 94 census enumerators just appointed in Ottawa 10 only are French Canadians?
3.	If so, is it the intention of the government to order the immediate rectification of this situation?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion this question is not in proper form and should be redrafted. It will have to go off the order paper in its present form.
Question dropped.



REVENUE FROM SALE OF POSTAGE STAMPS

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	How much money was received in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930, for sale of stamps on letters?
2.	How many letters originating in Canada were handled in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: 1 and 2. Postage stamps once sold may be used for prepayment of postage on any class of mail matter. It follows there is no record of postage stamps affixed to letters as distinct from postage stamps affixed to other classes of mail matter.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What are the mail contracts in the counties of Montmorency, Charlevoix, Saguenay, and the North Shore for which the Post Office Department will invite tenders this year?
2.	Were complaints made since July 28, 1930, against the previous holders of these mail contracts?
3.	If so, what was their nature?
4.	By whom were said complaints made?
. 5. When does the Post Office Department intend to invite new- tenders for these various mail contracts ?


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-DREDGE EMPLOYEES, QUEBEC
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What were the names of the officers and employees in charge of the various dredges operated by the Department of Public Works, in the province of Quebec, on July 28, 1930?
2.	Are the same officers and employees still employed this year?
3.	If not, why were changes made?
4.	If complaints were made to the Department of Public Works against these officers and employees, what "were the nature of said complaints?
5.	If new officers and employees are employed on these dredges this year what are their names ?
6.	By whom were they recommended?
7.	What are their addresses?
8.	Did they pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?

Business oj the House



RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION

Mr. POULIOT:: *
1.	When the hon. Solicitor-General left for the Imperial conference?
2.	When he returned?
3.	While he was at sea or abroad, whether he communicated by mail, wireless, cablegram, or wireless telephone, with anyone regarding the proposed building of a new station at Riviere du Loup?
4.	If so, on what dates?



REPORT ON OYSTER CULTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MaoLEAN (Prince): I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether a report has been submitted to the department by Mr. Needier, who is in charge of the biological station in Prince county in connection with oyster culture, and if that report will be tabled.
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Fisheries) :: There is a report in the department from Doctor Needier, and if it has been the practice in the department to table these reports as they come in, that practice will be followed in this instance.



QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) (Translation) :: May I ask the hon. Minister of Marine whether the sum of $1,600,000 mentioned by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as the amount required this year by the Quebec Harbour Commission, is a balance of the $10,000,000 appropriated by parliament or whether it is the vote which the department intends to ask parliament in this respect?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: I would request the hon. member for Quebec South to kindly place his question on the Orders of the day and it will be answered in writing.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to give the debate on the budget right of way, once it is entered upon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I observe that on May 7 last year the right hon. gentleman, then Prime Minister, moved that standing order 28, respecting the committee of ways and means, be suspended. The decision as to what shall be done will be announced within the six-day period that was made use of last year. It is not definitely determined what action shall be taken.



PRINTING OF TARIFF SCHEDULES FOR PURPOSES OF COMPARISON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend if his attention has been drawn to the request which has been made for a comparative table showing the rates under the customs tariff of 1930, and the changes which have been made since or are in contemplation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do I understand the right hon. gentleman to desire the reprinting of the schedules with which we dealt at the short session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The
understanding at the last session was that we would have an opportunity during this session-


Richard Bedford Bennett: To discuss those matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -to discuss those matters, and it would assist us very materially if we had before us the changes made at the last session, together with those proposed during this session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will run to very
substantial expense. Last year it will be recalled that we did print them, and they were printed the year before. This will mean the printing of the three tables, and to print in large numbers the original tariff on all the items as it stood before the Dunning budget, and as it was affected by the changes of 1930 and of this year will involve a considerable expense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not desired to have the tariff printed as it was before the Dunning budget, but rather as it stood after the Dunning budget had been introduced. As far as the expense is concerned, I believe that in the end the expense will be more than saved by the opportunities of quick comparison which will thereby be afforded.
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot



INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now may I
ask my right hon. friend whether the house now has before it all the legislation which the government intend to introduce, with the exception of such legislation as may be based upon the resolutions which will follow the budget?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are some departmental measures. There is a measure which I mentioned in connection with the consolidation of the statutes dealing with the expenditures of public moneys, and two if not three, other measures which we will determine within the next week whether or not to bring down. The reason I gave the answer I did give in connection with the action to be taken as to the budget was that we have a Copyright Act which has been reported by a committee. Our accession to the Rome convention must be signified by the 1st day of July, and it may be desirable to make an exception in the case of the Copyright Act and one or two other measures, notably an interim supply bill, before the motion which was passed last year on May 7 is submitted to the house. By that time we will be able to indicate clearly all the measures that will be submitted.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN -FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) (Translation): May I ask the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) on what date may I expect an answer to an order of the house that first appeared as a question on the orders of the day and which, inadvertently, was changed to an order of the house, No. 285, with reference to employees of the Mikula who are residents of the county of Temiscouata.
Will the hon. Minister of Marine be kind enough to inform us when an answer may be expected?
Alfred Duranleau: Can the hon. member tell us exactly what was the nature of the question asked?


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall send over a copy of the orders of the house to the hon. minister.


Alfred Duranleau: With reference to the question just asked as regards the Mikula, I have had the answer before me for the last few days and I was wondering what had happened to this question, noticing that it had been struck off the orders of the day. If an order exists, I shall immediately place the answer on the table of the house.



IMPERIAL CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANOOIS POULIOT (Ternis-oouata) (Translation): May I ask the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) if he will be kind enough to inform us when we can expect an answer to the order of the house of May 28, with reference to his trip in connection with the Imperial conference?
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) (Translation):: May I inform my hon. friend that we shall follow the usual practice, and when this information reaches me I shall place it on the table of the house.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to another occurrence during the same sitting of the house. This is a matter which will be of interest to all hon. members. When on June 1, question 59 was called, it was answered by the minister of Public Works, and at the same time the right hon. Prime Minister called "Order for return." In Hansard of that day, at pages 2198 and 2199, there appears the answer to the question, while in the votes and proceedings of the same day there is the order for return, which already had been answered in Hansard. I would like to take the part of the ministers and ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to give them a freer hand in the house. Then I have another question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman
should not impose unduly on the indulgence of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: Very well; that is enough for to-day.

The Budget-Mr. Ralston



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 1, consideration of the motion of 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.
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that at least my first word to-day can be a word of congratulation to my right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Bennett) upon the address which he delivered on Monday last. I fear, sir, that sentiments of this character will be but few in the course of the remarks I shall address to the house to-day, and therefore I hasten now to assure the right hon. gentleman that both the house and the country appreciate the care which he took and the thoroughness which he manifested in putting on Hansard a very complete record of the business affairs of the Dominion of Canada for some time back. I am sure that the house, and particularly those members who have been here but a short time, welcome statements from those in authority as to the affairs of this country, and I have no doubt that the information which the Prime Minister has given will be of assistance not only in this debate but in the future as well.
We all realize, I think, that the Prime Minister is a busy man, and if I had any complaint to make touching his mode of procedure on Monday last it would be this: I feel that if there had to be any curtailment of information or any abbreviation of discussion, such abbreviation might perhaps have been more advisable so far as the first portion of the right hon. gentleman's address was concerned. And I, for one, regret, particularly in the position in which I find myself to-day, that the right hon. gentleman saw fit to deal so briefly with matters which to my mind, if I may humbly suggest it, were of transcendent importance as compared with the matters of the past to which he referred in the first part of his speech. In view of the fact that he did refer to the past, and placed on Hansard a good many figures with respect to the last few years, I may be pardoned if I take the same privilege, at least to a limited extent. I do wish, however, in what I have to say, to deal with the more immediate past and with the present and future.
Let me say first of all that, in my opinion, it is a matter of regret to the country that the Prime Minister has found it necessary to introduce his budget at so late a date in the year. He realizes, I have no doubt, perhaps
better than any other man in thi3 house, how necessary it is that business men should have some definite idea of the conditions under which business transactions are to be carried on. He understands that constantly forecasts are made with respect to what the tariff will be. He knows that these forecasts are unsettling. He knows that they are likely to lead to far-reaching results so far as our business men, those engaged in commerce and, as well, the primary producers of the country are concerned. They enter into or refrain from transactions in the light of the information they receive on the budget, and action or inaction may prove to their advantage or to their detriment as the case may be. Obviously, therefore, it is a matter for extreme regret that the right hon. member should have waited until practically summer before bringing down his budget. I am giving him full credit for having kept his pledge to bring down the budget in May: I am regarding the budget as having been virtually brought down on May 31, inasmuch as that date fell on Sunday. But even so, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend's budget is considerably later than any budget that has been introduced by any of his predecessors. There is one exception to this statement. It is true, there was one late budget in 1922; in that year the annual financial statement was brought down within the last ten days of May. I mention this fact now because I feel that the reason for the lateness of the Prime Minister's budget on this occasion is a matter which is germane to the discussion. And as a very junior member of the house, compared to my right hon. friend, I feel it my duty to refer to something which I am sure is in the minds of the business community of the country, of the members of this house, and generally of the people of this dominion. It is this.
I submit that the reason for lateness of the budget this year must be attributed to the Prime Minister himself. With the capacity he has for work and the ability which he possesses to put through matters that engage his attention, the right hon. member has seen fit to insist upon retaining two important positions in the government of the country. Nothing can be done in relation to the budget until the Minister of Finance gives his approval. And the Minister of Finance cannot give his approval so long as he is engaged in some other direction as Prime Minister. The consequence is that the business people of the country has been kept in a state of uncertainty day after day, week after week and month after month, pending the completion of the budget. It is unfair to my right hon. friend; it is unfair to his government;
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

and it is unfair to those who are interested in the matters which are being dealt with that this delay should take place and this unsatisfactory state of affairs continue.
I know what my right hon. friend has in mind in this regard. He believes that under the constitution taxation and the tariff come within the Department of Finance. He believes, and properly, that he cannot delegate to his Minister of National Revenue the duties with which he is charged and the responsibilities which are his in this respect. Tariff and taxation are properly matters that come within the Finance department, and that is all the more reason why the Finance department should be administered by a minister who has the fullest time and every opportunity to devote to that single task and responsibility, and who is not obliged to deal with multitudinous affairs, as my right hon. friend is bound to do as Prime Minister. It is for this reason that I say that the blame, if blame there be-and I submit that there is-for the lateness of the budget this year rests upon the shoulders of the right hon gentleman himself. And if he will permit me once more, humbly, respectfully but very earnestly, to make the suggestion, I submit to him that in my opinion the 'time has come in the affairs of this country, when, for his own sake and for the sake of the country as well, he ought to hand over the responsibilities of the portfolio of Finance to someone else in order that those responsibilities may be promptly and properly discharged.
Let me point out to my right hon. friend that the condition of things with respect to the administration of the Finance department has resulted in something more than a late budget. Under the system which my hon. friends opposite have adopted, of dealing with tariff matters, the public can no longer appear before a tariff board. They must wait around the doors of the Finance department and must be heard when they can; and more often than not they are not heard at all The result is that the consideration of budget and tariff matters, from the point of view of the public at large, is extremely unsatisfactory. I have no desire whatever to make invidious distinctions, but those who have special briefs to present are enabled to present them, while the public, who ordinarily might attend tariff board hearings, have no opportunity at all to be heard, especially in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is so busy in connection with other matters arising outside the Department of Finance.
My right hon. friend, at the close of his address-and, I repeat, it was a very com-
plete and thorough address saving the criticism which I have made with regard to the latter part of it, which in my opinion deserved more attention and explanation-and after an eloquent peroration, appealed for the cooperation and the united interest, as he put it, of all members of this house in consideration of the affairs of the country. May I suggest to him that appeal would have come with greater force had he, in the discharge of the duty which fell upon him, not seen fit to go out of his way, not in one instance only but in several, to make rather partisan comparisons and somewhat severe attacks with reference to gentlemen on this side of the house, and to indulge in a good deal of recrimination in the course of an address which has come to be regarded in this house and in the country at large as probably the most momentous and dignified deliverance during the entire session of parliament.
Before I deal with other matters I want to mention one or two of these because I do believe they should not be allowed to go unanswered. For some reason or other my right hon. friend seemed for a moment to get out of line with the address he was delivering. In the course of his remarks he made tihe statement that the Liberals had made every effort to bring about the failure of the Imperial economic conference. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked him whether he had not been given a free hand, and he replied that an effort had been made to belittle and if possible to destroy the adjourned conference at Ottawa. I want to say to my right hon. friend if he does not know it already, and I think he does, that such a suggestion is as false as it is absurd. If that adjourned conference does not come off, the man most responsible is the right hon. gentleman himself, who left England, after some remarks had been made, with the statement that " if her proposal is to be thus contemptuously rejected Canada could only accept the rejection and act accordingly by embracing other means at hand of further strengthening her economic position in the world." That attitude did more damage to the Imperial economic conference than anything which the Liberal party could have done. We took care during the course of a debate earlier in the session to put on record our attitude and our opinion with regard to that .conference, and we did it in order that Great Britain, the sister dominions and the world at large generally might know that notwithstanding the attitude and methods which the right hon. gentleman

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
and his friends had pursued, there was a large body of opinion in this country and in this house which was strongly in favour of, and would welcome and support, negotiations to be conducted in a broader spirit of tolerance than the spirit shown by the right hon. gentleman. We hoped as a result of that debate, and we still hope, notwithstanding the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman that the adjourned Imperial economic conference may not come off, that he and his advisers will even yet reform their attitude and change their methods and reconstruct their proposals so that the place which Canada occupied in Great Britain before the last Imperial conference will be restored to her, and that in the light of that altered attitude and that improved atmosphere the purpose may be accomplished for which the Imperial economic conference was called.
In speaking of the New Zealand treaty the right Ihon. gentleman shook his finger at this side of the house and said that we over here were the ones responsible for New Zealand withdrawing from Canada the privileges of the British preference. I want to point out to him and to the house, that it was his party that moved an amendment to the effect that the New Zealand treaty should be abrogated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It never should have been made.


James Layton Ralston: The treaty was abrogated and no suggestion was made of withdrawing the British preference until last session when my right hon. friend struck New Zealand a blow in the face by doubling the tariff against New Zealand butter. I think my right hon. friend will find that the attitude and feeling in New Zealand was that the treaty could be abrogated if it was not satisfactory-there was a provision in the treaty itself for abrogation-but when the duty of butter was made eight cents instead of four she found it was time to look for trade in other places. This is an illustration of the difficulties which my hon. friends get into with regard to trade. They are very anxious for export trade, but to have export trade you must have some import trade as well.
Another matter to which I desire to refer, perhaps much more important than those I have mentioned, was the criticism directed at those on this side in connection with the Canadian National Railways. As I said before, those on this side of the house and the country generally, welcome opinions and particularly from a gentleman so well informed as the right hon. the Prime Minister, but I do not believe he did himself justice and I am sure he did not do this house or this country justice by the way in which he dealt with the finances of the Canadian National Railways. I want to put on record what my right hon. friend said on that occasion because it is only by reading it in full that one can get the implication. Page 2159 of Hansard shows my right hon. friend as saying:
The balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways, through the profit and loss account indicates a loss in the eight-year period of 346 millions of dollars. The first and largest item making up this loss consists of 253 millions of dollars charged in the railway accounts-but not paid-as interest on the sum of 604 millions of dollars of direct assistance by way of cash loans which the government has given to the company. As between the government and the system, this is only a book-keeping item. The actual burden of this liability was taken over by the dominion and has been carried by the taxpayers of the country.
And further on he said:
The situation, therefore, is that since 1923 an additional capital liability of 400 millions of dollars has been assumed in respect of the railways, involving an increase in the annual interest charge of 20 millions of dollars. The system has failed to earn its interest charges during the period by a round sum of 86 millions, and the government had itself borne the carrying charges in respect of 604 millions of dollars contributed direct to the system, as well as, since 1927, operating losses of $17,500,000 on eastern lines.
And then on page 2160:
The Canadian National Railways Act provides that the governor in council takes the position of shareholders under the Railway Act, and when I point out the sums that have been expended and the obligations that have been created during the last eight years, I do so because it has been done at the initiation of the government which is now the official opposition. Bear that in mind. I do think there is a failure on the part of the Canadian people to understand and appreciate the extent and character of the obligations which have thus been placed upon them. There you have $86,000,000 of a deficit in interest earning power in the last eight years, in addition to which the people of this country paid interest on $604,000,000 advance for the running of the enterprise.
My right hon. friend should first be fair to the railway and then perhaps after that the house and the country will be fair to those on this side. In fairness to the railway, let me point out that the 1604,000,000 to which my right hon. friend referred would appear to anyone reading the passages which I have quoted as being advances during the past eight years.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
22S6
The Budget-Mr. Ralston


James Layton Ralston: That 8604,000,000 was loans made not to the company-my right hon. friend used the word " company "-but made as far back as 1911 to the Canadian Northern Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, for purchases of railway equipment, and finally 857,000,000 out of the $604,000,000 to the Canadian National Railways. Those loans begin not in 1923, the beginning of the eight-year period mentioned by my right hon. friend, but back in 1911. My right hon. friend is quite correct in saying that this was a bookkeeping entry; it was nothing else, and I as a private member of the house have always understood it as a bookkeeping entry. These advances were made from time to time by the government to the various sections of what is now the Canadian National Railways. The railway has never been expected to pay a dollar of interest on this $604,000,000; it has always remained on the books and some day when the financial reconstruction of the railway takes place that amount will be wiped off. The suggestion contained in the last passage of the remarks of my right hon. friend is that the gentlemen who are now the official opposition " initiated " the charges for this interest on the $604,000,000. Only $57,000,000 was initiated since 1923; there was one amount of $42,000,000 paid to the Canadian Northern back in 1922, or practically only $100,000,000 in all, out of that $604,000,000 that was advanced under a Liberal administration. I want the house and the country to understand that my right hon. friend's insinuation that this was initiated by hon. gentlemen on this side, is incorrect. But what aJbout the railway? Did my right hon. friend give a true picture of the finances of the railway in respect of that matter? I think the report of the railway to December 31, 1930, has been brought down to the house. I find there a record of the $604,000,000. I think my right hon. friend mentioned $614,000,000 because he was dealing with matters down to March 31, 1931. instead of December 31, 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I dealt with the public accounts. My hon. friend is dealing with the calendar year.


James Layton Ralston: I am dealing with the accounts as supplied by the Canadian National, and if there be any discrepancy between the figures given by my right hon. friend and myself, it is due to the three months' difference between December 31, 1930, and March 31, 1931. There were loans amounting to $604,000,000 from the Dominion of Canada, loans which, as I said, were never intended to be paid back, and which were spoken of re-

peatedly throughout the debate to which I shall refer in a minute, as bookkeeping entries.
Mr. MANION; Why does the hon. member say that they were never intended to be paid back?


James Layton Ralston: The expression "bookkeeping entry" has been used repeatedly. As a private member I always understood that they would not be paid back. Perhaps I am wrong, and the Minister of Railways has a perfect right to say that they will be. I do not, however, think they will. Only a year or two ago the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), speaking in the house, again referred to them as bookkeeping entries, and I assume that would indicate they were not intended to be a permanent charge against the railways.


Robert James Manion: Only because the railway
has not been able to pay them back.


James Layton Ralston: With all due deference
may I say I do not think my hon. friend is quite right about that. The fact that the railway has not been able to pay it back does not make it any the less a debt; but when you call it a bookkeeping entry, that means you do not intend that it shall be paid back..
In addition to the $604,000,000, this record shows that there is $1,168,000,000 due to the public on guaranteed and unguaranteed liabilities, and with respect to that, the position of the railway has been that if we assume it has paid the full interest to the public on $1,168,000,000, or a charge of about $50,000,000 a year, straight through since 1921, after paying that it has a deficit of only $86,000,000. That is the $86,000,000 to which my right hon. friend referred. One would have thought there had been some recent advance of the $604,000,000. The deficit of $346,000,000 to which my right hon. friend referred is arrived at by charging interest, not only on amounts which are due to the public, but on the $604,000,000 bookkeeping entry. My right hon. friend admits that at another point in his address.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My figures are taken from the company's report.


James Layton Ralston: Certainly. But there is
the inference on the record. My right hon friend may not have intended to convey it, but he certainly gave me a wrong impression as I listened to him the other day. I find the $86,000,000 is a deficit after paying every dollar due to the public on account of interest on the $1,168,000,000, operating expenses and everything of that kind. When

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
was that deficit incurred? Most of it was incurred in three years as follows:
Year	Deficit
1923		 $21,000,000
1924		 23,000,000
1930	 29,000,000
The latter is the only one to which my right hon friend referred. That makes $73,000,000 in those three years of the $86,000,000. Yet my right hon. friend with considerable alarm says: You have here a deficit of $86,000,000 in interest earning power in the last eight years, in addition to which the people of this country paid interest on $604,000,000 advance for the running of the enterprise. He does not believe the people understand the obligations which have been imposed upon them.
Nobody so far has had any doubt about the matter. My right hon. friends sat in the committee on the Canadian National Railways year after year. I am sure resolutions have been moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) for the adoption of the report in connection with the Canadian National Railways. I think it was in 1929 my hon. friend made a very illuminating address in regard to the finances of the Canadian National and he did not find any particular fault with the loans amounting to $604,000,000 which had existed since 1911. He did not seem to think the railway had done so badly, and I may say that of the $1,168,000,000 due to the public, a certain number of perpetual debentures date from 1875. Therefore there is no need of registering surprise at this late date with regard to the finances of the Canadian National. They have been before the house continuously and and my hon. friends have had every opportunity to investigate and bring them to the attention of the house.


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend mean that the amount of $1,168,000,000 has existed since 1875? I do not think wrong figures should go out to the public.


James Layton Ralston: A portion of it.


Robert James Manion: That is quite different.
It was only a very small portion of it.


James Layton Ralston: I can go further back
than that. Some date back from 1858 and some from 1883. I did not think I conveyed the idea that the whole amount of $1,168,000,000 had existed since 1875, and I am sure nobody who has sat in the house and voted moneys to be lent to the Canadian National would be under misapprehension in that respect. I submit to my right hon. friend that no good purpose can be served by giving the
impression that the finances of the Canadian National Railways have suddenly gone wrong. The finances of the Canadian National Railways have been spread on reports which have been placed before the house year after year; they have been investigated by committees of the house; officials of the road have been before the committee, and it is not doing any good service to the country, or the Canadian National, this great experiment in public ownership which we are conducting, for the Prime Minister in one breath rather to insinuate that the railway is behind some $604,000,000 which he himself calls a bookkeeping entry, and in the next to insinuate that something wrong has been done by hon. members on this side to permit that state of affairs to continue, when the fact is that everbody in the house is cognizant of the situation and the only difference between this year and last is a deficit of $29,000,000 which has been added to the expenses and that is after paying interest to the public on an amount of about $1,200,000,000.
I want to refer hon. members to what was said not very long ago by the minister who sits to the right of the Prime Minister. On March 8, 1928, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), as reported at page 1122 of Hansard, had this to say about the railway that had all these loans and deficits:
Nobody will pretend-not the Minister of Railways, for he knows too well, nor the Minister of Finance-that this government or any member of it is entitled to a particle of credit for the improved showing made in connection with the Canadian National Railways. The management of the road is supposed to be entirely divorced from government control.
I commend that to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister who suggested that the Minister of Railways had been able to get a coal furnace installed in the Canadian National railway hotel in Vancouver. I thought the railway was free of government control altogether.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No man knows better
than my hon. friend that it was not.


James Layton Ralston: To continue:
It is under the absolute control, so far as management goes, of Sir Henry Thornton and his board, without government interference, and they are entitled to the full credit for the result obtained-$125,000,000 of relief for the treasury of Canada in four years.
That is the testimony of 'my hon. friend the Minister of Justice only three years ago. Here is another one:
The real fact is that the Finance minister and the Minister of Railways are endeavouring to appropriate to themselves the credit that is due to Sir Henry Thornton. They are endeav-
22S8
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

ouring to bask in the reflected glory of the president of the Canadian National Railways without there being the slightest foundation for their claiming any credit for his achievement.
The point which I desire to make is this, that if credit be due to anyone in respect to the reduction of the net debt of the dominion that credit is directly due to the management of the Canadian National Railways; for the improved showing -which they have been able to make and for the relief which for the last four years they have been able to afford to the treasury of Canada, without one move of the hand or one stroke of the pen by the Finance minister or any of his colleagues, Sir Henry Thornton and his board have accomplished that feat, and to them credit is due and to them the thanks of the country should be returned.
That was three years ago. This is two years ago-the same gentleman speaking. On March 7, 1929, as reported at page 742 of Hansard of that date, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice says:
The result of operations for last year was very gratifying, and I would ask the Minister of Finance to note that the treasury of this country has been relieved very substantially for the last four or five years through the successful operation of Canada's National railway system. On January 1, 1924, an announcement was made by the president that for the first time in its history the national system had produced a net revenue over operating expenses, for the year 1923, amounting to $4,155,000; in 1924 that revenue had increased to $18,000,000; in 1925 it had increased again to $33,000,000; in 1926 the revenue was $48,000,000; in 1927 it dropped back to $42,000,000; and for 1928 we have the wonderful result of a surplus in net operating expenses amounting to $58,000,000. It will take $50,000,000 of that amount to pay the interest on the bonds which the public hold. I understand the management of the road will pay that interest this year and will still have on hand a balance of $8,000,000 for other purposes.
That was the year before last.


Mr. DUFF:: Who said that?


James Layton Ralston: That was Mr. Guthrie.
He went on to say:
_ But what about the money it owes to the dominion treasury? The minister intimates that the sum of $32,000,000 odd is owed this year to the government for interest. It is put down in the books as a debt of the railway, but is purely a book-keeping transaction, and I presume it will be added to the $1,258,000,000 which the company owed to us at the beginning of the year-
If I may interject, I think my hon. friend was wrong in saying that that amount was owing to the government:
-making the total indebtedness of the system to the dominion treasury about $1,300,000,000 and to the public about $1,000,000,000.
In both those respects I think my hon. friend is somewhat wrong. He continued:
In respect, however, to the National railway we on this side of the house are all optimists. 
We look upon that railway as practically our own infant and our own creature.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Where
is the baby now?


James Layton Ralston: He went on:
Now, when this wonderful Canadian National railway system has more than justified itself, now that it is rapidly becoming in the nature of a great national asset-
That was in 1929.
*-now that we may look forward to a day, not perhaps in my lifetime, but in the lifetime of some here, when this system will start repaying the government of Canada part at least of the money it owes to the treasury, to the day when it will have a clean sheet, as it ultimately will have, in regard to its bonded indebtedness to the public; now that the system is in this, a thoroughly prosperous condition, this government desires to treat it as its own creature. Whereas in 1919 it tried to cast it out as base-born, now it wants to consider it as its legitimate offspring, and to profit by its success. Let me say, in concluding my remarks on this phase of the subject, that the National Railway system in this country constitutes a national monument to the ability and statesmanship and determination of a single man, a member of a former Conservative government, and subsequently Prime Minister of that government. It is to his ability and foresight, to his statesmanship and determination, that the people of Canada are indebted for this wonderful system of National railways.
Now that the road has had a deficit of $29,000,000 this year, those who were so anxious to claim paternity do not seem to want the infant even on their doorstep, and are proposing to turn it out in a cold world. My right hon. friend I think has not done himself or the road justice. For some reason it suits his purpose to be critical of the Canadian National Railways. I submit that the road is entitled to a fair presentation of its case, and to have its record put on the Hansard of this house just the same as any other public undertaking, and that the presentation which my right hon. friend made on last Monday did not do justice to that splendid experiment in national ownership.
May I read an editorial which sets out better than I could the attitude which I think , the people of Canada generally will hold with regard to the Canadian National Railways? It is from the Ottawa Journal of yesterday morning, June 3, and is headed, "Canadian National Finances." It reads:
Mr. Bennett's exhaustive review of the,,, financial position of the Canadian National Railways calls for serious reflection. It does not, however, constitute any basis for attacks upon the system by mere enemies of public ownership. The Canadian National manan, ment, during the last few years spent a deal of money. But they spent it, mainly, because the country demanded it, because Canada insisted upon the road giving efficient and first-

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
class service. This could not be given, the Canadian National Railways could not be placed upon a fair competitive basis with its great privately owned rival, without heavy expenditure, and this being so, little sense or fairness exists in any present cry that there should have been more of economy.
All of us demanded a Canadian National system with a first-class road-bed, and first-class rolling stock and equipment, and fine hotels and stations, and a lot of branch lines; and it was absurd and is absurd to suppose that all of these things could be provided without heavy capital expenditures. In the circumstances, therefore, no good will come from getting into a panic, and nothing but harm will come from any attempt that may be made by enemies of public ownership to use the abnormal conditions of the existing depression to try to damn the administration of the road or the principle under which it is being operated.
It is not that public ownership should be given a blank cheque, or that the public should be careless of its property; it is simply that the situation should be dealt with and regarded with fairness, and must not be permitted as the basis of a new attack by those who are too anxious to see the public ownership idea discredited.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is that from?
Mr. RALSTON; From the Ottawa Journal of June 3.
Mr. CASGRAIN; Friendly to this government.


James Layton Ralston: Now I come to matters to which my right hon. friend more particularly referred in wha-t is known as his budget. He was most particular to inform the house and the country that for the first time in a good many years we were getting a budget. The information which he gave, as I said before, was most thorough, but there were some things that I found missing even in that budget which was supposed to contain everything that a budget should. There were some ihings missing which most of us were accustomed to see and hear in the budgets that have been delivered in this house in the last three or four years. I did not hear, and am unable to read in that budget which my "ight hon. friend delivered on Monday, anything which would indicate that there was a surplus during the time that my right hon. friend was in office. I have here a few figures extracted from the previous budgets which have been delivered. In 1926-27 there was a surplus of $44,817,000; in 1927-28, a suiplus of $67,000,000; in 1928-29, a surplus of $81,000,000; in 1929-1030 an estimated surplus of $44,000,000, which actually, if the accounts are^made up correctly, amounted to $55,000,000. By the way, in that respect I do not think that my right hon. friend followed the usual custom. He did not give what was 22110-146
the actual surplus of the year previous to the year for which he was reporting. That has always been done in the past. The finance minister of the day when delivering his budget can only make an estimate because the budget is delivered so soon after the close of the financial year, and the practice has been for the finance minister the following year to inform the house what was the actual surplus for the year before. But I did not hear my right hon. friend make any mention of the surplus for 1929-1.930. I contrast those figures with what I find in my right hon. friend's budget, and I find this, that the gross deficit, not the surplus, for the year for which he was reporting, amounted to $82,844,358. Making a deduction for writing down of soldiers' loans, the net deficit, instead of the surplus the year before, is $75,244,973.
There is something else which was missing from the great wealth of information and statistics contained in my right hon. friend's budget speech; I heard nothing whatever of debt reduction. Let me give the house in round figures the debt reductions for the period between 1925-06 and 1929-30:
Annual Debt Reductions
1925-	26	
$22,000,0001926-	27	
26,000,0001927-	28	
65,000,0001928-	29	
55,000,0001929-	30	
78,000,000
A total during the five years of $257,000,000 odd. Of course, my right hon. friend is not responsible for the printing, but tucked away in one corner of the page,-I had quite a time to find it-it will be found that instead of a reduction of the debt there is an increase in public debt of $92,000,000, less $25,000,000 which has to be deducted because of the refunding loan, leaving the net increase at $67,000,000. My right hon. friend made no extended reference to that.
There is still another omission. I do not find either in the budget or in the information he gave anything about reduction in taxation. There are some 27 pages of statistics spread on the record, but there is nothing about any reduction in taxation. I only refer hon. gentleman to this fact, that since 1924 the sales tax has been steadily reduced until we got it down to 1 per cent last year; that the tariff has been lowered, that the nuisance taxes have been taken off, that the income tax has been lowered, until we got to the point where we were saving the people $118,000,000 every year over and above the amounts which they would have had to pay in taxation had the old rates prevailed. I find in this budget, in

The Budget-Mr. Ralston

marked contrast to that record, the statement that in order to try to balance his budget, and even then he will not balance it, my right hon. friend has put on this year-the year he is going to administer; there is no chance for him to blame the Grits this time-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


James Layton Ralston: -he has put on this year $75,000,000 of additional taxation. That is the added burden that is to be laid on the backs of the people. That means $8 per head for every man, woman and child, or $40 for every family of 5 in the dominion, of brand new taxation this year. It means also that having gone well up the hill under the former administration, we are now slipping down to the bottom again under my right hon. friend's administration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Layton Ralston: I say again, under my
right hon. friend's administration.
And that is not the end of it. My right hon. friend himself suggests that that increased taxation of $78,000,000 will not enable him to balance his budget, that in order to balance it he has to have as much business done this year as last year with these additional sources of taxation, then he must borrow $18,000,000 on capital account, and he will still be $7,000,000 short. He said himself that he hoped that after he raised the increased taxation of 78 millions and capitalized the 18 millions there would be such a small deficit left that he would pay it by treasury bills. I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I predict that those treasury bills like promissory notes will turn into mortgages against the Dominion of Canada-they will become part of the funded debt. No, my right hon. friend's situation is simply this: He has $105,000,000 of indebtedness, he has $78,000,000 of increased taxation, leaving a difference of $27,000,000; about $18,000,000 he is going to capitalize; and he is still short $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 which he is going to pay, as he says, in treasury bills. These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the things which are missing from the budget speech of my right hon. friend.
But he emphasized in the course of his remarks that the expenditure of $400,000,000 last [DOT] year was wholly a Liberal expenditure except 2 millions for the Welland canal and 4 millions odd for unemployment relief. Let me remind this house and the country that my right hon. friend had an opportunity at the special session to change any of these amounts as he saw
Ralston.]
fit, and he did change a good many of them, he cut out a good many public works, but notwithstanding the fact that within four months after the Dunning budget was brought down he had an opportunity to change it, he did not do so, and that year includes eight months of his administration.
But that is not the worst of it. My right hon. friend let the impression go abroad that he was paring down and economizing this year and that expenditures for this year were being cut down by about 37 millions. The inaccuracy of that was exposed recently by my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). But I think it was also exposed by my right hon. friend the Minister of Finance himself last Monday, when he admitted that although the Liberal budget last year was $449,000,000 he himself has provided for expenditures this year of $430,000,000-not very much of a reduction. When you consider the fact that in the $440,000,000 are included special votes for the Welland canal and for unemployment relief, you are somewhat surprised to find my right hon. friend coming to this house in this period of depression, when he claims to be paring down the estimates to the bone, and budgeting for practically the same amount this year as we did last year. This is a striking commentary on his protestations of economy. I warn him now, although I do not think he needs the warning-that he has said he will not exceed the $430,000,000. I do not think he will exceed it, for he intimates that that total includes supplementaries as well.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the question naturally arises, why these expenditures just now? Let me mention one item which comes pretty close home to my hon. friend. One of the reasons for these large expenditures now is his attempt to make good, piecemeal at least, some of the election promises which he made last July, and so in just a sentence we find an announcement which is somewhat important. He says:
Included in the expenditures to which I have referred, contemplated for this year, are those provided by the main estimates, and the additional sums which we have provided for supplementaries-
Then note this:

besides the sum for old age pensions, increasing our contributions to the provinces from 50 to 75 per cent for this year only in respect of the total sums that are paid.
That is all there is about it; no blaring of trumpets, no headlines, nothing of that kind. There was a time when that was a headline promise, there was a time every newspaper in this country carried the promise

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
made by my right hon. friend that old age pensions would be paid in full by the federal government. We come now to a time of economic stress and strain and my right hon. friend feels he can get off with a contribution of another 25 per cent. He makes no apology, no explanation, gives no idea whatever as to when the balance of that pledge is to be fulfilled. I want to compare that laconic sentence in his speech with the following letter that I hold in my hand: Bennett's Pledge On Old Age Pensions Conservative Federal Headquarters Victoria Building 140 Wellington Street Redmond Code,
General Secretary.
Ottawa, Canada,
July 12, 1930.
To the people of Nova Scotia:
At Winnipeg I pledged the Conservative party to put into effect a National Old Age Pension Act. This pledge I have confirmed in every province in Canada. During my recent trip throughout the maritimes I have dealt with it at length.
Let me say again, that it was pointed out to Mr. King when the present old age pension bill was passed that the maritime provinces, owing to the financial obligation which it would entail, would not be able to adopt the measure. Yet the Liberal government put it into effect. With what result?
While the old people of your province were unable to benefit by the present act during the last two years, nevertheless through the contribution of one-half of the pension money from the federal treasury you have been contributing your share of the pension money going to the old people in other provinces. This situation cannot continue.
Mr. King says that in order to adopt a national old age pension bill, we will have to amend the British North America Act as it is now unconstitutional for the federal government to pass such a bill. I contend that if the dominion government can contribute 50 per cent as they do at present, they can contribute it all.
If returned to power on the 28th of this month, I pledge my party to pass a national old age pension bill by which the federal treasury will provide all the money required- thus treating all the old people alike, whether they live in the maritimes or in any other part of Canada.
Faithfully yours,
R. B. Bennett,
Leader, Liberal-Conservative Party.
Now I want to say to my hon. friend that the old people in Nova Scotia did not take that announcement with exactly the levity some of my hon. friends on the other side have shown. They took the right hon. gentleman at his word. We have now only a half implementation of that promise, and no one knows whether or not the province of Nova 22110-1461
Scotia will accept it. However, hundreds of people were induced to vote for candidates of my right hon. friend because of that letter, which they considered a personal pledge from a man who would not break his word and who would give them old age pensions, not next year or the year following, but immediately, as soon as he came into power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not say that.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: It will be done.


James Layton Ralston: I say to my hon. friend
that any people reading that letter would not take legal advice with respect to it; they would have no other idea but that the old age pension bill would be passed just as soon as the Conservative party came into power. If I mistake not, my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) made a statement that he would resign, I think within three months, if the old age pension bill were not brought in.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Resign.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am sure
my hon. friend would be the last to wish to do me an injustice in connection with any statement I made. I made no such statement.


William Duff: The Minister of Fisheries said ninety-nine per cent, not one hundred per cent.


James Layton Ralston: I merely state that, Mr. Speaker, in order to indicate what I said a moment ago, that the old people of the province of Nova Scotia were entitled at least to take from that letter that an old age pension bill providing for the payment of one hundred per cent of the cost would be brought in at the very first opportunity. I notice my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries does not deny the soft impeachment that he mentioned ninety-nine per cent instead of one hundred per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the same
statement I have made with regard to the first statement of my hon. friend holds good with respect to the statement made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. I did not rise to say so because I did not wish to interrupt my hon. friend in his speech.


William Duff: Under the rules of the house I must accept that statement. If it had been made down by the Rideau c'lub, I would say my hon. friend was not telling the truth.


James Layton Ralston: I say, Mr. Speaker, that a pledge of that kind, half implemented, is one of the reasons why my hon. friend to-day has
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

to budget as he has done, and place taxation on the backs of the people of Canada in order to pay the election promissory notes which he gave last year. Those were pledges which were given, perhaps irresponsibly, but now he is finding out how those chickens come home to roost on an occasion when he least wants them.
Now 'let me say a word more with regard to my hon. friend's boast in regard to his budget. He boasts that this is a budget, and I presume he pledges himself to the estimate which he has made as being a fair forecast of what is going to take place with regard to financial operations this year. My hon. friend quotes scripture in this house occasionally, and I want to remind him of this scriptural injunction:
Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.
Let us wait until next year and see whether or not his predictions with regard to revenue and expenditure will come true. I wish I could believe that his forecast is correct, and that only to the extent for which he has budgeted the revenues would be reduced, but 1 am afraid that will not be so. I warn him that people on this side of the house, and not only here but throughout the country generally, are very much concerned as to the situation in Canada and as to the policies which he has adopted towards our trade.
There is one other matter which I notice is missing from this budget, something which was always a pet of my hon. friend when he was on this side of the house. That is, there is no provision in this budget, if you will believe it, for a sinking fund. I do not know that anyone was more insistent than my right hon. friend that a sinking fund should be provided in order to retire the public debt of this country. I have before me a quotation from a speech he made, in which he urged the then Minister of Finance, the late Mr. Robb, to put into force a sinking fund. He said- Hansard, March 13, 1928, page 1249:
The Finance minister said that the only way to pay off the debt was out of surplus. 1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is another way in which we can pay off our national debt, and that is to pass a statute by which we provide that a given sum per annum shall be set aside to pay off the national debt of Canada. What will that do? That will impose upon the people economy.
I suggest to him that if he had thought of that a little ahead of time it would have imposed upon him economy in the matter of promises during the last campaign. Then he continued:
Why? Because when they come clamouring to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works
'Mr. Ralston ]
(Mr. Elliott) for a wharf here or a post office in Guysborough, or a public work in some other community, the Finance minister will be able to say: It cannot be done because the sinking fund must be provided for.
Then he goes on in another place-Hansard, March 13, 1928, page 1249:
I say that we should place upon the statute books of this country at the earliest possible moment a provision by which a sinking fund will be set up such as they have in Great Britain and in other countries, so that we shall be enabled, within a period to be mentioned, absolutely to wipe out and eliminate the national debt of Canada.
That sinking fund provision is not to be found.


Hugh Guthrie: Give us time.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is always
asking for time, but he has had ten months already. If the next ten months of the administration of my hon. friends is as barren of results as the last ten months, then nothing will be done, because I do not know of any more futile administration than that which has gone on during the last ten months.
Then I want to refer to another matter in connection with this matter of debt and sinking fund, a matter about which my hon. friend knows a good deal and which he has just completed; I refer to the financial operation of the conversion loan. There is great satisfaction in Canada that the conversion loan has been so well received, but I do not think the right hon. Minister of Finance, when he retires to his room at night, really gives himself as much credit as at least the newspapers and his supporters give him with regard to the success of his loan. I ask him this: After all, is there anything so extraordinary about it? It is a simple, every-day operation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Layton Ralston: I do not wish to be misunderstood for a moment. I fully realize that you must have capital as well as labour. I do not believe in crowding a man too much. I do hold however, that the principle in taxation, particularly at a time like the present, when conditions in the country are such as they are, should be a principle similar to that which obtains in connection with freight rates; that is to say, taxation should be levied according to what the traffic will bear. If, therefore, a man can fairly contribute towards the necessities of the country in a time of trial, as my right hon. friend designates the present crisis, the country might well call upon such a man to pay in proportion to his means and under the same rules as those which are made to apply to men of more moderate income.
Let us turn now to the sales tax. There has been a 400 per cent increase in the sales tax, which has gone up from 1 per cent to 4 per cent. This tax is applicable to all the transactions of everyday life. Trade is what we need in this countiy to-day. My hon. friends opposite are talking about domestic trade and the desirability of having as many trading transactions as possible in process. Every time that 4 per cent tax is imposed it is a detriment to trade; it is a brake on the wheels of trade. Yet, as I say, the tax has been increased from 1 per cent to 4 per cent, and it is being passed on to and paid by the only people who do pay-the consumers. It is the ordinary, everyday consumers, the men and women who are hard put to make ends meet, men who are out of work, who are now called upon to pay the extra amount in connection with the sales tax. One gets a real idea of what the sales tax means when one looks at my right hon. friend's list of additional taxes. Out of $78,000,000 in additional taxation the sum of $52,000,000 will be raised by the sales tax alone.
Mr. COTNA.M: How did you like it when it was 6 per cent?


James Layton Ralston: We were able to reduce it from 6 per cent to 1 per cent. I may tell my hon. friend that the country is a bit discouraged to-day; after seeing the sales tax gradually reduced from 6 per cent to 1 per cent, the people are now told that the government has decided to raise it once more to 4 per cent. I will indicate from the mouths of the hon. gentleman's friends just what they thought of the sales tax as a means of raising revenue. I shall come to that presently. But in addition to the increase in the sales tax we find an increase in the postage rate. This increase was rather neatly described by my

right hon. friend. It was not an increase in postage but just a means of making taxation even. If you add a cent to drop letters, why not add a cent to letters carried at the 2 cent rate? It was really to avoid discrimination, according to my right hon. friend, that the government decided to impose an additional burden of $2,500,000 on the people. And then there is the cheque tax-2 cents on every cheque. I venture to say my right hon. friend will hear from the dairymen's association with regard to creamery cheques when they have to pay that 2 cent tax on their cheques for milk.
I come now to the tariff. I will not enter into details except once more to point out, as I suppose we shall have to point out so long as my right hon. friend delivers budgets, that he is imposing further burdens upon the primary producers and the people who have to pay. Let me discuss for a moment or two the principles which the Prime Minister has laid down. He lays down three principles with regard to tariff and trade, and it seems to me that the trouble with the right hon. gentleman is that he mistakes tariff principles for trade principles. They are all the same to him. First of all, he says there are three requirements with respect to which the government has been entrusted with responsibility. He says first we have great resources which it is the duty of the government to help to develop to as great an extent as possible. How do we meet that? He said that this would be met by the courage and enterprise of our people, but that is a commodity which is available on both sides of the house, so I do not think we will have any difficulty with regard to that particular requirement. Secondly he said that "Canadians are entitled to carry on that development, enjoying an equal opportunity with the other peoples of the world engaged in the development of their respective countries." We meet that second requirement, he said, by tariff legislation. The third principle was that Canadians were "entitled to fair competition in carrying forward that development", and we meet the. last requirement, he said, by dumping legislation.
There are the bible and the gospels from my right hon. friend with regard to trade and tariff principles, but he has missed the principal thought which it seems to me a Canadian, and particularly a Canadian Finance minister, ought to put first, namely, that Canada is not a self-contained country, she must export and she cannot export without having imports. There is no principle in the tariff commandments which my right hon. friend has laid down which recognizes the necessity for promoting export trade, and for providing an

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
export market. Tariffs will not do it, and we have already a confession to that effect.
My right hon. friend started to blast a way into the markets of the world for the wheat growers but he has admitted that blasting is no good and he is trying another policy. We cannot understand that policy but I presume it will be explained when the statute is brought down. We have a five cent piece-by the way, that is being adopted now on the other side-which is being contributed-


Mr. CHAPLIN:: You said you would not give a five cent piece.


James Layton Ralston: 
An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
change in the value of our exports?


James Layton Ralston: We use the same dollars to value exports as we do to value imports. My right hon. friend does not need to have that proved to him because he had the same belief two or three years ago. In speaking
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

on the budget in 1927, he uttered these words, which appear on page 402 of Hansard of that year:
For that reason I view with the greatest apprehension, as a danger very serious in its consequences to this country, the diminution in our export trade.
He continued:
W'e find the grand total of the export trade ot this country for last January was $84,094,694 as against $84,718,819 in January, 1926.
It. will be noticed that the decline for the month of January, 1927, amounted bo $600,000. How much more should my right hon. friend be shocked when I tell him that the decline in exports between January, 1930, and January, 1931, is not $600,000 but $28,000,000.
I intend to put on Hansard something which perhaps will be regarded as being academic but it is something whidh I believe we should be thinking about. These are expressions which have been let fall, particularly lately, in connection with the financial conditions which exist and with regard bo the effect of tariffs, and particularly high tariffs, on economic conditions generally. Only a short time ago, a meeting was held at Washington of the International Chamber of Commerce- and by the way, I think my right hon. friend in the course of his speech made a quotation from the remarks of one of the gentlemen who were present-and leading economists and statesmen from all over the world attended. I want to put on record one or two of the statements which were made at that meeting by gentlemen from different countries. In the first place, Doctor Coates, well known English economist, who is director of Imperial Chemistry Industries, Limited, made this statement in regard to high tariffs:
"High tariffs stimulate the growth of nationalism," Doctor Coates continued. "They provoke every country to confine its economic life strictly within its own borders. The idea comes to be expressed in the form of no imports and no exports,"-
I do not think any truer words could be said about Canada than that.
except in so far as existing international obligations or climatic reasons compel them." . To-day if any one country entirely lives to itself, it will seriously damage its own economic structure. Even this great republic, with its wealth of natural resources, to-day finds itself so linked to the economic unity of the world that a fall in the fortunes of less favoured countries, a restriction of their trade, a diminution of their purchasing power, reacts disas-Irously upon prosperity in this country.
Foreign markets provide the extra volume of sales needed for a profit. Tariffs are closing those markets. Tariffs are cutting out profits.

Then Mr. Georges Theunis, former Premier of Belgium and retiring president of the International Chamber of Commerce, said:
I personally' am convinced that the commercial policy and the customs tariff in force in most u f """Wes of the world constitute one of the fundamental causes of our actual economic troubles. It is precisely in this field that concerted action would be effective, but very considerable and patient efforts will have to be made. A liberal customs policy might be expected to lead to better business conditions. But the present depression itself has the effect of increasing the protectionist temper of the various states.
General W. W. Atterbury, president of the Pennsylvania Railway, had this to say:
High tariff walls erected by nations against one another form one of at least seven fundamentals which must be "corrected" before business is put back on a sound and substantial basis.
The tariff walls which nearly all nations are building against one another, tending to separate the different countries into hermetically sealed compartments, so far as commerce is concerned, and further complicating the problem of the war debts.
This is another statement to the same effect from Doctor Benjamin M. Anderson, economist of the Chase National Bank of New York:
We are in the midst of a severe business depression which is world-wide. The most serious obstacle in the way of early recovery is the state of our foreign trade. The most serious obstacle in the way of the revival of our foreign trade is our high protective tariffs. The quickest way to get out of the existing depression is to reduce our tariffs so that our foreign customers may sell more goods here and get more dollars with which to pay interest upon their debts to us and with which to buy our goods. If we do not buy we cannot sell. If we do not buy enough we cannot sell enough.
If I may say so with great respect, that royal commercial traveller, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, gave expression to fvhat is in the minds of many people when, I believe, at the trade conference which was attended by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), he said:
In the course of my studies of the Spanish language, I have been impressed by the fact that the term generally in use in Argentine in referring to foreign trade is "intercambio commercial" that, to my mind, is wider than our own, and gives a clearer conception of the essential reciprocity of trade.
The failure to recognize trade as an interchange and the obstacles placed in the way of reciprocal trade are perhaps the main causes of the world's present trouble.
That states the crux of the difference between my right hon. friend and those who sit on this side of the house. What my right hon. friend is trying to do is to improve conditions by higher tariffs, when at the same

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
time the world's greatest economists and public men are preaching continuously that tariffs are the cause of our downfall. No other country is in a more favourable position than Canada to take the lead in this matter and adopt a sane, sensible tariff policy which will not have the elements which my right hon. friend is adopting but which will foe along the lines suggested by those gentlemen whose opinions I have quoted.
With regard to trade treaties, my right hon. friend mentioned that trade treaties must be mutually advantageous. His principle cannot be met if he continues making tariffs in the way he is doing. It is axiomatic that one has to give the other man a fair trade, and I only hope my right hon. friend has not already gone so far on the path which will lead to commercial destruction that he will not be able to see the warning signs and turn back before it is too late.
So much with regard to the general principle of tariffs. I am not going into details of the items. I only note, as I pass, that automobiles have been made the subject of another increase in duty. This is in sharp contrast to the action taken by the late Mr. Robb when, as Minister of Finance, in 1926 he brought down a budget which gave relief to the consumers of this country, which apparently did no injury to the automobile business and rvhich was acclaimed by the people of Canada as a statesmanlike act. My right hon. friend, by the power which was given to the governor in council by the act of last session, indirectly increased the duty by decreasing the discount in the price for duty purposes. Now he proposes to make a further increase in the duty from 27h to 30 per cent on cars from $1,200 to $2,100 and from 30 to 40 per cent on cars above $2,100.
I also note increases in the duty on furniture and tea. With regard to tea, my right hon. friend in his speech suggested that under the so-called Dunning budget the free list tariff applied only to tea in packages of a certain quantity. That is quite correct. But I do not know whether my right hon. friend got the implication of it correctly. The reason for it was this:	It was on tea in packages above five
pounds. It was done for two reasons: in the first place so that the tea would be imported in bulk and the packaging, printing, all the work in connection with packaging would be done in this country; and, second, so that the poor man could buy his tea in bulk without the expense of the package. That was why the duty free principle was applied to tea in those large packages. I am not sure of the construction of the item in my right hon. friend's budget, but apparently it means the
only tea to which the change is applied is tea in packages of five pounds or less.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a flat duty of four cents a pound.


James Layton Ralston: But the way in which the amendment is worded, is packages of five pounds or less.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The duty on bulk tea is four cents a pound.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to tariffs, my right hon. friend in his budget has indicated amendments to the Customs Act. Those amendments are along the lines of some amendments which were made last year, but he has gone further with regard to this new toy, if I may so describe it with all deference, which he produced last session, the sort of tariff which is painless, the tariff which imposes an extra duty but does not result in any greater cost to the consumer. Last year he took pledges from the manufacturers that prices would not be raised because of the new tariff. He also included in the act a provision to the effect that the governor in council, if advantage were being taken of the tariff to raise the price, should have power to remove the duty then imposed. This session he has gone further; he is putting a few more teeth in the act. This is what he has done: he is providing that if a manufacturer uses the tariff to raise the price or to maintain the price above an amount which the governor in council thinks reasonable, the governor in council may remove the duty. He realizes that such a procedure involves difficulties in that it may affect a number of people who are not offenders, so he says: I shall impose an excise tax on such a manufacturer of an amount equal to the duty. That may have a very wide political effect-I mean in a larger sense-it will put business under the thumb of the government, but it will have no practical effect so far as the consumer is concerned. My right hon. friend in this legislation has gone further than legislation of a similar kind has ever gone before. The governor in council has the power not only to fix the prices for duty purposes, but to fix the prices of .commodities which are to foe bought by and sold to the public. I do not think he quite realizes the implication of a power of that kind.
What happened with regard to his legislation of last year? Did it not have a detrimental effect upon the prices of commodities? I have here prices for textiles. Let us compare prices in this country with those of other countries, and observe the extent to which they were maintained here while in other countries they *went down. Here is wool cloth. In February,
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

1930,	the index figure was 89.1; in September, 77.4; January, 1931, 79; February, 75.2; March, 75.2; April, 75.2. So there practically an even spread was maintained throughout. The figures indicate that the price of wool cloth was artificially maintained in this country by the imposition of the duty last September, while the Bradford Chamber of Commerce figures show that, on wool cloth the price index went down from 100 in January, 1930, to 78.45 in March, 1931.
Take artificial silk. The index figure in February, 1930, was 69.4; September, 62.4; January, 1931, 68.5; February, 68.5; March, 67.4; April, 67.4.
In England the index figure of artificial silk dropped from 100, using 100 for January 1930, to 77-22 in March 1931, a drop of nearly 25 per cent, while in this country the price was practically maintained on the artificial basis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
knows what happened in England. He knows of the price war and of the factories that were closed, with the effect on prices.


James Layton Ralston: I say that the price in
this country was maintained as compared with other countries where the price dropped. My right hon. friend indicated last September that the duty was not to affect prices. It did affect prices. It kept prices up. All along the line the result was the same. Take cotton fabrics in February, 1930, the index figure was 91 -1; September, 87-4; January, 1931, 89-9; February, 81-9; March, 81-9; April,81-9. The decline in cotton fabrics in England for the same period was from ICO to 81-42, a decrease of 18-58 per cent. Raw cotton and cotton cloth declined 34 per cent and 10 per cent respectively, from February, 1930, to April,
1931.	'
I have not time to deal with gasoline and petroleum products to-day, but I would just give the house these figures. In the United States from September 1930 to April 1, 1931, the index figure dropped from 62 to 37-4 In Canada the	figure dropped	from	83-8 to74 from September	1, 1930, to	April	1, 1931,indicating that	the	tariff does	keep	up theprice. It may	not	increase it, but	as was
pointed out by many of us last session, that the price does not increase is not the whole test. The consumer is being required to pay a great deal more than his neighbour across the line, who is getting the benefit of competition which is not afforded to the consumer in this country.
There is one item to which I should like particularly to refer in connection with the tariff, and that is with regard to the tariff on coal and the assistance which my right

hon. friend says is to be given to coal both east and west. Let me say that as a Nova Scotian I welcome any tangible assistance to the coal industry. It has been my effort to do what I could in my humble way to promote that industry, and give it all the assistance that I possibly could. My right hon. friend has announced what he claims . is his assistance to the coal industry, and with that I want to deal for a few moments. He has announced a 25-cent increase in the duty on soft coal. He has also announced an increase in the freight subventions which have been granted.
Let me say to him, first, that I do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I do not believe that 25 cents a ton on coal will move one hundred thousand, or even fifty thousand, tons of Nova Scotia coal. Twenty-five cents a ton is simply a revenue item, nothing more or less. It gives to the coal industry of Nova Scotia practically no additional advantage. There might be a geographical area of something like 5 per cent into which it might be possible to get Nova Scotia coal with this extra assistance of 25 cents a ton, but if my right hon. friend will consult his Department of Mines he will find that most of the demand in that area is for coal of a special class not produced in Nova Scotia or for purposes for which Nova Scotia coal is not used. So much for the tariff on bituminous coal.
The other portion of his proposed assistance 

I am dealing with Nova Scotia first because I know more about it-is a subvention in freight rates on coal coming from Nova Scotia. Hon. gentlemen will remember that the government of which I had the honour to be a member agreed to pay everything above a S3 rate in respect to seasonal movement of coal shipped to Montreal and to the province of Quebec generally. Let me say to my hon. friends opposite, particularly those from the coal-mining areas of Nova Scotia, that that amounted in some cases to a subsidy of $3.70 a ton, particularly on coal going into the Noranda district. I find that under the new provision the most which can be granted is not $3.70, but $2 a ton. So there is no great additional assistance so far as that is concerned. My right hon. friend also provides for one-fifth of a cent per ton mile on coal water borne to St. Lawrence ports and forwarded by rail to points in the province of Quebec, with a maximum of 75 cents per ton. That is exactly the same subvention which was put on by the former government. My hon. friend also provides one-t-hird of a cent

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
per ton mile for coal forwarded to Ontario, and for that he has made a maximum of $1.50 a ton. He has doubled the maximum. It is now to be $1.50 instead of 75 cents, and the assistance is one-third instead of one-fifth of a cent per ton mile. The net result is that the maximum for the all rail seasonal rate has been reduced while the maximum for the water borne coal forwarded to Ontario ha3 been doubled and the rate increased.
My right hon. friend has done something more. He has put a duty of one dollar a ton on coke, and 40 cents a ton an anthracite coal. I cannot believe it, but that apparently is the whole of the national fuel policy of this government. That is the thing which has been heralded from every Conservative platform in this country, particularly in Cape Breton, and in Pictou and Cumberland counties. This apparently is the national fuel policy which was to save the coal industry and which would see that the $50,000,000 which goe3 annually to the United States to buy coal would be saved to the people of this country. What will it do? I predict that this year it will not move more than six hundred thousand tons of coal. I do not believe that it will displace more than three per cent, in the next few years, of the coal that is coming into this country from the United States. I say to my right hon. friend that if that is his national fuel policy, he has paid a fine compliment to the government which preceded him. As I said before, it was the late Liberal government that began these freight subventions. My right hon. friend has substituted one-third of a cent for one-fifth of a cent per ton mile. He has also imposed a duty of 25 *cents a ton on bituminous coal, which will not assist in the slightest so far as the movement of Nova Scotia coal is concerned. He has put a duty on coke; but they were the ones to take the duty off coke a long while ago. He has put a duty on anthracite; but they Were the ones to take it off, a confession now of their mistake at that time. So I predict that there will not be a great deal of rejoicing when the facts become really known if this is the national fuel policy about which such a number of delegations have come to Ottawa, about which the government of Nova Scotia has visited the federal government frequently, and in which the citizens of Cape Breton are particularly interested, all hoping that a really national fuel policy would be evolved. But that is the sum and substance of it, so far as Nova Scotia is concerned. As to western coal, I leave it to the western members to speak for themselves, but the
morning papers rather intimate that the British Columbia industry is not entirely infatuated with the idea, particularly in view of the retaliatory provisions contained in the American tariff with regard to coal. As I said before, if any tangible assistance was being given by these proposals to the coal industry of Nova Scotia-I do not care who provided that assistance-I would welcome it, but I do feel that this is falling a long way short of the promises made on the public platforms by my right hon. friend and those who represented him with regard to the formulation of a national fuel policy by which American coal should be kept out and correspondingly larger quantities of Canadian coal used.
One other thing I should like to mention in connection with coal. Would you believe it, that while my right hon. friend has put a duty on American coke, at the same time he has permitted to continue the provision on the statute book which provides a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty on American coal that is brought in for coking purposes? So that what my right hon. friend has done is simply this: On the one hand he has put a duty on American coke, and on the other he still permits American coal to be brought in free to be manufactured into coke. There has been much talk in Nova Scotia in Conservative quarters of the iniquitous clause 1049. Why have not the right hon. gentleman and his friends in Nova Scotia been able to cancel that clause? The government of which I was a member gave assistance to . coking plants. I do not notice anything in this budget in the way of an extension of that assistance. Last year we gave further assistance to enable a thorough trial to be made of Nova Scotia coal in the coking plant in Montreal. We hoped that if it was not practicable to use the percentage of Nova Scotia coal required by the act which provides the assistance, that the act might be amended. My right hon. friend has passed that by entirely, and the coking plants in Montreal will continue to use American coal and have returned to them 99 per cent of the duty on the American coal so used. I assert that the effect of my right hon. friend's coal policy in the actual working of the coal mines is just a gesture so far as the tariff is concerned. In the matter of freight rates it is simply a continuation of Liberal policy, while the. imposition of a duty on American coke and American anthracite coal is only to produce revenue and will not displace American coal and is an acknowledgment of a mistake made by the Conservative party a good many years ago when they took off the duty.
There is one feature in connection with rhe customs tariff to which I wish to refer. There
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

is not very much use in hon. members taking the time to go over each tariff item so long as the legislation of the special session last September remains upon the statute books [DOT] whereby the governor in council may do all the tariff making. I expected that my right hon. friend this session would see to it that this provision was repealed. He wanted to get away to the Imperial conference last September. He felt a situation had arisen which demanded the immediate introduction of the policies that he had advocated upon the platform. He had not an opportunity to make a full revision of the tariff, and he asked the house to give to the governor in council this blank cheque to enable them to value goods and thereby indirectly impose a tariff duty. That was done and he got away to the Imperial conference. Now he is back and has had an opportunity to make a full revision of the tariff. I submit the first thing that should be done now is to repeal what was nothing more nor less than an emergency measure, and so put us back on safe and sound ground, leaving to parliament the solo authority to make tariffs. Until that is done it seems to me that there is very little use for this house solemnly to discuss the tariff items, when by an order in council passed any time of the day or night tariff rates may be fixed for duty purposes without our having any opportunity of discussing them. I am reminded that the order in council passed not long ago fixing a rate on potatoes was never repealed, but the word "potatoes" was simply struck out and the word "radishes" inserted. Of course, we can remember the early days of my right hon. friend's administration when he was in England, the days of glass of blessed memory, when the duty was so summarily revoked by his colleague the Minister of National Revenue.
My right hon. friend reminds me of something, else with regard to the Customs Act. My hon? friends opposite were very jealous about Canada following the tariff policy of any other country. I notice that by the bill to amend the Customs Act now on the order paper my hon. friends opposite have provided for something which, if not countervailing duties, is closely akin to it; they propose that the governor in council may with regard to any country which lowers its tariff against us, lower our tariff reciprocally.


Mr. MacLEAN:: A made-in-Washington
policy.


James Layton Ralston: Yes. They have progressed somewhat along the lines of countervailing duties since May of last year'when

they so insistently urged that Canada should not be influenced in the slightest by the action of any other country in that respect.
Now, as to some of the provisions for taxation and the further assistance which is given to certain callings and occupations, a very laconic and uninformative statement is made in my right hon. friend's speech in regard to wheat. He says:
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.
I submit that the discussion and consideration of that item can only intelligently be taken up when we know something of what it means. The meagreness of the information is striking. How is this to be administered? Who is going to get the benefit? When is the money to be paid and to whom? How are you to tell that the wheat which comes-'out of a local elevator is going to be exported? All these things have to be decided and the machinery worked out before we can discuss the matter intelligently. Of course, he must have thought of this, that in a buyer's market, at a time when people are not tumbling over one another to buy wheat, but when rather the seller is doing his best to sell his wheat, it is not altogether improbable that the buyer will suggest that the man who has had the benefit of the contribution or "absorption" of the five cents on his wheat should contribute that for the benefit of getting his market; and therefore no benefit whatever will accrue to the producer from the contribution of that five cents. There may be some other situation when it may be of benefit. But this consideration presents itself to us: If wheat for export is to have a five cent contribution, and if the foreign buyer purchases that wheat and possibly gets the benefit of the five cents and mills the wheat over on the other side, then what is the Canadian miller going to do who has to buy his wheat at a five cent higher rate and send his flour overseas to compete with the flour milled there from the cheaper wheat? I do not see how my right hon. friend can get out of making the same contribution for wheat that is going to be milled into flour to be exported. It seems to me'that is only logical and the only way in which a balance can be maintained. But, as I said before, we cannot make any really intelligent criticism of the proposal until we know more than we do at present. One thing is certain, namely that the suggestion of a five cent absorption of the freight on wheat is an indication that the "blasting" process for the benefit of the farmer has not been successful.

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
I want to mention other producers as well. If my right hon. friend is going to make a contribution towards the export of wheat, why not also towards the export of fish? Why not also towards the export of lumber? The fisherman is facing the taxation which resulted from my right hon. friend's budget of last September. He is paying taxes on oil clothing, socks, mittens, woollen clothing and underwear that he was free from practically the year before, he has to pay a 400 per cent increase on his sales tax, he has been threatened with a dumping duty on rope, and he is injured by the attitude of retaliation which is engendered in the United States by the tariff proposals of this government. He is fighting to get a foothold in the markets of the country to the south of us, just as the Canadian wheat exporter is fighting for a foothold in the markets overseas. Why should he not get, some contribution of a similar kind, say an allowance of 10 cents or more per hundred pounds on his fish shipped for export? I submit' that that is logical and fair. And why should not the lumberman be treated in the same way? Why not have conditions helped all the way round? My hon. friend here suggests butter and all sorts of farm produce. I do not pretend to exhaust the list; it seems to me it can be made a pretty long one if my right hon. friend is going to adopt this way of assisting export trade.
Mr. MacLEAN; What about potatoes?


James Layton Ralston: I will let the hon. gentlemen who represent potato districts speak for themselves. All I want to say is that all these people who are producing goods for export have a claim, perhaps not equally with the wheat producers but certainly a claim, to be considered at a time when they are meeting, as is the case in this country, the increased costs of the goods produced because of this increased taxation imposed by this budget, which they are bound to absorb and which they can only absorb if they are able to sell their goods ixi foreign markets. I want it to be understood, Mr. Speaker, that I am not advocating any of these means of assistance, but I do say that if this is to be the fashion, my hon. friend has a right to consider all these producers and see to it that there is no discrimination.
Now I come to the sales tax. I raid a moment ago that of the $78,000,000 of increased taxation, the sales tax provides $52,000,000, or two-thirds. There is also the one per cent tax on imports, which is a pure invention. I do not think we have heard before in this country of a one per cent excise tax
on all goods coming in, whether free or not. With that extra one per cent; with the additional million dollars from stamps used on cheques and the additional $2,000,000 or more from increased postage rates, we will find that a tax-harrassed people will be paying through the nose for the benefit' and the privilege of having my hon. friends opposite in power. Four-fifths of the total extra taxation will be paid by the masses of the people, the every day citizens, not by the rich, but by those most of whom are affected by having restricted markets.
The sales tax is the major method being used for the purpose of producing increased revenue. I have in my hand a copy of a resolution moved not many years ago by my hon. friend the present Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), (Hansard 1928, page 630), in which I find these words:
This house regrets that the measures proposed by the government do not tend to provide increased employment in Canada, nor to induce the return of Canadians to their native land, nor to prevent the continued emigration of our people to the United States; and that they make no provisions for the preservation of our domestic markets for Canadian farm and dairy products, nor for the effective development of the natural resources of the country, nor for the abolition of the sales tax by the first of January, 1929.


William Duff: Did the Prime Minister second that?


James Layton Ralston: I would not wonder if he did. This is what the Secretary of State said about it, reading from Hansard for 1928, at page 61fi:
.... the sales tax and income tax reductions-both reductions of special war taxes- were in fact reductions merely in increases of taxation which this government had previously imposed. They found the sales tax levied at the rate of three per cent; they increased it to six per cent.	[DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend might listen to this:
They then discovered that this rate was an intolerable burden on the country, increasing exorbitantly, as every per cent of it did, the cost of living. They first reduced it to five per cent, then to four per cent, and now they propose to reduce it to three per cent-just where they found it on attaining office. I think the opinion on both sides of the house is that when making their last reduction they should have announced ,tho abolition of this tax, for thereby they would have done more than by any other single act of government to reduce the average cost of living in this country, which is so high in comparison with the cost of living in the same state of society across the border.
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

I commend that to my right hon. friend in his scheme of taxation. I was interested in the reason he gave for adopting this method. He said he adopted it because he thought the best way to raise revenue at this time was by taxes with which the people were familiar. Well, this is a time when the people of Canada were just about forgetting the sales tax. My hon. friend need not have brought it back to their memory with such a dull thud as an increase of four hundred per cent. This is a tax, as the Secretary of State has said, which bears heaviest on the man who feels the pinch most at this time; it is the tax which affects most directly the cost of living in this country. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the use of the sales tax at this time is a measure which cannot be defended in view of the other possible sources of revenue which my right hon. friend might have touched.
I mentioned the income tax, and I only want to say in addition that there are two points particularly in connection with that tax where it seems to me my right hon. friend perhaps has not followed out the principle imposing taxation upon those who are best able to bear it. In the first place, this year he has provided, for the first time as far as I know-and he will correct me if I am wrong-for an exemption up to $10,000, or one-half an income of $20,000, in connection with dividends received from Canadian companies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since my hon. friend has asked me, I may say it is not the first time this was done. Normal Canadian dividends were entirely free from taxes until the former chancellor of the exchequer made them all subject to the ordinary tax.


James Layton Ralston: I am glad to have that
testimonial to the former chancellor of the exchequer, who made these dividends taxable. My hon. friend now is making them non-taxable, and his excuse is that those dividends already have been subject to taxation by reason of the company paying the corporation tax.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Would my hon. friend answer one question? Is he in favour of the principle of double taxation?
. Mr. RALSTON: This is not a matter of double taxation. What is taxed in the first instance is the corporation, which, as my hon. friend knows as well as or perhaps better than any person in this house, is entirely distinct from its shareholders. Then what is taxed is the shareholder, on his individual personal income. That corporation tax is a part of the expenses of the business; it is not a charge against the shoreholders. I say that this, of all times, when it seems to me my right hon.

friend should have been a little chary of dismissing any source of revenue upon which he could reasonably count, is not the time to introduce such an exemption from taxation on incomes even up to the amount of $10,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The corporation tax is increased two per cent.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that. That is a legitimate increase, with which I am finding no fault, but that is no reason why half the income of the individual taxpayer should be exempted up to $10,000 simply because the money comes from a Canadian corporation. Most of us are fortunate indeed if we have $10,000 coming from corporation dividends.
.The next point is the elimination of the forty-nine per cent maximum. Formerly large incomes. were taxed to a maximum of forty-nine per cent. Under the new Income Tax Act, for some reason which has not been explained as yet, the maximum to which an income can be taxed is twenty-five per cent. As I said a moment ago, there seems no reason why if the incomes in the lower bracket are taxed more heavily as they go up, the incomes in the upper bracket should not be taxed in the same way.
There is one matter I should like to mention here in connection with which my right hon. friend will perhaps say I am inconsistent. But I am thinking again of the development of Canadian trade, and I doubt very much whether my right hon. friend has acted wisely in imposing a tax of two per cent on the income from foreign capital invested in this country. I make that statement advisedly. I believe Canada is a country which requires the investment of foreign capital. During the course of the budget speech my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) interrupted the Prime Minister to say that this probably would be credited to the income tax of the investor in his own country, but that is not the point. There is the annoyance, the irritation and the notice served on the foreign investor that not only will he have to pay the corporation tax but also a special tax, as a penalty for investing his money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has it wrong. This touches only >the income on his investments, as distinct from the company.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that. I am saying that my right hon. friend is penalizing men for investing money in this country, and I doubt the wisdom of that policy, particularly at the present time. My right hon. friend

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
could have found some source of taxation better suited to his purposes and less calculated to cripiple Canadian industry and Canadian development. His boast is that outside capital is coming in; but I say he will not encourage outside capital to come in by imposing a tax of that kind. It is not high; lout it is high enough to be annoying, while it is not sufficiently high to produce any appreciable revenue. I notice that by bis provision he makes the local company the tax-gatherer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is so in all countries.


James Layton Ralston: It is not done in the
United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: In the United States the only tax changed is the tax on bond coupons; there is no taxation on dividends. Nor does the company make the collections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a tax on dividends.


James Layton Ralston: I am informed that there is not. I have no investments in the United States and therefore do not know from personal knowledge. My right hon. friend probably knows.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had, but have not now.


James Layton Ralston: With reference to the
cheque tax, I have already spoken.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I have left to the last a subject which I know has given rise to protracted and very serious discussion, and one which it seems to me was entitled to some consideration at least in the budget. In my humble capacity I shall give it that consideration. I say, I have left to the last this reference to what I conceive to be probably the most important question which has been omitted from the budget. My right hon. friend seems to have absolutely shut his eyes to unemployment conditions in this country. That is the serious omission to which I refer. Last summer the Prime Minister deemed it necessary to stand up on public platforms . and pledge himself to the calling of a special session, so insistent was the unemployment situation at that time. And he did call a special session. He asked us to vote $20,000,000. According to the budget which has been brought down about $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 has been paid out of that money. My right hon. friend knows, as do bon. members generally, that I am the least of the blue ruin prophets, for I have no other idea than to "boost" and assist in every way I can in the
necessary endeavour to keep our people optimistic. At the same time, however, it is utterly foolish to refuse to see the situation as it is. The Prime Minister knows that unemployment conditions in Canada have not improved; he knows that unemployment is not cured. The situation is worse than it was last September. He knows that we are facing this winter a situation such as we have not experienced in Canada for some time, and he has either deliberately or ignorantly-I do not know what his plans are-omitted any reference to the subject. He has suggested no provision for it. We are faced with a deficit of $105,000,000, and we have to raise $78,000,000 in new taxation. There is no definite or tangible arrangement to ensure the marketing next fall of our western wheat, and the Prime Minister does nothing in anticipation of the serious situation which is almost bound to develop.
I wish to put on the record some figures with regard to the employment situation. My right hon. friend read a list of eighty-seven new industries that have been established in this country; I want to read a list of figures given by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to indicate what the employment situation is at the present time-eighty-seven industries and all. It is not an encouraging statement, but it is one which the house should face squarely. I have taken one or two industries which should have shown favourable results. The textile industry is one which was supposed to have been considerably aided by the legislation of last September, and in this direction an increase in employment was promised. I am sorry to say I have not the figures for July or August, when my right hon. friend was going up and down the country talking about unemployment, but I have the figures for April, 1930. In April, 1930, the employment figure was 107.4; in February, 1931, it was 99.7; and on March 1, it was 102.5; while in April, according to the figures just published in the Labour Gazette, it was 104. In other words, since a year ago the employment figure in textiles has fallen over 3 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so. I
suppose my hon. friend knows that those are not returns that deal with the new industries or with the recommencement of those that *had been shut down.


James Layton Ralston: I know this: I read not only in the tables, but in the narrative statement with regard to unemployment, something with regard to the increase or decrease
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

in textiles, and I should be very much surprised if the figures given by the bureau of statistics did not include all the industries but gave only a part of the information. If the information is only partial, what is the use of having statistics?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That's it; that is what a great many people are asking.


James Layton Ralston: Nevertheless I shall quote these figures. In iron and steel products, in April, 1930, the figure was 119.3. In April, 1931, it stood at 100.3. In iron and steel fabrication, in April, 1930, the figure was 172.7, and in April, 1931, it was 138.3. I want the house to note that there is a reduction not only in these industries taken as a whole but in each of their branches in regard to which figures are given in the Labour Gazette. There is but one exception out of eight: thread yarn and cloth has come up the mere fraction of two-tenths of a point from Ajpril of last year.
Now for the unemployment figures. Unemployment in trade unions by groups of industries, taking, first, the manufacturing industries: In July, 1930, when my right hon. friend was making speeches about the unemployment situation, unemployment in trade unions in the manufacturing industries was 7-3. In March, 1931, the unemployment figure was 9-2. Take now the percentage of unemplo3rment in trade unions by provinces. In February, 1930, the figure was 11-5; in July, 1930, 9-2; in March, 1931, 15-5. And let me point out to my right hon. friend that the unemployment figure never went above 11-5 at any time during the whole of the eight years of my right hon. leader's administration. The only occasion on which it reached the 16 mark-and the peak now is 15 - 5-was in February, 1921, under the administration of the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, when it was 16-1. The unemployment figures in trade unions for the months of December, 1930, and January, February and March, 1931, are the highest since the Meighen government was in power. The decline in manufacturing employment was greater from September, 1930, to January, 1931, than in any other year for which statistics are given. The figure in September, 1930-soon after the right hon. gentleman took office

was 108-2; then it fell until on April 1 it was 99-7, a decline of 8-5.
Let me give one more figure-employment in all industries-and I trust my right hon. friend will not suggest that this does not include all the industries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly does not;
nor does it. include the casual labour. That is the difficulty with the whole matter, and there is where the unemployment is.


James Layton Ralston: That is just my point;
my hon. friend has clinched it. Of course it is. We are giving the employment in all industries, and these figures do not include the bread lines. If the unemployment figures were fully registered, taking into account the casual labour as well, you would have a situation far worse than that disclosed by the statistics which are given by the bureau. No doubt my right hon. friend must have observed last winter, as I did, walking down the street morning after morning, long bread lines-men who could not find employment and who were not registered. And that is the situation we have to face.
As regards employment in all industries, on August 1, 1930, the employment figure was 118-9. On April 1, 1931, it was 99-7, or a decrease of 19-2 in employment in all industries-with some eighty-seven new industries established, according to my right hon. friend. The number of workers employed in July, 1930, was 1,043,232, and in April, 1931, 899,823, a decrease of 143,409. The employment in manufacturing industries in July, 1930, was 111-3 while by April, 1931, it had been reduced to 99-7, a decrease of 10-5.
I repeat to my right hon. friend, and he will have it repeated in the future, what he said at the time of the last elections with regard to unemployment. His words, at Moncton, July 10, 1930, were as follows:
The Conservative party is going to find work for all who are willing to work, or perish in the attempt. It is going to call parliament at the earliest possible date after July 28, and take such steps as will end this tragic condition of unemployment and bring prosperity to the
country as a whole	 Mr. King promises
consideration of the problem of unemployment. I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?
I can only say to my right hon. friend that while the hour and a half which he devoted to furnishing statistics was valuable, that time would have been devoted to better purpose had he spent it in telling this house how he and his government were planning to meet the unemployment situation which is facing the country at the present time and which will inevitably grow more acute during the next winter. A duty on automobiles, on textiles or on tea will not help that situation; and it will be of little interest to the man standing in a bread line to know that Canada had 22

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
millions of non-active assets on March 31, 1931.
I think the right hon. member was strangely remiss, particularly in view of the condition existing at the present time.
The Prime Minister closed his speech with an appeal that we should unite in the common interests of Canada and in the common interests of all our citizens. The right hon. member knows very well that he gives no opportunity for any response to that appeal. His way is the only way. He has said time and time again, "we stand or fall by this policy." We are going to try out this policy or perish in the attempt; and he puts those of us on this side of the house in the position where we can only warn him and point out wherein we think his policy is wrong, and then he has to take the responsibility. I want to assure him-I do not believe it is really necessary-that we on this side of the house have just as enduring a faith in our country and just as great courage and determination that it shall not fail, as have he and his friends. We have good will, we have hope and we have belief in Canada's future. Our goal is the same as his, but we think the path he is taking leads in exactly the opposite direction. We believe that changing the income tax, increasing the sales tax, adding new imposts, piling up tariffs and talking of our great resources is not the best way, to use his own expression, of advancing the common interests of our citizens. I believe that "Canada first" is becoming not a rallying cry but a by-word. Let me refer him to the last sentence of the extract from the Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers which he read:
But where every man seeks himself, all cometh to nothing.
That is just as true of nations as it is of men. The greatest disservice which can be done to Canada to-day is to allow the idea to get abroad that we are careless of all interests but our own. It is just a vanity which will have to be put away; if we are to regain our position as a nation we must repair promptly the damage which my right hon. friend and his associates have done already to the foundation on which Canada built her past prosperity-our export trade.
Let me quote the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce:
If Canada is going to fulfil her destiny and take the place in the world which she should, it will have to be on the basis of a great exporting nation.
The former Premier of Alberta, the recent agent general in Britain, said:
If Canada wants Great Britain to buy Canadian wheat in preference to the surplus products of foreign countries, Great Britain, on the other hand has a right to expect that Canada will buy more of her goods.
In his preelection speeches the Prime Minister, the author of this budget, said:
What does Canada need to-day? Markets open to us the year round and open year by year. Of what use is it for a man to produce if he cannot sell, or sell now if he may be prohibited to-morrow?
My right hon. friend cannot get or hold these markets by barricading himself against the goods of the countries which buy our products. It is a vain hope to raise tariffs in order to shut out British and foreign products in the expectation that the demand for our own basic products will be increased. Home markets are not additional markets and boundless as may be the natural wealth of this country, if there are not markets in which to barter we might as well be in poverty. The duty of those of us on this side of the house, just as good Canadians as those on the other, is to point out to the Prime Minister and his colleagues where we believe their error lies and to warn them that the country at large which vested them with power, depending on their assurances and pledges, will not fail to hold them accountable for these new burdens of taxation; for the policies which, if not soon corrected, will do Canada a lasting injury ; for the disheartening prospect which faces our people who, remembering the promises of last July, have a right to expect work, and for the record of abject failures as disclosed by this budget.
In conclusion I move, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver), the following amendment:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
Whereas there exists throughout Canada grave depression accompanied by widespread unemployment and distress;
And whereas the depression has deepened and unemployment widened as a result of the fiscal policy of the government, set forth at the special session of 1930;
And whereas, as indicated by the fiscal measures now submitted, the government proposes to continue the policy then inaugurated;
This house regrets that,
1.	The policies of the administration do not contain any provision for the relief of unemployment.
2.	The effect of the fiscal measures proposed will be to intensify the stagnation of trade brought about largely by the disparity between the prices received by those who must sell their products in the world's markets and the prices which must be paid for goods and services in a highly protected market.
3.	The proposed increases in taxation, both direct and indirect, will fall most heavily on those least able to bear the burden thereof, whilst there are decreases proposed in taxation

The Budget-Mr. Stevens

which will relieve those whose incomes render them most capable of paying a greater share of the expense of administration.
4.	The effect of increased customs tariffs and other restrictions and obstacles to trade will be to curtail consumption and the volume of exports upon which the buying power and prosperity of the country so largely depend.
5.	The legislation of the special session of 1930 which it is now proposed to supplement, deprives the elected representatives of the people of that direct and full measure of control of tariff and taxation which belongs to parliament.
And this house is of the opinion,
That the existing economic depression can only be overcome by policies which are of a character,
(a) to relieve unemployment,
fb) to restore to a condition of parity the relation between the purchasing powers of all
classes,
(c)	to bring about more equitable distribution of the burdens of taxation,
(d)	to encourage the expansion of the external trade of the country, and
(e)	restore to parliament its full authority over tariff and taxation.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the motion
before the house is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means to provide for the carrying on of the affairs of this country, to which the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), who took his seat at six o'clock, moved an amendment which is a motion of want of confidence in the present government in that it asks the house to condemn the government for its proposals as set forth in the budget speech presented the other day by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett).
The hon. member in his opening remarks said he had but a meagre word of commendation of the presentation of the budget by the Prime Minister, acting in his capacity as Minister of Finance. I should like to take this, the first opportunity afforded to a member on this side, to say that in my opinion the budget presented to the house last Monday was without exception the most comprehensive statement of Canadian affairs ever laid before the Canadian people. It will, I think, mark an epoch in Canadian history, and for decades to come it will be the point of departure from which to estimate the financial standing and progress of our country. It was a masterly and courageous effort to present to the house proposals which would

meet the very trying circumstances with which we as a nation are confronted, and at the same time preserve the credit of Canada.
The hon. member who preceded me,-if I may follow his example in offering, to use his own language, some meagre words of commendation-discharged his very onerous duty this afternoon as a lawyer in an excellent manner.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is somewhat meagre applause to that, I notice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is very much better, because it will be noted that I said "as a lawyer"-


An hon. MEMBER:: We noticed that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -he discharged his duties in an excellent manner, because in his two and a half hour effort there was not a hole or a crack or a cranny in the whole of the very difficult and complex presentation of the Minister of Finance that he did not probe most deeply in his endeavours to find some point of weakness, something that he might differ with, or something that might bear two constructions on which he might place his own. In some respects he may have succeeded, that is, in placing a double construction on the matters that were proposed. I intend, as I proceed, to deal with some of those. For the moment, however, I wish to draw his attention and that of the house very briefly to this:	the hon. gentleman belittled the conversion loan and the effort of the government through the Prime Minister in that respect. The people of Canada, those who know much or little about these matters, look upon that loan as a triumph for the Canadian people and as a piece of work well done by him who had it in hand. I think I am at liberty to say that the scheme and the leadership in carrying it out came from the Prime Minister. He took considerable responsibility and considerable chance, if one might choose to put it in that way, because there were very few people-certainly very few on the other side of the house-who would have been bold enough to say that a loan of that dimension could be put over in Canada and absorbed by the people.


James Layton Ralston: It was not a loan.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was a conversion loan.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let hon. members laugh
as they will; the fact remains that it was a

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
tremendously successful venture. My hon. friend laughed to scorn the proposal of the government that a bonus of five cents a bushel-the five cents may have stuck a bit in his crop-should be paid to the farmers of the west on their wheat handled for export during the winter crop season. The facts are these; we have a large production of wheat; we know that the wheat price is low; that it is likely to continue low for at least some months and that there is perhaps no place in Canada where there is more need for some recognition than among those who are the wheat producers of the great western plains. The action of the government is a genuine attempt to offer to that great section of the producing public some assistance in these hours of stress and days of need.
My hon. friend then proceeded bo ridicule what he called the coal policy of this government. The 25 cents additional duty on bituminous coal, or the raising of the duty from 50 to 75 cents a ton, he declared was of no advantage whatever. The subventions, to use his own words, were useless, and the duty on anthracite coal mere revenue. He qualified his ten minutes on that phase of the budget just as he closed that part of his sipeech by saying, "Of course, I welcome anything that will assist the coal industry." That was said, of course, as a sort of alibi for him when he goes to Nova Scotia later on and is confronted with his statements in regard to the efforts that we are making. This coal question, Mr. Speaker, as you and hon. members who have been in the house for some years know, has been one of the major problems before the bouse for the last ten years or more. My hon. friend has not been in the house that long, but he has been here since 1926; he was a member of the government in 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930, and during all those years he did not do anything about ooal comparable to what we have done in the ten months we have been in office. Our action may not, in his opinion, be sufficient, but it ill becomes him after five or six years of inaction as a minister to criticize the efforts now being made by this government to meet the demands and the needs of the maritime provinces in this respect.
My hon. friend, referring to old age pensions, said: This government has been in office for ten months, and has done nothing in regard to old age pensions except to advance to 75 per cent the proportion borne by the dominion. Well, I think that is a pretty good step.


James Layton Ralston: In view of the promise? 22110- un-


Henry Herbert Stevens: In view of the promise
and anything else that my hon. friend wishes to conjure up.


James Layton Ralston: There is no conjuring up about the promise.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In view of anything that my hon. friend wishes to conjure up in his own mind, or remember. I put this to him as a lawyer. Does he think it is unreasonable for this government, and particularly for the Prime Minister, with his responsibilities and his burdens, not to be able in the first regular session of parliament following the election, to present to the house a completely new old age pension scheme?	'


James Layton Ralston: I expect him to keep his pledges.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He will keep his pledges. There is a marked distinction between the present Prime Minister and the party opposite and their leader. If they will look back over their own record, they will find that very few of their pledges were kept. Furthermore, when the right hon. gentleman who is now leader of the opposition came into office and year after year passed without any fulfilment of his pledges, when he was taxed with it, what did he say. Oh, he said, you must not take too seriously pledges made during an election. Another minister of his government who has since passed away-I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of him-when _ in office said that election promises were like pullman car platforms, made to get in on.


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was the attitude of my hon. friends opposite, and now my hon. friend taxes the Prime Minister and this government because we have not implemented our pledges in the first ten months of office. But we have done this, Mr. Speaker, as regards old age pensions: We have increased the proportion borne by the Dominion to 75 per cent, and when the proper time comes, when a reasonable time has been allowed for the fulfilment of the pledge given, the full pledge will be implemented.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend permit me just on that point, as to the time within which the pledge shall be carried out? There is nothing about "reasonable time" in the matter, for this is what the Prime Minister said at the special session:
It must be remembered that promised with respect to policies are matters of profound importance to the Canadian people, and the policies we promised to put into effect we propose to put into effect immediately.
The Budget-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely. I am amazed at the unreasonableness of the hon. gentleman. I venture to say that everyone in this country who is not blinded by political prejudice will agree that this government and the Prime Minister in particular, has gone a long way in discharging its promises, and they expect that the Prime Minister is the one who will continue to discharge those obligations.
My hon. friend then went on to deal with another subject. Oh, he said, there is another thing which the Prime Minister has not done. No sinking fund has yet been set up. Well, what about the nine years of their tenure of office? Why is it that this sinking fund becomes so important all of a sudden?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We never promised it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Neither did we.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hon. gentlemen opposite were nine years in office and did nothing about it. The late Mr. Robb, as Minister of Finance, agreed about five years ago that a sinking fund should be set up, but nothing was done.


An hon. MEMBER:: He just paid off the debt.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend from Shel-burne-Yarmouth is very much perturbed now regarding no sinking fund.
He went on and said: I see nothing in this budget about a surplus. I want to say this to him, and I say it with a good deal of earnestness, that had he and his friends been over here now they would have been confronted with just the same deficit that confronted us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: With at least the same deficit. These miscellaneous cries of "no, no" from hon. gentlemen opposite are indicative of one thing or the other: either they have never given the matter a moment's thought, or they are blinded with prejudice. Nothing is surer than this, that when Mr. Dunning, the then Minister of Finance, last year locked up source after source of revenue just on the eve of an election for the purpose of making an appeal to the people-but which fortunately the people were not beguiled by-he knew that he would ibe confronted with a deficit if he should be in office this year. He knew it, and anyone else who gave his budget of last year a moment's thought knew perfectly .well that there would be a deficit. In view of the conditions that have developed,
(Mr. Ralston.]
conditions that did not have their origin since this government came into power and were not, I will admit, due entirely to the tenure of office of my hon. friends opposite, but owing to conditions throughout the whole world-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does my hon. friend say, no?


James Layton Ralston: It was not conditions throughout the whole world last July.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend would not have dared to make that statement because last July, when my hon. friends opposite were still in office, there was a tremendous amount of unemployment in this country and a rapid falling-off in trade, more rapid in the earlier months than in the later months of last year. That all happened while they were in office, and my hon. friend now says that that was not due to world conditions.


James Layton Ralston: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I only want to have this point made absolutely clear. I said: "It was not that last July", meaning, that is not what my hon. friends opposite said last July. Then they blamed the conditions on the government.
_ STEVENS: What I was about to say is this, and I think I am over-generous: Conditions were bad in this country as they were in other countries, partly, or largely, if you like, due to a general world economic condition. That is what I was about to say, but my hon. friend interrupted and would not let me get away with it.


James Layton Ralston: That is not what the
Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I might remind my hon. friend that I did not interrupt him very much. I propose to examine some of his arguments, and I will deal first with that on export trade. He referred to export trade in relation to the tariff and he spent a very considerable time on it. Summed up, his argument was this: if you want to increase the exports of a country, lower or take off your tariff.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I hear an hon. member
say "sure."


An hon. MEMBER:: Certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Another hon. member
says "certainly." Very good. My hon. friend did not say just where he would take the

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
tariff off. He and his friends opposite never do. They will go to the country and say: The tariff proposals of the Conservative party -and at present of this government-are injurious to trade. But when they are in office I notice that in large measure they maintain the tariff. If they believe, as the hon. member said this afternoon-and he was the spokesman of the party opposite, he was the financial critic of the opposition-if they believe the doctrine that he preached this afternoon, carried to a logical conclusion it is this: To take off the tariff in order to let imports come in and to send exports out. That was his doctrine. He does not say where he would stop or where he would start; he is very careful about that; but that is his doctrine.
Let us look at that doctrine for a moment. My hon. friend referred to the drop in exports-and I wish the house would do me the courtesy of following me in this matter for a moment-he referred to the drop in exports, and he used percentages; I will do the same. The figures I am now giving to the house represent the percentage decrease compared with the same months last year:
January	 39-30
February	 34-21
March	 38-56
April	 33-12
Now I will give similar percentages for the United States, and I do it for the purpose of establishing the fact that this situation from an economic standpoint is not peculiar to this country; then a little later on I intend to base an argument not only upon these figures, but upon quantity as against value, which I think is illuminating to anyone who chooses to study the figures. The United States figures showing decreases in exports as compared with the same months last year are as follows:
January	 41-07
February	 37-84
March	 30-24
April	 39-25
With the exception of March, the United States was 3. 4, 5 and 6 per cent higher than Canada in the falling off of its export trade. I admit very frankly that that has no great significance, but at the same time it is a very useful thing to keep in mind when studying this question.
Now I want to refer to farm exports just for a moment. Farm exports have fallen off. But let me give my hon. friends opposite a very unpleasant reminder. During the years that they held office-and mark you, we are now discussing that portion of my hon. friend's remarks in which he dealt with the
fiscal policy of this country injuring exports;
I want that to be borne in mind-during their term of office from 1921 to 1930, farm exports to the United States dropped from $162,880,000 to $40,841,000, or a falling off in nine years of no less than 75 per cent. My hon. friends may say: Oh, well that is due to the American tariff.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right. But the point
is this, they now say that the falling off in our farm exports is due to the fiscal policy of this government. Which horn of the dilemma are they going to sit'on? Either one will be uncomfortable for them, I am afraid. The fact is that during their term of office the sales of farm produce to the United States dropped 75 per cent; that was the decrease under ithe guidance and the policy of the Liberal party of this country.
Now, then, I want to invite the attention of the house to the question of wheat exports.
I suppose, sir, that of ail our exports, wheat is perhaps the largest. It is one of the most important, and brings into Canada directly the largest return. Remember, the hon. gentleman charged, as I have said before, that the falling off in exports is due to the fiscal policy of this government. Very good. For the crop year ending July 31, 1930, 155,000,000 bushels were exported.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What was the money
value?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friends opposite will wait, I will analyse the whole business for them. For the ten months of this crop-year .there already have been exported 195,000,000 bushels, as against 155,000,000 bushels for the whole crop-year of 1930. We have information regarding the bookings for June and July, and making our estimates much below the actual figures for April and May, the total for 1931 will be 234,000,000 bushels, as against 155,000,000 bushels in 1930. Those figures represent an increase of 80,000.000 bushels this year over last. I ask hon. members to bear this in mind: If the fiscal policy of this government is affecting the exports of the country, then the government is entitled to .credit for this increased export of wheat. I want to give the actual figures now. For the year ending April 30, 1930, the export of wheat was 173,000,000; for the same period ending 1931. we exported 218,000.000 bushels, or an increase of some 28 per cent.
Now comes a very significant and interesting analysis of values. I have shown an increase in the export of wheat in this crop-
The Budget-Mr. Stevens

year over last of, roughly speaking, 50 per cent. The dollar value of the 1930 crop-year was 8188.000,000 for 155,000,000 bushels. I am giving round figures. For the 234.000,000 exported this year only $165,000,000 was received. I should like my hon. friends opposite to follow me an this. Had we received this year the average price that prevailed last year our wheat would have brought us $282,000,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just what is the reason
for that laugfh? I want to put this to my hon. friends: They have argued that there is a drop in imports and exports, but here we have a drop of $120,000,000 in the value of the exports, whereas the quantity increased. What was the reason for that? It was due to a condition which is world-wide.


An hon. MEMBER:: Low prices.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to say just a few words on that subject of low prices in connection with wheat. The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), who was then Minister of Agriculture, took a trip to Europe. The ex-Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), took a trip to Europe. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) took a trip to Europe, as did one of the other ministers, the ex-Miruister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), who I am sorry is not with us this session. These ministers all went to Europe in 1929, with the exception of the former Minister of Agriculture, who went over in 1928. In the fall of 1929 it is alleged by European buyers-I want to make this clear-that due to the action of the wheat exporting trade of Canada they were unfairly treated. That is their argument. I am not endorsing it-*
An bon. MEMBER: The wheat pool.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The wheat exporters of
Canada, pool and otherwise. It was argued by the buying countries that they were unfairly. treated by the Canadian wheat exporter, who held up his wheat so that they were forced to buy Argentine wheat. It was further stated that the mills of Holland, Belgium, France, Germany and Denmark, as well as those of some of the other countries, changed their silk screens for tihe milling of Argentine wheat. When we came into office we found the door closed not only by tariffs but by prejudice based upon a conviction that they had not been treated fairly.

I am not passing judgment on Canadians at all; I may say that the wheat pool officials and others denied . that they held up wheat. Whether or not that is true, the oonviction was fixed in the minds of European buyers that it was the case. Now I ask, where was the government of the day during the autumn of 1929 and the winter and spring of 1930? Where was Mr. Dunning, who is the outstanding champion of cooperative wheat farming and marketing in western Canada? Where was he? Where was the hon. member for Melville? Where was the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart)? Where were the ministers of that government? So far as I have been able to discover, not one of them moved a finger to correct thait situation. If, Mr. Speaker, there was any truth in the statement, if Canada was to blame, why did not the government of the day use its influence, if it had no control, to correct that situation?
I may say this, that when we went over last fall to attend the Imperial conference, my right hon. leader and my colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, and myself, we did everything we could to correct that condition. I think. Mr. Speaker, the figures I have given are indicative of the fact that at least some good was done to Canada in the correcting of thait difficulty. Am I called in question on that? Let me just read a few details in this matter. Giving the round figures. Great Britain purchased this year 132.001,090 bushels of wheat as against 112,000,000 bushels last year-


Robert James Manion: In spite of the Dunning
budget.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, in spite of the
Dunning budget. Belgium took 11.000 000 bushels each year. Between the dates I have mentioned. France took 9,800,000 bushels this year as against 6 000 000 bushels last year. Germany took 5.600.000 bushels this year as against 5.400.000 bushels last year. Greece took 5,284.000 bushels this year as against 3.675.000 bushels last year. Italy, a market we thought we had lost to Russia, took 12,281,000 bushels this year as against 5.845.000 last year The Netherlands took 7 888.000 bushels against 5.950.000 bushels last year; Norway took 849,000 bushels as against 1.000.000 last year; Sweden took 1,369.000 bushels as against 1.614.000. The total during the period mentioned is 188,000,000 bushels to Europe, as against 155,000,000 the previous year, and this was accomplished in spite of the fact that there was a prejudice against Canada when we went over last year, because

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
of the action of the previous year. Again I say there was a grave responsibility resting on the government. I am not saying the government should have stepped in and taken the wheat and sold it, but I say that the minister who viewed the agricultural prospects of Europe from the spas of Europe, and who toured that country so extensively, never had a word of advice for his friends :n the west. The former Minister of Finance, Mr. Dunning, who is supposed to be the outstanding authority on this subject, particularly in connection with marketing, had no word to say. So I could call the roll; none of them had a word of advice, and the results are to be seen in the figures I have presented.


Mr. VALLANOE:: Would the minister
mind teililing us, now that he has gone so far. just what he did to bring about these results?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will tell the house what we did. I think we were successful in removing from the minds of the buying countries of Europe the feeling of prejudice and bitterness against Canada, based largely upon the assumption which they held, rightly or wrongly, that Canada was out to corner the world market and to dictate prices to Europe. We removed that feeling.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we are large exporters of certain other commodities to which I wish to refer. Let us consider copper, and here again we have the reason, largely, for the fall in the value of our exports. During 1929-30 copper sold for over 18 cents a pound; the average price was nearly 19 cents, but there was a fixed price of 18 cents. Copper is now SI cents per pound, the lowest it has been for many years, showing a reduction of 46 per cent. Lead was 8 cents per pound; it is now 2j cents, and indeed I saw a quotation to-day below that. There is a drop again of more than 46 per cent. Zinc was 7 cents per pound; now it is 2f cents or less, a drop of 38 per cent. I am afraid these percentages are a little low; as a matter of fact they should be higher. In any case, there was a serious drop in the values of these articles. I have here a statement in detail dealing with the exports, but I do not wish to read it at length. The export of copper, by weight, has dropped 26 per cent; the export of lead has dropped 7 per cent, and the export of nickel by 23 per cent, but the export of zinc has increased by 34 per cent. In other words, the falling off in the amount of these metals exported is much less than the fall in value. That again accounts for a large portion of the fall in the value of the exports.
I think it well for Canada as a whole to recognize these facts, because whatever may be the desire of our political opponents to belittle the government, I do not think any hon. member opposite desires to belittle Canada, and if we can give to the world a picture less depressing than perhaps certain figures indicate, it is doing this country a good service.
My hon. friend who preceded me, acting as critic for the opposition, referred to unemployment. He gave the decline in employment as from 107.8 to 99.7; that is to say, at the end of April, 1930-I believe that was the month-the figure was 107.8, while this year it is 99.7. Well, he was correct. But may I point out that he chose the worst point he could. And it will perhaps surprise the house when I state that, with all the unemployment we have to-day and the bad times we are experiencing, with this figure of 99.7 which the hon. gentleman gave, there were only three years out of the nine during which my hon. friends opposite were in office when the figure did reach that point, 99.7. In other words, in six years out of the nine they were in office employment was below 99.7. And the years in which it exceeded that figure were 1928, 1929 and 1930, which were boom years practically the world over and which we cannot claim brought any great advantage to society by reason of the collapse of the boom in New York. That was largely a stock market boom and its collapse was perhaps one of the worst blows which we have suffered in modern times.
The older members of this house will recall the mission which the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) undertook some years ago when he went up and down this country talking about the high cost of living. Oh, how well we remember it. But that was before he became Prime Minister. It was in the year 1920-21, and the right hon. gentleman was than a free lance; he was seeking office and he went through the country, into the highways and byways, talking about, the high cost of living. At that time you could hear nothing else from the right hon. gentleman. Now I call the house to witness that he got into office and the high cost of living continued just the same. He did nothing to reduce it, and this year, for the first time since the right hon. gentleman took office in 1921, the cost of living is down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. STEVENiS: My hon. friends do not like that. Well, I will give them the facts.
The Budget-Mr. Stevens

The family budget to-day is 8.86 as compared with 11.24 in April, 1930-a very substantial decrease of over 21 per cent. Now, employment was at 99 this year, as pointed out by my hon. friend, and this he said was low as compared with what it was a year ago. Let me point out, however, that it is higher than it was during six years out of the nine in which my hon. friends opposite were in office. And, as I have shown, the cost of living is lower to-day than it was at any time during their term of office. But hon. gentlemen opposite had certain cut and dried appeals which they made to the people of the country, appeals whereby they sought to beguile the poor in support of their policies.
I wish to say now a few words in connection with .the income tax. My hon. friend declared that this was a rich man's budget, and he cited the income tax to support his contention. This is not a rich man's budget, nor does it propose a rich man's income tax. My hon. friend did not do himself justice today, for he did not give to the income tax proposals the study which he ought to have given and which he might have given had he carefully perused the resolutions. There has been published in the press an abundance of information in the form of analyses by newspaper men. editors and others, to show that far from being a rich man's income tax budget, the budget is really of benefit to the poor.


An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Such interjections are not creditable to my hon, friends. In the first place, out of 142,000 who -are paying income tax in Canada and that is all who are paying income tax-100,000 will benefit; in other words, 100.000 of the lower class. The budget will benefit that number of the total. Now the corporation tax increase is equal to 25 per cent. What does that mean? My hon. friend suggested that the income tax should be imposed upon those most able to bear it. Well, the larger corporations are representative of the more wealthy people of the country as well as, of course, the smaller shareholders. The fact is, however, that the wealthy men of Canada are the largest owners in the large corporation. That, I think, is accepted. Now, these are not questions to play with; they are questions of economics purely and simply. The increase of 25 per cent in the corporation tax will take from the wealthier men of the country-those, to use my hon. friend's words, who are most able to bear it-more than will be saved to them by the reduction of the maximum in the income tax to 25 per cent. 
I shall come to that in a moment. Let me state it clearly: the increase of 25 per cent in the corporation income tax will bear more heavily upon the richer men and will cost them more than they will save by the reduction of the personal tax maximum to 25 per cent. Let us take the other point, the proposal in these resolutions to reduce to 25 per cent the maximum that may be taken in income tax. Why is that done? In the first place, there are two main principles that ought to guide a government in the imposition of income tax. The first is revenue.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The forty-minute rule is very rigidly insisted upon when it applies to members in this corner of the house. I should like to know why there ought to be any extension of the hon. gentleman's time in this instance.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member will
read the rule he will see that it is being applied.
Mr. WOODSW'ORTH: I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My ruling is that the
Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is quite in order in continuing to speak.
Mr. WOODSW'ORTH: May I ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read the rule.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should not wish the
hon. gentleman bo remain under a misapprehension; I do not want him to think that I am violating any of the rules. The fact is that a motion of want of confidence in the government has been moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, and I, as a minister of the crown, am entitled to reply at length bo that motion.
Now to continue. There are, I say, two principles which any government or country should take into account when considering the question of income tax. One is the principle of revenue and the other is equity of baxation. Now. a tax that drives capital out of the country is on the face of it a bad tax.
I think we ought seriously to study this phase of the situation. If a tax is so onerous as to drive capital out of the country, it is certainly a bad tax for the country. My second point is this: that a sound tax must result in revenue to the country; otherwise, it is not desirable. What has happened? This is what has happened during recent years. The income tax, scaled up higher and higher, had a tendency to force those with higher incomes

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
to take a portion of their capital out of the country and invest it elsewhere, so that their earmings in Canada would be subject to a lower rate of income tax. Now who will say that anyone paying 25 cents of every dollar of htis income is not paying a fair tax to the country? If we fix it at a maximum of 25 per cent there will be a tendency to draw that capital back to Canada and the exchequer will receive a larger return. As I have pointed out already, in addition there is the increase of 25 per cent in the corporation tax and we get a larger revenue from that source.
I do not think the right hon. the leader of the opposition will deny that other finance ministers-I think this would apply to the late Mr. Robb, and also to Mr. Dunning who was the finance minister in the last session of the last parliament-recognized the equity of this. I think they recognized the unfairness of dual taxation, that is, taking eight or ten per cent in the way of a corporation tax and then taxing those who hold large portions of the stock of such corporation and receive dividends thereon. I think the principle was recognized as being unsound, inequitable, unfair, and what is more, likely to drive capital out of the country and to discourage investment. As we have indicated, this adjustment in the income tax will fall more lightly on the lower rates, to the extent of over 100,000 of those who are at present paying income tax. It will fall more heavily upon the rich owners of corporations but it will be stabilized to a point which will invite the return of capital to Canada.
We heard figures this afternoon in connection with the textile industry. My hon. friend quoted from the Labour Gazette, which publication prepares its figures from those supplied by the bureau of statistics. The bureau compiles its figures from information received from a certain number of firms to whom it writes and from whom it receives monthly reports. I desire to show to the house the effect of the tariff imposition of 1930, and I believe the information I will give to be instructive and enlightening. There are 67 establishments reporting, and 50 of these mainly produce goods which were protected by t'he September, 1930, tariff. These 50 establishments presented reports, not to us but to the secretary of the Canadian Woollen and Knit Goods Manufacturers' Association, Mr. Hallam, and from these reports he has compiled the information which I will present to the house. The average number of employees, not including salaried
employees, in 1930 was 5,516; in 1931, 6,798, an increase of 1,272 or 23 per cent.
The hours of labour for a four week period in 1930 were 843,878; in 1931, 1,136,130, an increase of 292,252 or 34.6 per cent.
The pay roll for a four week period in 1930 amounted to $332,273; in 1931, $420,643, an increase of $88,370 or 26.7 per cent.


Vincent Dupuis: Can the minister give a specific date for that four week period?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For the four weeks ending March 14. The capital expenditure from September, 1930, to March 14, 1931, amounted to $761,605.
This analysis or compilation prepared from information received from 50 woollen mills of Canada shows the effect of the tariff of 1930. In other words, it indicates to this house that in so far as the woollen industry of Canada is concerned we have had an increase in the number of employees of 23 per cent, an increase in the hours of labour for a four week period of 34.6 per cent, and an increase in the pay roll for a four week period of 26.7 per cent.
The hon. gentleman has presented to the house an amendment to the motion to go into committee of ways and means, and I shall refer to this amendment very briefly. My hon. friend deplores that there is nothing in the budget referring to unemployment. I would submit to him and to hon. gentlemen opposite that this is scarcely the time, just in the spring of the year, for us to be making proposals to the house to deal with unemployment which may be anticipated next autumn. For the good of the country at large, would it be wise to do that? However, I say to this house .that the government is thoroughly alive to the situation, is bending every effort to meet it and in good time will make its proposals known to the house.
My hon. friend referred to the income tax. but I have just dealt with that. He says that the fiscal measures proposed will intensify the stagnation of trade. I have referred to the woollen industry and have shown what has been done with wheat exports. It is true that we have not been able to control world prices, but we do not pretend to. We have found a larger market this year for Canadian wheat than that of last year; that is clear.
In regard to the export of metals, in the case of zinc we have made a marked increase, and in other cases the decrease has not been very heavy, nothing comparable with what might be expected.
The Budget-Mr. Stevens

In connection with exports generally one can safely say that the falling off is due more to the drop in prices than to the drop in quantity of export. The economists of the world agree that we have pretty well touched bottom in connection with the fall in the price of commodities. We cannot be dogmatic in this statement; I know there are some who think there may be a still further drop, but in connection with wheat I do not think that it is likely. From researches which I have made-I have not been able to complete them as yet but I hope to in a few days-in connection with wheat, which is of such supreme importance to Canada, the indications are that the price will stiffen somewhat during this fall. I could not want ro bo too definite in that regard, but the indications reasonably point in that direction. In any case, the general opinion is that we have pretty well touched bottom in the matter of the reduction in commodity prices, and we can look with hope to the future. Canada having maintained to a larger measure its quantity of export will reap more benefit as the years go by, as prices reassert themselves and as conditions become more stabilized.
The proposals suggested by my hon. friend are quite harmless, so much so that I really am surprised that the great Liberal party should take the trouble to propose them in the way they have. I do not think anyone will be very much alarmed at the suggestion of my hon. friends opposite that nothing is being done to relieve unemployment; the Liberal party was not very anxious about it a year ago. We have taken definite, practical steps to deal with it. We dealt with it in September, 1930, and we shall certainly deal with it to the best of our ability in the months to come.
Their next proposal is:
To restore to a condition of parity the relation between the purchasing powers of all classes.
I shall leave that to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). It is a good bone upon which he can gnaw.


James Shaver Woodsworth: For the life of me 1 do not know what it means.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was my hon. friend's
skill in defining what might be meant by this that prompted me to suggest that he should tackle it. I agree with him. I do not know what it means, and I do not think the mover of the amendment knows what it means. I imagine the leader of the opposition, who is a master of platitudes, will, when he comes to speak, be able to tell us what it is about.
[Mr- Stevens.]
The next is:
To bring about more equitable distribution of the burdens of taxation.
That is so old and hoary' that no one needs to be worried a particle about it. Economists, politicians, statesmen, workers and every other class of people on earth have argued and battered about that idea for as long as I can remember. I think my earliest experience as a public speaker was in debating with some socialists in British Columbia just such topics. It is a good thing to play with when you have nothing else to do, but I notice that the nine years my hon. friends opposite held office did not suffice to solve that question and to distribute the burden.
Next:
To encourage the expansion of the external trade of the country.
We are all with hon. members opposite on that. We are doing it; we did it-and I am going to refer again to agriculture; it is worth while-to the extent of 234,000,000 bushels as against 155,000,000 bushels, so we are not afraid of that.
Lastly, they want:
To restore to parliament its full authority over tariff and taxation.
My right hon. friend opposite during all the years he was in office, in respect to any knotty question which bothered the government, would say:	Well, this is a question which we
shall leave to the house. Always he referred it to the house. Never, when it was a question that called for a little courage to face, would he himself decide it. In this regard the suggestion was made that they were referring to the powers taken by the government last September to fix prices on goods. The point in that legislation is this:	Canada has been
faced with the grossest type of dumping from the United States during the last five or six years. One of the things we have done in this budget is to bar from now on used cars coming from that country, and we did well; there is no question about that. In that great republic they are almost daily taking scow loads of used motor cars out of such great cities as San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, and so on, and dumping them in the ocean in order to get them out of the way for the sale of new cars. But what they could bring from Detroit, Seattle and other border cities and dump on our market for next to nothing they did. We propose they shall do it no more, and if it is necessary to introduce such legislation as I have mentioned in order to prevent such dumping, we are going to introduce it and we are going to use it after it is put through.

The Budget-Mr. Heaps
Another form of dumping was one which my hon. friends opposite found one of the most perplexing. There was a question of the dumping of furniture. My hon. friend the former Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) will recall it. It was the most unfair kind of competition Canadian workmen could be confronted with-southern United States cheap labour, a certain amount of cheap supplies, furniture constructed there to a standard pattern, sold to a population of 120,000,000 people all over the United States, and the excess, by keeping their mills running day and night, dumped into Canada at next to nothing, so that it was almost an impossibility to find out what the fair market value was in the country to the south of us. It was necessary for us, as it was necessary for the preceeding government, to take steps to protect Canadian workmen and factories against that type of competition. All we have asked is that parliament give to the government power to meet these emergencies and contingencies as they arise, and we have no intention of using it unwisely or unfairly.
My hon. friend referred to potatoes. I thought at the moment the point was pretty small potatoes for a great lawyer like him to use. True enough, in dealing with these early fruits and vegetables which have been a problem for this country for years, there may occasionally be a slip made where the price is fixed a week or two before it ought to be fixed. There might be occasions of that kind, but the house is invited to look at the matter in this light: this is a great industry in Canada, that of the garden vegetable grower and the fruit producer, and we are faced with sudden, unexpected, and very cheap production from Texas, Florida and the southern states. We have a right and we feel it is our duty to protect the Canadian producer against that unfair competition. For that purpose we ask this: We do not ask this authority in order to take from parliament the right to control the tariff, but we ask that the government be clothed with such powers as will enable them to act and not shield themselves behind a statute which gives them no special powers. We rather resent the suggestion that we have taken or usurped from parliament the control of the tariff. Parliament has control. Look at these schedules. My hon. friend says that there is no use going over them, because parliament has not control. When he said that it occurred to me that he was convinced in his heart the schedules were so fair that he could not find anything to criticize in them.
We therefore ask the house to give to the Prime Minister of this country, who presented his budget so ably last Monday, a mandate to enable the government, to face the perplexities, the troubles, the economic difficulties of the time, and to help us in bringing Canada out of this depression along, we hope, with other countries, into a period of prosperity.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, my first word will be one of congratulation to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who has just resumed his seat. I am extremely glad to see him back in the house and taking part in our deliberations with his old, accustomed vigour. During the course of his address he made one remark to which I wish to refer. Between the hon. gentleman and myself there is one thing in common: neither of us happens to belong to the legal profession. When he criticized the former Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) who spoke this afternoon, he referred to him as a lawyer making a good argument. I should like him to bear in mind that when the former Minister of National Defence was making his speech this afternoon, it was a case of one lawyer answering another able lawyer in the house. Consequently, I think my hon. friend ought to have at least that much consideration for the argument of the former Minister of National Defence.
After listening to the remarks which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just made, I have become convinced that since my hon. friend has crossed the floor of the house he has become a very good Liberal.
I am satisfied that since the Liberal party have crossed the floor of the house they are doing exactly the same as the Conservative party did in opposition a year ago. That is about the difference I find at the moment between the two parties. I would dearly have liked if the present leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) could be in opposition just for a, few hours to answer the speech which he made on Monday. I think he could have made a wonderful speech; in fact, I think he could have even eclipsed the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth.	_
Listening to the speech of the Prime Minister on Monday last, it occurred to me that he dealt a great deal with the past, partly with the present, and very little with the future. I am naturally interested in the past -it is a great thing to be acquainted with the historic happenings of years gone by- but I do .think that the people of this country

pose, if enunciated by myself would be called bolshevistic, but coming from the leader of one of the old parties it was regarded as statesmanlike. But whether it be statesmanlike, high finance, or bolshevistic, I think it would be a very good thing indeed to exercise the unquestioned authority which the Prime Minister declares we have and adopt his suggestion, and so make a huge saving to the people of this country, a saving which would enable the government to establish a sinking fund to pay off part of the national debt.
Reference was made this afternoon to the proposal to aid our farmers by giving them a 5 per cent rebate on their freight rates. As far as I am able to judge it will be an extremely difficult task for the government to carry out this scheme. May I for a moment have the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to a suggestion which I think the government might consider favourably? I presume the purpose of the proposal is to assist the farmer in the present unfortunate circumstances in which he happens to find himself. If such is the case, and there is going to be considerable doubt and hardship in the working out of a proposal of this character, I think it would be far better for the government to give to the farmers a 4 cent bonus for every bushel of wheat that is delivered to the elevator. By that method the farmer will get just as much as he would get by receiving a 5 cent rebate on every bushel of wheat sold for export, and there would not be the difficulties to contend with in the application of the rebate. The moment the farmer delivered his wheat to the elevator he could probably get a statement as to the amount of wheat delivered, and then he would be entitled to a bonus accordingly. I think the farmer would prefer that system to having to wait possibly twelve months to ascertain what portion of his wheat was exported and what portion was consumed in Canada. If any assistance is to be given to the farmers I would prefer it to be given in that simple way rather than under the complicated scheme contained in the budget.
The Prime Minister dealt with our obligations, our assets, and our liabilities. And goodness knows our liabilities are very, very heavy. But throughout the whole of his speech-and the same remark applies to that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce this evening-there was not a word of reference made to what I consider is our greatest asset. It is quite true our wheat is an asset, it is quite true that our banks are an asset, possibly some would say, in a limited sense. It is quite true that our buildings, our factories

and our transportation systems are all assets, but to my way of thinking the greatest asset in Canada is the Canadian people. When we deal with the question of obligations and liabilities, we should remember that' it takes in something more than merely dollars and cents. In listening to the speech this evening of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the budget speech of the right hon. Prime Minister I did not hear one word as to the well-being of the great masses of the people in Canada.
What are the proposals of the government to meet the present situation? To the farmer they offer a bonus of 5 cents per bushel on export wheat. To the manufacturer there is an increased tariff. That appears to me very much like trying to lift ourselves by our own boo-t straps.


Mr. YOUNG:: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: For once I am glad to have the hon. member for Weylbum agree wit/h me. I notice that the manufacturers of this country are very well pleased with the contents of the budget; they seem to think it is a very good budget. I remember the speeches made in this house by the right bon. Prime Minister, when he spoke of Canada becoming a self-contained dominion. I find in the paper to-day that at a meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association held in Victoria the same idea was enunciated. One of the headlines of the article contains these words, referring to the budget delivered in this house a few days ago:
Proposal is seen to make Canada selfsupporting.
A little further on the article states:
They (the manufacturers) realize that Mr. Bennett's policy is definitely aimed at making Canada a self-supporting country as far as that is possible.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the effort of this government or of the manufacturers is to make of this country a self-supporting unit economically, it means the economic stagnation of western Canada. If they attempt to make of this country a self-supporting country it means practically the economic ruination of the three prairie provinces.


Mr. IRVINE:: Why?


Abraham Albert Heaps: For the very obvious reason that we cannot use all the wheat produced by the farmers of the west. If four-fifths or more of our wheat is exported and only one-fifth used by the people of Canada, to make Canada a self-contained unit would mean that

The Budget-Mr. Heaps
four-fifths of the wheat would not find a market. I have listened very attentively not only to this budget debate but to many other budget debates in this house and I have found in those debates the thought which is referred to in this despatch concerning the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, which goes on to say:
Increased consumption of Canadian made goods can only result in greater employment of Canadian workers and reduction of existing unemployment.
It appears to me that every time the tariff is raised and something is done for the benefit of the manufacturers, it is generally stated that the real reason for doing it is to help the workingman. If all the legislation passed by this parliament and the provincial legislatures were for the benefit 'of the workers I think they would be living in a paradise at the present time. But what do we really find? With all this beneficial legislation; with all these increased tariffs year after year, the position of the worker to-day is relatively worse than it has been during the last twenty-five years in Canada. I do not care how the figures read which were submitted to-day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce; nobody can gainsay the fact that there is more unemployment to-day than we have ever known at this time of the year.
However, we pass this high tariff legislation in the hope, as it is claimed, of providing more work for the workingman. Mr. Speaker, while the workingman to-day is looking for a job, we will not solve the problem of unemployment by providing a few more factories here and there. It cannot be done in that way. The fact is that to a very large extent we are not suffering from lack of productive capacity but from the fact that we have too much production and are unable, for various reasons, to utilize the commodities which we produce. It is not only that the unemployed cannot get access to the machinery of production; they are denied also the right of access to the means of consumption, and today we have this paradox: People are in want and misery and poverty on the one hand and on the other hand we have too much wealth, which these very same people are not allowed to consume. I have personal knowledge of cases Where, rather than permit people to consume what has been produced in over-abundance, the goods have been allowed to go to rot and waste.
The working people of this country looked forward to the budget. Hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers who perhaps do not know where their next meal is coming from have been awaiting this budget in the hope that it might afford them some relief in their present unfortunate situation. But what do we find? The budget contains something for the manufacturer; it contains something- for the millionaire, but there is nothing for the workingman. This has been termed a rich man's budget, but I would term it a millionaire's and manufacturer's budget. Reference was made by the previous speaker in a very perfunctory way, to the question of unemployment. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, which interests me and my constituents more than this same question. I do not think it is any excuse for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to say that in good time the policy of the government will be made known. It may be that it will not be to the credit of Canada to say that in the month of June we have a vast unemployment problem to face, but this government have claimed on more than one occasion that they are known for their courageous actions. Why are they not as courageous in dealing with the unemployment problem as they are in dealing with the tariff?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: They did not hesitate to discuss it last year at this time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I told my hon. friend at the outset that since the Conservatives changed seats they have become good Liberals, and that is exactly what is happening. Here we have this unemployment problem, but when early in the month of March I asked the Prime Minister a very simple question, what the government intended to do then in order to deal with the problem of unemployment I think his reply was something to this effect: "The attitude of the government will be manifest by its actions." So far it has been manifest by its inaction, and I think the time has come for action. Our municipalities are not in a position to cope with the situation. In many cases their funds have become exhausted, and to-day many people do not know Where the next meal is coming from. In that respect we should have had some intimation in the budget speech or in the speech delivered this evening by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to what the intention of the government is with regard to this all important question. I claim that at the present moment there is no question of such paramount importance to the vast majority of the people of Canada as the ques-
The Budget-Mr. Heaps

tion of unemployment. Yet there is not a word about it in the budget which the Prime Minister brought down or in the speech which we have heard to-night from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Before the election unemployment was an important issue: so important did it become in this house and in the country a year ago that it was thought desirable to call a special session of parliament in September last to deal with the situation. Now it is not of sufficient importance even to be mentioned in the budget. We must bear in mind that when the unemployment issue became a live question in this house and in the country at large hon. gentlemen opposite as a party accepted the challenge, declaring that if returned to power they would deal with the matter. But not only did they say that they would deal with it; they went further and said that they would end unemployment or perish in the attempt. I know, of course, that ten months is not a long time, especially when it comes to putting an end to unemployment. But I venture to say that if the government is in power for the next ten years, with their present policies, they will never solve the unemployment problem. But they accepted the challenge and declared that they would end unemployment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the mere voting of ten or fifteen or twenty millions by way of a dole is not something that will satisfy me. I hate to accept a vote of $20,000,000 in the form of a dole, to be handed out to the workers of this country as a means of securing food and clothing and shelter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely my hon. friend is not fair in that statement, because the larger portion of that amount was used, together with other contributions up to the sum of $69,000,000, in providing useful employment, which constituted the major part of the relief.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wish I had the same time at my disposal as the Minister of Trade and Commerce had when making his speech. Let me tell him what in part that useful work consisted of. In the city of Winnipeg there was a certain piece of work started to assist the unemployed, the digging of a trench. Had that work been done by a trench machine it would have cost approximately $150,009; but it was done by hand with a view to giving the unemployed a chance to go out in 20 below zero weather to earn a meal ticket. And that hand labour on that piece of work was estimated to cost about $1,000000 as against, an estimate approximately of $150,000 by machinery. That is the kind of work that was done. I admit that in a sense it is useful work, but in another sense it is absolutely useless to ask a man to 
go out in extreme cold to dig trenches two days a week, working eight hours a day, on a piece of work which could be done by machinery at one-sixth of the cost. I should prefer to see that work done for $150,090 and the rest of the $1,000,000 spent to better purpose.
This past winter about 350,000 people received relief through the money voted by parliament. But almost as many as those who received work received direct relief in the form of groceries and so forth. If almost $4,000,000 was spent in groceries and $16,000,000 for the purpose of providing work, that proportion will indicate the number of persons who received direct relief. Now the fact is that under the present economic structure we cannot provide work for everyone who wants it. That is the first fact for us to recognize; and I do not care if the tariff is as high as Haman's gallows, you will not be able to provide work through that means for all the men and women who need it. As a matter of fact, since the tariff went into force last year, the textile industry, to my knowledge-and what I say is borne out by communications I have under my hand-has engaged in the wholesale slashing of wages and in the speeding-up process whereby men and women have been compelled to look after more looms than they did formerly. They have gone on reduced time since, then, and some of the new factories which opened as a result of the new tariff schedule of September last are themselves amongst the worst offenders in cutting down the wages of the men and women they employ. Yet to-day we are saying to some of the major industries, "We will give you more protection". For whom is this protection intended? For the persons employed in industry, or for the manufacturers and owners? I am safe in saying that every time or almost every time we put on a tariff it represents so much more protection for the manufacturer, without giving anything in return to those employed in industry. I remember the fights put up by the Conservative members, particularly those from the maritime provinces, when the Duncan commission was taking evidence; and when increased tariffs or subsidies were being demanded, it was represented that these demands were being made in the interests of those who were employed in the coal mining and steel industries of Nova Scotia. What has happened? Will anyone inform me to-night how much the workers in those industries have benefited as a result of the. increased protection and the added subsidies we have given those industries in the maritime provinces? Why, during the past few days we of the Labour group have re-

The Budget-Mr. Lacroix
ceived telegrams, letters and communications galore which we could put on Hansard if we so desired, showing the deplorable conditions prevailing in the maritime provinces. These communications tell of starvation and of the desperate situation that exists amongst the workers in those provinces. Yet we are told now that, in order to assist the maritimes, we are going to give further protection to the steel and coal industries.


An hon. MEMBER:: What suggestion has the hon. gentleman to make to relieve the situation?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have not the time to go into the matter now; my allotted time has expired. But it seems to me that we ought to insist that hon. gentlemen opposite should first of all admit that their remedies have utterly failed to meet the situation. Until we have that admission from them, and so long as they continue to cherish the belief that high protection is a cure for unemployment, we must insist upon first getting rid of that erroneous idea. When they admit that their ideas are wrong, then we shall get up and say what we believe is the remedy for the situation.


Mr. EDOUARD LACROIX (Beauoe) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last,
the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) brought down the budget for the past. fiscal year, as well as the government's proposed expenditures for the coming year.
In this budget the Minister of Finance admits a deficit of more than $75,000,000 for the past year, but seems to place the responsibility for such a deficit upon the Liberal administration. At the same time he forecasted another deficit for the coming year, notwithstanding bis intention of levying further taxes to an amount of $78,000,000. I wonder if the right hon. minister believes the people of this country will take him seriously, whether he really thinks that the people ascribe to others than himself the present deficit? To what means will he resort in order to place the responsibility of future deficits upon other administrations than his own? I shall take this opportunity, in the short time allotted to me. of expressing my views on the present budget. It is the budget of a man who personally must be immensely wealthy and seeks thereby to protect only the privileged class, namely, those who are rich, forgetting entirely that the majority of the people of this country, not to say 99 per cent, is made up of workers who can barely provide for their families. The present budget may be termed a precious document for -the 22110-X4S
multimillionaires, but a very poor specimen for the most numerous class of the people. In my opinion, the Canadian multimillionaire has no end of protection in this budget. As evidence of this statement let us scrutinize some of the items.
From the Canadian financier's viewpoint, the advantages of the present budget are as follows:
First, take the reductions made in the income tax which, under the Liberal regime, bore heavily on the multimillionaire. There are in Canada about 605 citizens who pay an income tax on a revenue of more than $50,000 per year, 350 pay an income tax on a revenue of more than $100,000, and what is more interesting, there is also a group of about 25 citizens who are taxed on a revenue of $1,000,000 or more, yearly. The latter have been specially favoured, as my statement will show.
Under the Liberal administration, those whose revenue exceeded $1,000,000 per year had to pay $382,928. Under the present budget of high protection they pay only $246,125 per year, that is a decrease of $116,803, which benefits each of these multimillionaires, in other words the country will be deprived of at least $3,000,000 which the people will have to be taxed for instead of our multimillionaires.
The other day the hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) stated that he was proud of seeing this country governed by a Prime Minister who is worth $20,000,000, instead of a Liberal leader who is not worth five cents, yet the man on the street has a right to point out that the right hon. Prime Minister, according to this hon. member, would come under the group that had to pay a large income tax under the former administration, while he specially benefits under the present reduction.
What are we to think of the legislation enacted by the right hon. Prime Minister who, in September last, gave unbounded protection to oil companies of this country to the detriment of the Canadian consumer? What does the consumer pay owing to the tariff increase on imported gasoline and oils? I state that it is the most unjust tax which could be levied on Canadians.
In 1929 we produced in the oil refineries of Canada 436,260,614 gallons of gasoline. We imported the same year 175,151,570 gallons; we also exported, during the same year 4,669.078 gallons; that is, in 1929, we consumed 607,103,006 gallons of gasoline.
By unduly favouring this industry which already enjoyed sufficient protection, the

The Budget-Mr. Lacroix

gasoline consumer is forced to pay li cents more than in 1929. The duty being based on the United States gallon, it means ^ of a cent more per gallon or on the whole 1^ cents more which the Canadian consumer is called upon to pay. The Canadian people therefore must pay $10,927,855 per year more than in 1929, which is a gift made to the oil companies by the consumers.
We are told that the price of gasoline has not gone up owing to the tariff increase.' This is but a subtle argument to make the people believe that they are not paying any dearer when a higher tax is put on gasoline. Is it not a fact that in the United States gasoline is purchased at present ait the lowest price quoted since 1918? Such legislation reflects unfavourably upon the administration of the right hon. Prime Minister who wishes to protect a company in which he was a director in 1927, an immensely wealthy corporation whose headquarters are in the United States, the Standard Oil company of New York, the Imperial Oil Company being a Canadian branch. That, I suppose, is the motto of the right hon. Minister of Finance who is also the Prime Minister of Canada: "Canada for the Canadians."
One wishes to have the people believe that this budget looks after the interests of the farming class. I doubt whether the farmers of my county are so credulous. I refer to the rebate on freight of 5 cents per bushel on all wheat exports. If one really wishes to help the Canadian people, why not grant this rebate for both wheat and flour consumed in this country? Is the Canadian consumer not entitled to pay for his flour less or at least the same price that it is sold in England and in foreign countries, when we export our wheat to those countries? Are people aware that 5 cents per bushel of wheat means 12 cents per hundredweight of flour? Was the calculation ever made that with this rebate in force flour would sell dearer in Canada than in England? Will the western farmer really benefit by it? I have my doubts. I think that the exporter will be the only one to benefit by this rebate which will cost the country between $19,000,000 and $20,000,000 per year, basing my calculations on the average exports of the last five years. The following are the figures to be found on pages 640 and 641 of a book bearing the title "The Trade of Canada," issue of 1930: In the year 1926 we exported 418,094,401 bushels of wheat; in 1927, 394,423,836 bushels; in 1928,	391,695.566
bushels; in 1929, 476,186,733 bushels; in 1930, 232,763,740 bushels. The total amount in five years is 1,913,164,276 bushels or an average of 382,632.855 bushels per year. If you multiply

these figures by 5 cents per bushel, you will find that the tax levied on Canadians in order to help the western farmer, amounts to $19,131,642.76 per year.
Now, sir, if the western farmer is to benefit by this rebate, it necessarily follows that in order to raise these 19 or 20 million dollars, the whole country must contribute? If the right hon. Minister of Finance has thought if proper to burden his budget with these 19 or 20 million dollars per year in order to pay this rebate, why can he not do as much for the farmers of eastern Canada? The farmers of Ontario or Quebec are not in a better position than those of the west. They are entitled to their share of the pledges made by the Prime Minister and his lieutenants throughout the various provinces during the election of 1930.
I must claim for the farmer of my district and province, as a whole, a rebate equal to that granted to the farmers of the west, which would be equivalent to a contribution of 2i cents for each pound of butter exported and of li cents for each pound of cheese that may be exported in the future. For the same reason, I claim for the farmers, the settler who exports pulpwood to the U.S. a rebate of i of the value of that pulpwood, namely $1.00 per cord which is equivalent to the rebate granted to the western farmer. If means are found to grant 5 cents per bushel to the western farmer, which is equivalent to i of the value of wheat per bushel, because when the freight rates, elevator charges and agents' commission are deducted, western wheat, at present, is worth but 40 cents a bushel on the farm. Therefore, I state that 5 cents is equivalent to of the wheat price, and I must claim for the farmers of my district and province,-those farmers that my hon. friends on the government side represent in this house-I claim as I said, i of the value of their products. They are equally entitled to this rebate, as I shall further prove.
I wonder how my hon. friends from Quebec will justify their stand on the budget when, during the 1930 election, on all the platforms of their respective counties they made the following pledges-which have not been forgotten: 1-The pledge that butter would sell at 50 cents per pound.
2-	The immediate relief of unemployment and fixing a minimum wage for labour at $3 per day.
3-	The immediate discontinuance of all financial assistance to the western provinces so as to first protect the interests of Quebec and Ontario.

The Budget-Mr. Lacroix
4-	The pledge to do away with all objections to Canadians entering the U.S., during the winter months.
5-	The pledge to immediately cut down all taxes which are a burden to farmers.
6-	An immediate additional grant by the dominion government to old age pensions.


Alfred Duranleau: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Édouard Lacroix: The hon. minister will
have ample time to speak next month.


Alfred Duranleau: Could the hon. member inform us who made the pledges he has just mentioned?


Édouard Lacroix: A short while ago, sir,
I listened attentively to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who informed us that under the present administration 254,000,000 bushels of wheat had been exported compared with 155,000,000 bushels during the previous year. This reminds me that when a person wishes to liquidate or get rid of his goods, means are always found to ship them. Railways are at a standstill and they are very glad indeed of the opportunity of shipping wheat for the sake of freight. May I give you proof of this:	Last winter,
there were large quantities of wheat stored in the Quebec elevators, and when I purchased some of this wheat, I made my payments to the railways which had been unable to collect the freight rates on the wheat shipped from the west to Quebec.
I agree with the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and really think that the eastern farmers will sell much more butter this year than they did last year, but may I also add, just as the Conservative members did on the platforms: farmers search your pockets to see whether you have the same amount of money as you had during the election of 1930. Last week, I met a farmer of the county of Dorchester who told me: I have ten cows and I have just come back from the butter factory with my pay which amounts to $4.16 for the week.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame! shame!
Mr. G'OBEIL: He had but one cow.


Édouard Lacroix: Was this not, sir, a fine result after having fed 10 cows during 6 days, not mentioning Sundaj.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: His cows are not worth much.


Édouard Lacroix: The hon. Minister of Trade of Commerce also told us that there was as much work, to-day, in this country, as
there had been during six years of the Liberal regime, from 1921. I mingle quite a little with the working classes of Quebec and I must confess that I have never witnessed since 1914 such a sad state for the worker as that prevailing to-day. Hon. members whose counties border the United States and those of the eastern parts of Quebec will bear me out in this statement.
I am in business myself. I have sometimes employed as many as 6,500 men. At present, I employ but 700 to 800, owing to the present unfavourable conditions. May I state that since 1914, I have never paid less than $39 per month to my men, in addition to their board. To-day, we are forced to reject a large number who offer their services for 50 cents per day. Even when we reject them, they plead to be allowed to work for their board.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame! shame! *


Édouard Lacroix: This is the actual state of things and I challenge hon. members on the government side to prove the contrary.
Among all the pledges, sir, given by members on the government side, I find one which they fulfilled inadvertently. In our eastern counties of Quebec, a pledge was made that the difficulty encountered by Canadian workers, during the winter months, to enter the United States in order to work in the bush, would be satisfactorily settled.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who promised this?


Édouard Lacroix: The United States Immigration Bureau settled this question and no further difficulties exist. The hon. members sitting on the government side, however, have no 'claim in this connection.
The gates have been closed and Canadians are prohibited to enter the United States.
There is no further need for hon. members promising to wipe out the $18 head tax and settle the difficulties connected with it. These difficulties have already been settled.
The Canadian worker is forced to remain at home and seek work outside of the United States, and not finding any, he must beg in order to provide for his family. If any one on the government side wishes to know who made such a promise, I shall tell him so.


Mr. DENIS:: Who made such a promise?


Édouard Lacroix: It is useless for any one on this side to expect me to divulge the name of this person.
What are we to think, sir, of the tax of 15 per cent on the premium which will have to be paid in future by Canadians who are insured or intend to take out insurances in
The Budget-Mr. Lacroix

foreign companies? I state that this measure also gives protection where it is not needed, namely to Canadian insurance companies, especially those who form part of the association of underwriters.
By this legislation, competition between insurance companies is eliminated, to the detriment of the insured, and the public whose means are limited suffer thereby.
As stated, we have in this country an association of insurance companies known as underwriters. The companies which form part of this association protect one another and insure accordingly to the rates fixed by the association. In the past we had access to foreign companies, which competed against this association. However, in the future, I again state, in order to take advantage of this legitimate competition, the 'business man, t.he farmer or any resident of this country who does not wish to be under the absolute control of the underwriters, will have to pay 15 per cent on his premium.
To better describe what I mean and show7 how necessary it is sometimes to resort to foreign companies in order to obtain reasonable rates in a locality where, for one reason or another, the association of underwriters has fixed prohibitive rates, may I cite as an example a village which has had the misfortune of having had a serious fire. Owing to this fact the association's rates are often very much increased. In order to bring this association to better terms we had access, as stated, to foreign insurance companies. Heretofore to obtain reasonable rates and protect themselves against fire, all property owners will be forced to pay the government a tax of 15 per cent on the premium paid to foreign companies. I state that this is an unjust measure, one that aims at giving unbounded protection to the insurance association, whose companies are immensely wealthy, and this is detrimental to Canadian trade.
May I draw the attention of the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) on the working of the Farm Loan Board. Loans have been requested for months past. Our farmers must absolutely renew their loans, either because the creditor having made poor investments elsewhere must withdraw his loans on mortgages made to farmers, or sometimes there are other reasons.
It would be an easy matter to allow the board to loan the amount needed by solvent farmers. But permission is withheld. I have reason to believe that the board is somewhat pinched as to the funds required. No one seems to bother much about those whose existence is most necessary to this country, the requested inspections are not carried out

or when they are, answers to requests are indefinitely postponed.
Our banks in rural districts do not extend to farmers long term loans. The latter seem to be totally ignored notwithstanding all the good reasons given to accommodate them for a limited time. The President of the Bankers Association, in April last, stated to the Canadian Press that he knew of no cases where banks refused reasonable loans. I may state that if he does not know of any such cases, I do, and these refusals happen daily in our rural districts. And how many other abuses are perpetrated by some of our banks!
Shall we allow this state of affairs to continue indefinitely in this country? The unfortunate situation in the past of one of our banks connected with the operations of Mackenzie and Mann or the Canadian Northern, will soon again happen if the committee on banking of this house does not investigate, without further delay, what is actually taking place in this country. The charter of our banks will come, in a few years before parliament in order to be renewed. Is the present time not a- favourable opportunity for members who form part of this committee to consider the ways and means of setting a few of these institutions in order? Would it not be possible for the committee on banking to suggest the passing of an act which would prohibit presidents and officials of our banks to form part of any other corporation but their own? Is it not a fact that precedents exist to that effect; the Bank of England and that of France do not allow any of their officials, president or governors, to form part of any other corporation but their own?
Would this not be the key to the situation, and would this not facilitate us in having banking institutions entirely free of all dangerous speculations.


Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):: That is not
what happens in Quebec.


Édouard Lacroix: If this does not happen in Quebec, the fault lies with the dominion government which exercises no supervision.


Samuel Gobeil: I thought that it was Taschereau who exercised no supervision.


Édouard Lacroix: I beg your
pardon, this comes under the dominion government.
Would it not also be in order to consider a measure which would oblige our banks to pay more attention to the needs of the most necessary class in this country, the farmers? I would like to see all our banks establish a

The Budget-Mr. Morand
special department which would extend loans to farmers that are solvent, long term loans if necessary.
I state also that the present prevailing system, so far as capitalists are concerned, should be checked by those who are in charge of it or they will have to bear the consequences of being brought to order by the people. However, I prefer the system of private enterprise to that of large mergers. Would it not be preferable for our capitalists to adopt themselves to the evolution taking place instead of running the risk of a revolution which hovers over our heads at present? I want to tell these captains of finance that the time has arrived for them to discontinue their speculative tendencies and help the regular trade, and thus work for the welfare of the nation. There is no need for them to think of dividends for a year ahead. They must think of giving work to those who are in need of it. Of what utility are these steam-shovels and all modern machinery, when the labourer cannot find work, and being out of work, cannot provide for his family?


Hon. R. D. MORAND (East Essex):: In
speaking to the budget I wish first of all to express my deep appreciation of the magnificent effort of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) acting in his capacity of Minister of Finance in bringing to the attention of the house an account of the numerous ramifications of the country's services, revenues, expenditures and debt, in such an able way that young members like myself and others outside the house, who take an interest in national affairs, may get a comprehensive viewpoint of our finances. When one considers the colossal labour, the amount of intense study, and the time involved that might have been spent more pleasantly by the Prime Minister, one realizes how fortunate the country is to have at its head a man of such business ability who has the desire and willingness to give his ability and time in the service of the dominion.
We have already to-day heard a good deal about the increase in taxation. To me the question of taxes has always been simple, inasmuch as the total amount of taxes that the people pay is the total amount of revenue that the government receives, less the revenue from the services of the country. With the exception of the revenue from those services, there is no other way that I know whereby a country can get money than by taxation. It is rather interesting, after having listened for a number of years to hon. members opposite, both in the house and throughout the country, telling about the way in which they have reduced taxes, to read some of the figures which have been placed on Hansard
and which show how the amount of taxation has been increased. The figures are as follows:
Receipts
Year	from taxation
1926-	27	
$346,649,0001927-	28	
364,706,0001928-	29	
395,921,0001929-	30	
378,551,000
Showing an almost continuous increase until 1930-31 when we find we have received in taxation from the country only the sum of $296,276,000. I have heard hon. members opposite time and again tell us that the customs duty is a form of taxation. If that be true, then the people this year have been taxed more lightly by that form than they were in previous years, because we find that the receipts from customs tariff are as follows:
Customs
Year	receipts
1928-	29	
$187,206,0001929-	30	
179,430,0001930-	31	
131,209,000
We have already begun to hear from the other side-and we shall hear it frequently -about the tremendous increase in taxation with which this country will have to contend in the next year. We have already been told that it is almost a crime that the sales tax should be raised to 4 per cent. When the Liberal party came into power, finding a situation very much similar to the one now prevailing, they did not hesitate or consider it a crime to increase the sales tax to 6 per cent, and it took them eight years to bring it back to one per cent. I am not a prophet, but I venture to say that long before nine years have expired, the present government will have reduced the sales tax below one per cent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friends will not be in power so long.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Hon. gentlemen opposite will get used to their seats on the other side long before that.
The people throughout the country will certainly not believe that this government i? responsible for the fact that there is a deficit this year; it is entirely due to the lack of revenue produced by the Dunning budget, a budget which my hon. friends opposite hoped would return them to power, but which the people judged at its true worth and put them into the position in which they are today.
In 1925 and 1926 I heard daily the wails from the west. I come back to the house this year and again I hear the same thing. We have heard enough wailing from the other side about difficulties and troubles that
The Budget-Mr. Morand

I sometimes wonder whether some of our western members consider this the wailing wall of Jerusalem. But for all this trouble we have sympathy. As regards the troubles in the west, so far as I know, nobody in the east, either member or private individual, has any fault to find with any help extended by the east or the country generally to the west. We find to-day that this government proposes to give relief in freight rates in the export of wheat to the amount of five cents a bushel, and I have yet to see in any single newspaper or to hear from a single easterner any objection to that proposal or anything but commendation.
We have heard a great deal of the troubles of the western farmer and of farmers generally. I am quite certain that there has . been plently of trouble amongst the farmers all over Canada, but I can assure hon. gentlemen that the troubles of the industrial workers in the cities are just as great and the depression amongst them just as deep as those of the western fanner. I propose to take a few minutes to outline roughly conditions in my riding, which I know best, particularly in the border cities, a group of cities on the Detroit river. Not merely now but for a number of years past we have seen the workers in this industrial centre of the border cities gradually losing their homes, incurring greater indebtedness, tramping for days looking for work, discouraged, despairing, and in the end many seeking charity. In my own work I have seen them tramping from shop to shop, standing for hours asking to be permitted to do a day's work to earn the bread that they needed for their families. For fear that some hon. gentlemen may think that this is something new, I may tell them that immediately following the last election, in the month of August, in the summer time, when probably there should not be unemployment, a registration that was taken in the border cities showed that there were 3,495 unemployed, which is a greater number than the number unemployed to-day, although the exact figure to-day is not known [DOT]because we have had no recent registration. The situation there was undoubtedly a challenge that had to be met. There had been unemployment for a period of more than one year, a gradual reduction in the ability to meet indebtedness, the gradual losing of their homes by the workers. That, I say, was a challenge that had to be met by those who were able to help and by the new government which was coming into power.. That challenge, I may say, was fairly well met by the people of our own city, and I believe that the same may. be said of practically all the

large industrial centres throughout Canada. Organizations were quickly established for the distribution of food and clothing and for the repair of shoes. Meals were given by different organizations, and also two breweries, which provided thousands of free meals, hundreds per day. Church organizations worked, each in its own sphere.. Free rent was given by many a landlord, free groceries by many a grocer, and free coal by many a coal dealer. All this effort was individual, and by organization of the people themselves, and I think that no greater thing has happened in our city than the way in which those who probably had but little rallied to help those who had not, and tried to tide them over.
But we were also helped by this government Realizing the situation not only in the border cities but throughout Canada, and the conditions I describe in the border cities, I believe prevailed pretty generally throughout the industrial centres of Canada, the government called a special session last September, which hon. gentlemen opposite said in the political campaign on many a busting was not needed and would be a useless waste of money. But what did we find? In the border cities alone there was spent last winter on work to help the unemployed, work which otherwise would not have been undertaken or would have been postponed for probably many years, the sum of $1,200,657. That was spent for the purpose of giving work between last fall and this spring. The government of the province and the government of the dominion contributed $770,464 of that amount. It was help that the border cities needed, and without which they could not have taken care of their unemployed. There was also spent $281,588 in direct relief, to which this government contributed $93,037. In other words, since October of last year until the middle of April this year there was spent in the border cities, with a population of approximately 110,000, the sum of $1,482,245 to help unemployed.
This government also helped in another way to meet the situation, and that was by making changes in the tariff during the special short session. My hon. friends in the corner opposite say that the changes in the tariff will not help the unemployment situation. Whether it is a permanent solution or not, this unemployment situation was facing us and had to be met. We have now a population that is more or less stable, and now that we have stopped immigration we have practically a given number of unemployed, a given number of people for whom we must find work. If we can bring in new industries, we can provide in this country new days'' work,

we shall help to relieve unemployment to that extent. By (changes made by this government, in the regulations governing the importation of automobiles, we have in the border cities to-day the Hupp Motor Company, which was entirely a United States factory, now manufacturing and assembling in Canada, using Canadian material and employing Canadian labour. We find that the Studebaker company, which had practically closed its doors and was waiting from day tto day to find what this government would do, has reopened its doors, taken on new employees, and is now using Canadian material, employing Canadian workmen, and functioning as a Canadian organization. The Graham-Paige Company will within a few days turn out its first Canadian car. AVe have in other cities the Reo company, the Nash company, and various truck companies, and no one can tell me that the incoming of these factories will not help the unemployment situation in the border cities and throughout Canada.
AVe have further, a canning company, which has constructed a very fine plant in one of the border cities, which will use in its manufactures some fifteen hundred acres of peas alone from our farmers and as much com, and which will employ from two to three hundred employees during at least a part of the year. All of this is due entirely to the tariff as imposed by this government.
Now, it is rather interesting to see in today's paper a report of the number of branch United States factories in Canada; these number 524 and represent an investment, exclusive of the pulp and paper industry of $278,876,000. That that money has been invested in Canada is entirely due to a protective tariff and to no other cause.


An hon. MEMBER:: Since when?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: It does not make any difference since when. Those factories were established here because of the tariff alone. Representative J. W. Collier, of Mississippi, commenting on the Canadian tariff yesterday, according to a Canadian press despatch in the Ottawa Journal, said:
It adds substantially to the unemployment of the United States.
He was referring to the tariff revisions contained in the budget. If it does that it surely adds to the employment of Canadians. And to my mind we have enough to do to look after our own people; they are the ones we are especially responsible for.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Does the hon. member wish the house to understand
The Budget-Mr. Morand
that the Minnesota Canning Company located in AVindsor as a result of the tariff enacted by his government?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I said they came in entirely because of the tariff, and I have the statement of Mr. AVall, the president, to the press that their locating here was due to the tariff and to nothing else.


William Alexander Fraser: AVill the hon. member permit me another question.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I am sorry, but I have only a few minutes left. In contradistinction to what happened in 1926 when the tariff on automobiles was changed-the ex-Minister of National Defence who spoke this afternoon said that the people had profited by it and the automobile industries had not suffered- it may be interesting to hon. members to have these figures on Hansard:
Importations of Automobiles from 1918 to 1929
1918		 1919			
1920		
1921		
1922		
1923		
1924		
1925		
1926		
1927		
1928		
1929


Mr. MOORE (Ontario):: Has the hon. member the production figures for those years?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Yes, the production figures for those years have gone up. Let me give them for the benefit of my hon. friend:
Production of Automobiles from 1918 to 1929
1918		
	
1920		
1921		
1922		
1923		
1924		
1925		
1926		
1927		
1928		
1929		
I know what the hon. gentleman proposes to suggest, that the volume of importation increased in direct ratio to the volume we manufactured or used. But here are the percentage figures, which are also somewhat illuminating:
Percentage of imports to total domestic consumption for the years 1918 to 1929 inclusive:
Per cent
1920	 11
1921	 ii
The Budget-Mr. Morand

1923
1925
1927
1929
Per cent
13 101
14 171
23
So that a very definite increase in percentages was shown immediately after the lowering of the duty in 1926. The total value of automobiles and trucks imported for each of the above years was:
1918		 $ 9,168,265
1919		 12,741,699
1920		 13,861,600
1921	  10,504,699
1902	  13,160,453
1923	 12,326,619
1994	 9,641,309
1925	 14,549,309
Then immediately after the lowering of the duty we find the following:
1926	  $24,381,602
1927"	 31,542,416
199g	  40,832,876
1929	 39,423,134
And yet the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth says the industry did not suffer! I may tell the house that I am not interested in whether the manufacturers of automobiles suffered or not. I am interested in the number of men that will secure work now that did not secure work to the extent that we paid money to the United States for those importations. Every car that was manufactured in Canada gave $456 worth of work to some Canadian workman. These figures were vouched for before the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) at the time he was chairman of the tariff advisory board. In other words, for every car imported we lost three months support for a family in Canada. We have heard a good deal about interviews with Henry Ford, one of which lost me my election in 1926, but he, like many others, changes his opinions at times. Let me now quote an interview with that gentleman reported in the Border Cities Star of August 9, 1930:
"1 see no reason to object to the raising of tariff schedules in Canada," said Henry Ford in an exclusive interview with The Border Cities Star at his Dearborn office yesterday.
"Though I am not a tariff advocate in the United States, the situation of the two countries is quite different. The United States has attained industrial maturity and should be able to stand on her own feet in competition with the world, but Canada is still in the formative stage industrially, and if a higher tariff will foster industry there, who can object to that?"
"Other countries in the world," concluded Mr. Ford, "are becoming more and more able to provide many things for themselves which they now buy from us. These countries like American goods, but on the other hand, they

do like a share in the production and that is as it should be. America cannot hope permanently to provide for other countries, so it all works out for the better economic balance of the world."
Now, it may be thought that the automobile tariff is purely local in its application, and that it would help the border cities alone. The figures I am about to quote are given by Mr. Campbell, of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, but undoubtedly they will apply to other manufacturers of automobiles. The Ford company spent in 1930 for materials and supplies more than $7,000,000 in the border cities-East Windsor, Windsor, Walkerville and Sandwich; $3,000,000 in Toronto; $2,000,000 in Hamilton; $1,200,000 in Montreal; $750,000 in Winnipeg and Chatham; $650,000 in Sarnia; $350,000 in Vancouver; $260,000 in Woodstock; $170,000 in Halifax; $160,000 in Niagara Falls; $140,000 in Calgary and $120,000 each in Peterborough, London and Regina. In all more than seventy-five cities and towns in Canada contributed materials and supplies required in the manufacture of the Ford car. Among these were Almonte, Belleville, Brantford, Dundas, Galt, Gananoque, Guelph, Ingersoll, Kitchener, Milton, Owen Sound, Rock Island, St. Catharines, Sinclair Mills, St. Johns, Quebec, Tilbury, Waterloo, Welland and many others.
In addition the Ford company also expended during 1930 the following sums in pay rolls at the main plant in East Windsor and the eight branches:
East Windsor, $8,400,000; London, $100,000; Toronto, $900,000; Montreal, $400,000; St. John, $70,000; Winnipeg, $350,000; Regina, $100,000; Calgary, $100,000; Vancouver, $80,000.
This gives an idea of the extent to which the automobile industry influences the entire Canadian industrial world. The situation as it exists in connection with the Ford industry undoubtedly is the same in connection with other companies, and it is only multplied by the number of cars produced in Canada. It is my belief that the changes in the tariff at the present time will considerably increase the amount of work done in Canada. By forcing the manufacturers of automobiles to use more Canadian parts it will help the manufacturers of those parts; the automobile industry will become still more truly Canadian, and to that extent it will help the unemployment situation.
It is not my purpose to go into details with reference to the various changes in the automobile tariffs. Undoubtedly these matters will be discussed when the various items are taken up.

Reports of Committees


William Henry Moore: Did the figures given by the hon. gentleman include the export trade?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: No, the figures did not include the export trade.


William Henry Moore: Would my hon. friend give us the figures including the export trade?


An hon. MEMBER:: Let him finish; he has only five minutes.


William Henry Moore: I should like to have the hon. gentleman continue to-morrow; his remarks are very interesting.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I will put on Hansard the figures in regard to the export of domestic cars, so that my hon. friend can see them to-morrow. There are many other changes in the tariff which affect my county particularly. There is a tariff on buttons, which will affect button factories. There are certain changes in the steel tariffs, about which I know very little and with which I shall not attempt to deal. The corn tariff will help my county and many others; it will help counties producing other grains which will supplant the corn now being imported.
The whole idea behind the tariff changes was to help the unemployment situation, but I doubt very much whether the unemployed of this country are prepared to wait for a change in our economic structure before getting some help. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has said that until we change our whole economic system no help can be given. I do not know what other system, he would advocate. The only other system I see is the system now in force in Russia. He may have some other in mind, and if so I should like to hear about it. It is rather interesting, however, to note that he is one of the hon. gentlemen who says he represents labour, but I doubt very much whether he represents labour as much as I do. I believe I have just as large a labour element in my constituency as he has, and I think I was elected by as many labour votes as he was.
In this connection I should like to tell the house that at a meeting held in Windsor a few days ago, which was addressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), when the chairman mentioned the name of God there were boos from many sections of the assembly. I say that if we have come to the stage where atheistic communists are prepared to boo the name of God in public places it is time we
ceased talking socialism and other similar theories and became really aware of conditions as they actually exist around us. Liberty is only assured and secured by the following of authority and the acceptance of restrictions. We have heard a good deal in this house about the cupidity of man. If, despite the teachings of the Bible, that cupidity has become such that hon. gentlemen opposite believe a change of system necessary, I think it behooves them to reflect upon what will happen under other systems where the cupidity of man will be freed from the fear of God and from the fear of punishment or hope of reward hereafter.
What can we expect from other systems? I know hon. gentlemen opposite do not speak of a free trade system when they demand a change in our economic system. They must have reference to an entirely different system, and I have been waiting for them to give us some idea of what they mean. I have listened most attentively since the beginning of this session; I have hoped to hear from hon. gentlemen opposite, or in the corner, some suggested solution to meet the needs of the situation. So far we have heard only wails with regal'd to the breaking or the filling of election pledges, and there has been little if anything of a constructive nature.
On motion of Mr. Smith (Cumberland) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 5, 1931