1931-06-15

ANNUITIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the first reading of Bill No. 90 (from the Senate) to amend the Government Annuities Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Florence Marshall.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of William Henry Rees.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Emily Hughes Macculloch.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

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

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: L How many petitions, resolutions, letters, telegrams or other documentary requests, in the aggregate, were received by the Prime Minister, Acting Prime Minister, Minister of Agriculture or any other minister of the government, recommending the pegging of wheat or grain prices, from farmer organizations or pool selling agencies, or individual units thereof, municipalities, boards of trade or individuals, in the three prairie provinces, since August 1, last?
2.	Did the Hon. John Bracken, premier of Manitoba, either verbally or in writing, join in or support such request?
3.	Did the Hon. J. T. M. Anderson, premier of Saskatchewan, either verbally or in writing, join in or support such request?
4.	Did the Hon. J. E. Brownlee, premier of Alberta, either verbally or in writing, join in or support such request?


Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, this question has been, standing for a long time. It was amended. The answer to the first section, as nearly as we can secure the information is -1,060.
The second, third and fourth questions are ambiguously framed. The answer I think would be "yes," were it not for the fact that the words "or support such request", are used, which might perhaps leave a wrong impression on the minds of 'hon. members. The letter to which the hon. gentleman refers is dated November 18, 1930, and is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It was signed by Messrs. Bracken, Anderson and Brownlee; so all three supported the suggestions. The letter made four suggestions, and I will read them so they may appear as part of the answer:
1.	That, without in any way interfering with the free movement or sale of wheat by grain companies and exporting agencies, the producers of wheat be assured of a domestic price of not less than 70 cents Fort William. This suggestion is based on the fact that producers of wheat to-day are passing through world conditions not of their making and that they should not be singled out as one industry that must work through these conditions unassisted by the state.
2.	Failing this, that the dominion government, by guarantee or otherwise, assure the banks against loss in carrying on the wheat pool in an orderly way under such direction as they care to arrange to satisfy themselves that marketing is being properly carried out. This suggestion is based on the conviction that uncertainty as to the pool's financial position may be the most disturbing factor to-day. We also point out that the present initial payment was arranged with all the accumulated knowledge in Canada at the time as to world's con-

Questions
ditions and in the belief that it was a safe payment.
3.	Failing either of these, that the government establish a stabilization board with financial support to purchase wheat whenever the market falls below certain minimum levels. It is respectfully submitted that at present levels this action would involve a minimum of or no loss and would not be accompanied by any of the dangers which surrounded the American wheat board when it first began operation with wheat at more than double present prices.
4.	Aside from the above, we suggested your government might consider the advisability of instructing the Board of Grain Commissioners to inquire into short selling on the Winnipeg grain exchange with a view to proper action against offenders.
I think that is all the information I can give to my hon. friend without going into detail by considering more than one thousand communications.
* Mr. MOTHERWELL: It sounds quite satisfactory.


AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT-SPRAYING MACHINERY PURCHASES
Mr. ILSLEY:: ]. Has the present government, or the Department of Agriculture, since the present government took office, purchased any spraying or dusting machinery for^ use either at the experimental station at Kentville or _ at the entomological laboratory and station at Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what machines have been purchased and were they manufactured in Canada or the United States, specifying in which of the two countries each such machine was manufactured?


Mr. WEIR:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


*EQUALITY OF PROVINCES
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Do the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta rank equal in the government's policv with regard to seed and other relief?
2 If any of these provinces have not yet taken full advantage of the dominion government's policy, will they still have the opportunity of doing so?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question in its
present form can hardly be answered. The officials of the department to which it has been referred are unable quite to appreciate what it means. If the hon. gentleman will make his question somewhat more definite an answer will be furnished as soon as possible.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The question as it appears will have to be revised and amended. Foi the present it will be dropped.
Question dropped.


CENSUS ENUMERATORS-OTTAWA
Mr. AHEARN:: How many of the enumerators, not Frenchspeaking, appointed for the city of Ottawa, are bilingual; that is, conversant in French?


Mr. STEVENS:: Fifteen speak English and French fluently.


CENSUS ENUMERATORS-PRESCOTT
Mr. BERTRAND:: 1.	Who appointed the enumerators for the county of Prescott?
2.	On whose recommendation were they appointed?
3.	How many were out of work at the time of their appointment?
4.	How many of them are married and in
need of work?
5.	What are the names of each one?
6.	How- many of them are single, and have families to support?
7.	What are the names of each one of these. Mr. STEVENS:
1.	and 2. The Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, upon written examination of applicants.
3.	Seventeen.
4.	Seven are married and in need of work.
5 W. G. Waite, Leonard Presley, A. Shields,
E. Patenaud, R. Sherman, D. A. Fraser, J. E. Martin.
6.	Eight.
7.	Lewis Mooney, Cecil Butler, Wm. Villeneuve, Ernest Allen, Gerald McAuley, Edwin McDonnell, Wesley Waite, Frank Buchan.


B. C. G. MCKENZIE
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has Mr. B. C. G. McKenzie, of New Richmond, Quebec, been refused employment as census enumerator?
2.	If so, what w-as the reason?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 1 and 2. Mr. McKenzie applied for employment as census enumerator but later voluntarily withdrew his application.


SUNNY BRAE BRANCH LINE
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Does section 1 of chapter 34, acts of 1929, provide for the construction or completion of a Canadian National railway line, from Sunny Brae to Guysborougli, in the province of Nova Scotia, prior to the 31st day of August, 1932?
2.	If so, has the government or the Canadian National Railways arranged or will they arrange for the construction or completion of said railway by said above mentioned date?
3.	Has the Minister of Railways, as provided for in section 9 of said chapter 34, presented to parliament during the first ten days of the session, a statement showing in detail the nature and extent of the work done under the authority of said act during the previous

Questions

calendar year, and the expenditure thereon, and the estimated expenditure for the current calendar year?
4.	If not will a statement covering the requirements of section 9 of chapter 34, acts of 1629, be laid on the table of the house at an early date?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The management of Canadian National Railways expect to complete construction by date mentioned.
3.	Yes; tabled in House of Commons March 20, 1931.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


INCOME TAX
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	What amount of income tax was payable on a taxable income of one million dollars per annum under the budget provisions of 19301931?
2.	What amount of income tax will be payable on a taxable income of one million dollars per annum under the budget provisions as announced in the budget speech on June 1st?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: As there is not and has not been for years in Canada an individual taxpayer with a taxable income of SI,000,000 per annum it is assumed that the questions refer to incomes of corporations.
1.	$79,840.
2.	$99,800.


RURAL MAIL CARRIERS
Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	How many carriers for the distribution of rural mail were there in Canada: (a) in 1921; (b) in 1926; (c) in 1928; (d) in the first seven months of 1930?
2.	How many on June 1, 1931?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	(a) 3,762; (b) 3,799; (c) 3,972; (d) 4,159.
2.	4,256.


POST OFFICES IN CANADA
Mr. LAURIN:: 1.	How many post offices are there in Canada?
2.	How many were there: (a) in 1922; (b) in 1926; (c) in 1930?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	12.427.
2.	(a) 12,247; (b) 12,439; (c) 12,409.


MARINE SERVICES-GODBOUT
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Were instructions given to the lighthouse superintendent of Quebec for discontinuing the lighthouse and foghorn services at Godbout, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river?
2.	If so, why?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The range lights and hand foghorn are no longer required to assist navigation.


ESCUMINAC EAST, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Were the complaints against the postmaster at Escuminae East sworn to, and who made these complaints?
2.	How many applications were received for the position of postmaster of this office before it was closed, and what are the names of the applicants?
3.	Were any complaints made in anonymous letters sent to the department? '
4.	Will the department pay one month's salary to Mr. A. W. Richardson, mail contractor, on account of cancelling his contract on May 31st instead of June 30, 1931?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	(a) No; (b) J. T. Little.	.
2.	Two; Geo. D. C. Kerr, returned soldier; James Pentland, Jr.; recommendations were also received on behalf of Joseph Pitre and Thomas Keays.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.


ANCHORAGE MAST
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What was the total amount of expenses paid for the maintenance of the anchorage mast at St. Hubert, to March 31, 1931?
2.	To whom does the said anchorage mast belong ?
3.	Did the British government contribute to any extent towards the construction of the above anchorage mast?
4.	If so. what amount was contributed?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	Total operating and maintenance charges of St. Hubert aerodrome and airship base to March 31, 1931, $260,661.85.
2.	Department of National Defence.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


NOTRE DAME DU PORTAGE WHARF
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Included in the general vote for harbours and rivers, 1930-1931, was there an appropriation for repairs to the wharf of Notre Dame du Portage, Quebec?
2.	If so: (a) what was the amount of same; (b) were these repairs made, and if not, why?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes. .
2.	(a) $1,000; (b) No. In view of structure having been considerably damaged by ice during winter of 1929, it was found useless to place new flooring on a dangerous sub-structure.

Questions


J. REMUS BOULAIS
Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	Was a notice sent to Mr. J. Remus Boulais, postmaster at Ste. Angele de Monnoir, in the county of St. Hyaeinthe-Rouville, previous to the inquiry which resulted in his dismissal?
2.	Tf so, what time elapsed between the sending of said notice and date of the inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1 and 2. Commissioner states he has not kept any record of the date on which the postmaster was notified but notice must have been given several days before the investigation. In addition he was notified on the day of the investigation.


STE. CLOTHILDE DE HORTON-POSTMASTER
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	Is the position of postmaster of Ste. Clothide de Horton vacant?
2.	If so, has this position been advertised, in order to fill the vacancy?
3.	Have any applications been received?
4.	Up to what date could persons make
application?	_
5.	If applications were received, lias there been any appointment?
6.	Tf not, why?


Arthur Sauvé: 1 to 6. There was a vacancy but it has recently been filled by the appointment of Mr. Alfred Laforest by the Civil Service Commission.


PUBLIC BUILDING-VICTORIAVILLE
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	Is the position of caretaker of the public building in Victoriaville vacant?
2.	If so. bas this position been advertised, in order to fill the vacancy?
3.	Have any applications been received?
4.	Up to what time could persons make application?
5.	If applications were received, has there been any appointment?
6.	If not, why?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes (new public building).
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	April 27, 1931.
5.	No.
6.	Applications now receiving the consideration of the Civil Service Commission.


* CENSUS ENUMERATORS-OTTAWA
Mr. CHEVRIER:: Will the government appoint more than ten French Canadian census enumerators in the city of Ottawa?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this question in
its present form was to be dropped from the order paper.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I think it has been
changed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is made worse. My
hon. friend asks what the government will do.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This question not being
in proper form, it will be dropped from the order paper.
Question dropped.


COUNTY OF MEGANTIC-POSTMASTERS
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the nine postmasters dismissed in the county of Megantic, as reported in Hansard of June 4, 1931?
2.	For what reason were these postmasters dismissed ?


Arthur Sauvé: List of Dismissals Effected in the Electoral District oi Megantic, between January 1, 1922, and August 4,
Name ot postmaster	Address	Reason for dismissal	Date of dismissal
		Political partisanship (Investiga-	Sept, 27, 1923
Black Lake, P.Q	tion). _ < Political partisanship (Investiga-	June 6, 1923Maurice Lafontaine, O.A.S.	Black Lake, P.Q	tion). Irregularities in accounts	Feb.8, 1926 April 20, 1927Political partisanship (Investigation). Political partisanship (Investiga-	Feb. 21, 1923June 1, 1927tion). Unsatisfactory management	Aug. 22, 1922Aloys Lemay	Thetford Mines Sub Office,	Political partisanship (Investiga-	Feb. 17, 1927Octave Turcot	"Thetford Sud," P.Q. Thetford Mines Sub Office,	tion). Political partisanship (Investiga-	May 2, 1923"Thetford Mines West," P.Q.	tion).	
2612

Unopposed Motions for Papers


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works, including reports of engineers of the said department at Ottawa and Quebec, specifications, plans and estimates prepared, in connection with extension of the protection works at Moisie, in the county of Saguenay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will perhaps recall, Mr. Speaker, that we discussed the first thirty-two motions on the order paper, including the one under consideration, the other day. The hon. gentleman is not in his place, so the motions might stand.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In the absence of the hon. gentleman sponsoring the motions, they will all stand.
Motion stands.


CENSUS COMMISSIONERS-COMOX-ALBERNI
Mr. NEILL:: For a return showing:
1.	The names and addresses of census commissioners appointed for the district of Comox-Alberni, and the area allotted to each.
2.	The names and addresses of enumerators appointed in said district, and, in general terms, the territory covered by each.
3.	The salaries and other remuneration of commissioners and enumerators.
4.	Which of the above are returned men.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURE-PASPEBIAC, QUE.
Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and the Minister of Labour at Quebec, and the municipal council of Paspebiac, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, or the mayor or any of the officers of the said council in connection with expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act in Paspebiac.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURE-HOPE, QUE.
Charles Marcil: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and the Minister of Labour at Quebec, and the municipal council of Hope, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, or the mayor or any of the officers of the said council, in connection with expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act in Hope.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURE-ESCU-MINAC, QUE.
Charles Marcil: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the 
Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and the Minister of Labour at Quebec, and the municipal council of Escuminac, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, or the mayor or any of the officers of the said council, in connection with expenditure under the Unemployment relief Act in Escuminac.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURE-ST. ANTOINE DE GROS MORNE
Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and the Minister of Labour at Quebec, and the municipal council of St. Antoine de Gros Morne, county of Gaspe, Quebec, or the mayor or any of the officers of the said council, in connection with expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act in St. Antoine de Gros Morne.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF	EXPENDITURE-ST.


EDWIDGE DE CLIFTON
Mr. DESROCHERS:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and the Minister of Labour at Quebec and the Director of Unemployment at Quebec, and the municipal council of St. Edwidge de Clifton, county of Compton, Quebec, or the mayor or any of the officers of the said council, in connection with expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act in St. Edwidge de Clifton.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURE-DISRAELI
Jules Desrochers: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and the Minister of Labour at Quebec, and the municipal council of Disraeli, county of Wolfe, Quebec, or the mayor or any of the officers of the said council, in connection with expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act in Disraeli.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURE-NOTRE DAME DE PALMOROL
Mr. GOULET:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and the Minister of Labour at Quebec, and the municipal council of Notre Dame de Palmorol, county of Abitibi, Quebec, or the mayor or any of the officers of the said council, in connection with expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act in Notre Dame de Palmorol.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURE-ST. TITE
Mr. PARENT:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and the Minister of Labour at Quebec, and the municipal council of St. Tite, county of Champlain, Quebec, or the mayor or any of the officers of the said council, in connection with expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act in St. Tite.

Motions lor Papers


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURE-ST. NARCISSE
Louis-Étienne Parent: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and the Minister of Labour at Quebec, and the municipal council of St. Narcisse, county of Champlain, Quebec, or the mayor or any of the officers of the said council, in connection with expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act in St. Narcisse.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURE-ST. PIERRE ET ST. PAUL DE LA BAIE ST. PAUL
Mr. JACOBS (for Mr. Casgrain):: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and the Minister of Labour at Quebec, and the municipal council of St. Pierre et St. Paul de la Baie St. Paul, county of Charlevoix, Quebec, or the mayor or any of the officers of the said council, in connection with expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act in St. Pierre et St. Taul de la Baie St. Paul.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURE-ST. SAMUEL DE HORTON
Mr. DUBOIS:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and the Minister of Labour at Quebec, and the municipal council of St. Samuel de Horton, county of Nicolet, Quebec, or the mayor or any of the officers of the said council, in connection with expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act in St. Samuel de Horton.


WINNIPEG-SUB-POST OFFICE 29
Mr. HEAPS:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, documents and correspondence, in connection with the appointment of a new postmaster to subpost office 29 in the city of Winnipeg.


SHERRINGTON, QUE.-RURAL MAIL
Mr. DUPUIS:: For a copy of all reports, tenders and correspondence in the possession of the Post Office Department in connection with rural mail routes Nos. 1 and 2 in the parish of Sherrington, county of Napierville, Quebec, since August 1, 1930.


STRAFFORD CENTRE WHARF
Mr. HURTUBISE:: For a copy of the paysheets showing the time and names of persons in connection with work done and repairs made to the wharf at Strafford Centre, from the first of August, 1930, to the first of December, 1930.


STE. GERTRUDE POST OFFICE
Lucien Dubois: For a copy of all reports, instructions, correspondence, memoranda and letters, including a
copy of evidence, in the possession of the Post Office Department or any officer of the government, relating to the dismissal of Mr. Henri Mailhot, postmaster at Ste. Gertrude, in the county of Nicolet, Quebec, together with a return showing the expenses of, and the amount paid to each person present at the inquiry, including the inquiry commissioner.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of the letter of Mr. C. E. Dube, of Riviere du Loup, to Mr. W. U. Appleton, general manager of the Canadian National Railways, Atlantic region, under date of September 12, 1930, regarding the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup, on a piece of land, the property of His Majesty, extracts of which were published by the said Mr. C. E. Dube, in Le St. Laurent of November 27, 1930, together with a copy of Mr. A'ppleton's reply to said letter.
For a copy of letters written to Mr. C. E. Dube, of Riviere du Loup, to Mr. W. U. Appleton, general manager, Canadian National Railways, Atlantic region, on August 23 and 30, 1930, in connection with tenders called for the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup, on a piece of land, the property of His Majesty, which letters were published m part by the said Mr. C. E. Dube in Le St. Laurent of November 20, 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Motions 51 and 52, I submit, should not 'be passed by the house, for the reasons which I submitted the other day. They contemplate the production by the railway company of correspondence which it has had with a citizen of the country who is not a member of this house. It is alleged, as a matter of fact, that part of a letter was published in a newspaper. That cannot in any sense affect the principle involved, the application of which, I submit, precludes this house from passing these motions which stand in the name of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot).. It is quite wrong to expect the government to ask the railway companies to provide copies of letters that may be written to them by citizens of the country with respect to the construction of stations or other works. If that were done, we should be engaged most of the time in the production of such correspondence, inasmuch as the communities affected are writing letters continuously to the railway officials with respect to matters of this kind, And the fact that someone who writes a letter happens to have been an opponent of an hon. member of this house cannot assist the hon. gentleman's case. Nor can the fact that that same citizen used a portion of his letter in a communication addressed to a newspaper advance the matter further. I therefore say to my hon. friend that reluctantly we are compelled to deny him this source of information, though I have no
Redemption Loan

doubt that, with his resourcefulness, he will be able to obtain it in some other way.


Jean-François Pouliot: The right hon. gentleman has been generous to-day in having many returns tabled and I will not press the resolutions. I drop them.
Motions dropped.


REDEMPTION LOAN, $750,000,000
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider this resolution standing in my name:
Resolved, that the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, an amount not to exceed in the whole the sum of seven hundred and fifty million dollars, for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada, and for purchasing and withdrawing from circulation matured securities of Canada.
His Excellency the Governor General having been made acquainted with the subject of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Merely as a matter of
inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is it essential that the motion be put to the house at this stage?
I have now given notice that to-morrow 1 shall make the motion. On more than one occasion I saw the practice followed which Your Honour also has just followed. It does not seem to me to be logical. This is a government notice of motion:	I stand in
my place and state that it has received the approval of His Excellency, and that at the next sitting the motion will be made that the house resolve itself into committee. There is no motion to be put now. *


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The practice has been
for the house, at its next sitting, to go into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering the resolution. By the adoption of the motion now, the committee is so formed and is seized of the item of business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot possibly be
formed until to-morrow, notwithstanding what the clerk says.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In regard to the question raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as to the necessity of following the procedure with regard to government notices of motion, I direct the attention of the house to standing order 60 which reads as follows:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the con-
sideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
That standing order is in keeping word for word with the British standing order No. 71, passed on March 20, 1866.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it was for
that very reason that I directed the attention of the house to the fact that there is nothing in that standing order to show that any motion has to be made. A notice of motion has to be given and before the motion can be considered notice must be given that the committee will be set up. I gave notice the other day that I would make a formal motion to-morrow, and it is under that rule I took the exception which I did. The action which I took is covered by that rule.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Speaker is in the
hands of the house and acting as he has today he has been following precedent. It may not be a correct interpretation of the rule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Your Honour will observe that the rule says that the house cannot at once consider the matter. Under the heading of government notices of motion I gave notice that I would to-morrow or at the next sitting of the house move that the house resolve itself into a committee to consider the motion standing under my name. Now, what could anyone second; it is not a question of seconding that motion, there can only be a seconder to a motion and there is no motion. The motion will come to-morrow or at the next sitting when I move that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider the resolution.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Then, under that interpretation of this rule, when the motion is made to-morrow or at whatever sitting of the house it may be made, it cannot be dealt with but will have to be adjourned. I repeat the rule as follows:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
If the motion to refer the matter to committee of the whole is not put and carried, then, when it comes on for consideration tomorrow, it cannot be dealt with, but will have to be adjourned again.

Royal Canadian Mint


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except in committee.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It could not be presently entered upon, it would have to be adjourned without being debated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The house could resolve
itself into a committee of the whole.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, if the
notice as given to-day is not a motion, I agree with Your Honour that to-morrow we would not be able to consider the motion, it would have to be adjourned; the first time the motion is proposed to the house it would have to be adjourned. That is why this should have been done to-day by way of a motion, as Your Honour has suggested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there is
no motion which would be made on a notice of motion; it is a notice that I will at the next sitting of the house do so and so. I am not discussing whether or not it will take another day, I am discussing only the fact that that rule does not involve and cannot possibly contemplate a motion when a notice is given. The notice merely means that on a future day it will be moved that this house resolve itself into a committee.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, possibly the house should be adjourned until Your Honour and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) determine what is the proper procedure in this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would not be complete until the opinion of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) was taken.


ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that
at the next sitting I shall move that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider this resolution standing in my name:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the establishment of the Royal Canadian Mint as a branch of the Department of Finance, and to make provision for the payment of salaries and for superannuation and retiring benefits of members of the staff of the Ottawa mint on the coming into force of the proposed legislation.
His Excellency the Governor General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Protesting that it is
wholly unnecessary.


Ernest Lapointe: As a Liberal, I am
pleased to see the right hon. gentleman discarding precedents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not a precedent.


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: I give notice that at the next sitting of this house I shall move that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole, to consider the following resolution standing in my name. His Excellency has been advised of the resolution and recommends it to the consideration of this honourable house:
Resolved, that the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act be amended to provide for the appointment of a comptroller of the treasury with duties, salary and tenure of office as prescribed, and to secure a more unified and adequate control over administration of the act and of financial receipts and expenditure.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize a loan to the Saint John harbour commissioners not exceeding $3,500,000 for the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of the debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Halifax in an amount not exceeding $3,500,000 for the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of the debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.
New Zealand Tariff
[Stage Direction]
NEW ZEALAND TARIFF On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a question based upon a letter I have received from a manufacturer in the city of Kitchener, which is of some urgency and importance. The letter states as a consequence of the change in the tariff in New Zealand a great many cancellations of orders have been received with respect to contracts which had been made and under some of which goods have been actually manufactured and are ready for shipment. I would ask the Prime Minister whether the government would not consider making representations to the government of New Zealand not to apply the new tariff until such contracts are actually filled, in view of the fact that, otherwise, there will be a serious loss on some of the goods, which are not suitable for the Canadian market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My recollection is that such representations were made before the new' tariff law of New Zealand was finally passed. If not, and in any event, such representations will be renewed.
REPORT OF MINISTER TO JAPAN On the orders of the day:
Mr. ,1. S. WOODSWORTFI (Winnipeg North Centre):	When will the Prime Minister lay on the table the report of the Minister to Japan on trade in the far east?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The report which was made by the
minister was treated as a departmental report and we did not think of laying it on the table for the moment. It was not prepared for that purpose.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) advise when he will be able to answer the motion passed by the house on June 1, reading as follows: For a copy of the letter or telegram sent by the hon. Minister of Marine to Mr. C. E. Dube, of Riviere du Loup, in reply to his letter on October 2, 1930, with reference to the Riviere du Loup station.
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine),: Mr. Speaker, instructions have been given to my officials to prepare the re-

port and I expect it will be before the house within a very short time.


DISMISSAL OP POSTMASTERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, will the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) advise when I may expect the return on the dismissals of postmasters from August 1, 1930, to the opening of the house.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the return will be made during the week.


IMPORTATION OF RUSSIAN CLOTHING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I see by the Montreal Gazette of this morning that a very large quantity of clothing from Russia has come into Canada bearing British labels. If an effort is not made by the government to stop this, the population of this country will be dressed in Russian garb- we will have wolves in sheep's clothing. I would like the government to look into this matter and see that something is done forthwith.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question will be taken as a notice of motion, now that he has appeared in his true colours and stated that the population, or at least his part of it, will be wolves in sheep's clothing.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 12, consideration of the motion of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, up until this morning I had intended to allocate my precious forty minutes as follows:
Eight or ten minutes, or maybe six or eight minutes to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), because I am sure that the minister must feel that my comments are long overdue.
Eight or ten minutes was to be allocated to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) in connection with his remarks on the budget, and the balance of my time was to

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
be allocated to the budget itself. However, when I surveyed my ammunition I came to the conclusion that I could not possibly fire it all in forty minutes, so I am obliged reluctantly to pass up the Minister of Agriculture until a more convenient season, possibly on his estimates, and proceed at once to the budget and my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a doughty warrior and an able debater and I expected that he would have taken up the cudgels in defence of the remarkable action taken by his leader while at the London conference. It will be remembered that there was a ministerial quartette over there, two members of which have spoken but neither has referred to the belligerent conduct of their leader. That action was very flamboyant and similar to what would be expected from Big Bill Thompson of Chicago or Jack Dempsey; it was of a Donnvbrook nature all round. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) shied away from any mention of that action, although he did refer very modestly to the conference by telling us how he had allayed the feeling that Canada was holding up her wheat and possibly prices in relation to Great Britain. It is generally good generalship to attack, whether in the field of battle or on the platform, provided one has anything to attack about, but if one attacks without justification there is generally a backfire, and that is what's about to happen in this case.
My hon. friend asked quite grandiloquently and somewhat challengingly: What did the Minister of Agriculture do when he came back from Europe in 1928 in order to fix up things and allay the difficulty which he complained of? What did Hon. Mr. Dunning, then Minister of Railways, a supposed authority on wheat matters, do when he came back? What did the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) do? The hon. minister left the impression that we had been sitting around doing nothing in particular.
In the autumn of 1929, after the stock market crash, the first evidence appeared that there was something like a tendency towards too much wheat in the world. During that time I could not find a single authority on the wheat situation who would admit that we had anything like too much wheat or that prices were likely to drop. The pool men also, Jim Richardson and Jim Stewart, would not admit that, and I could not find one single authority who did not think it quite safe to hold wheat stocks for higher prices. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce,
with his back sight now thinks that something should have been done by the government of that day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was looking at the hon. member.	-


William Richard Motherwell: I am quite willing to take up that near-challenge, although I do not hope to deal with it as thoroughly as I would if I had unlimited time. I went over to Europe in 1928 to see for myself what truth there was in the allegations that our wheat was being deteriorated by the practice of wheat mixing later abolished by the King government, which became so extensive during 1925, 1926 and 1927. I visited every important market, in continental Europe and Great Britain including London, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Belfast, Dublin, Hamburg, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Brussels and Paris. In every case except the last I found very grave complaints with respect to the deteriorated quality of our wheat. Sitting around the board of the Liverpool com exchange, of which Mr. Urquhart was the secretary, there were some eighteen members of the council. The Hon. Mr. Hamilton of Regina was with me and we sat and talked there for over an hour. We found great indignation at the low quality of our wheat and because of the fact that this condition occurred practically simultaneously with the organization of the pools in the west, they were disposed to blame the pools for the mixing. I remember one very indignant gentleman asked whether we actually sprayed water into the wheat in order to make it absorb more moisture up to the maximum percentage allowed and thus weigh more. The first complaint was in regard to the mixing and deterioration of our wheat seriously below the old standard; the other was that the pool that had suddenly sprung upon the scene had something to do with the matter because as already stated the organization of the pool and the mixing and deterioration occurred about the same time. I tried to smooth things over and I succeeded with them all except two who were badly bitten importers that nothing would satisfy. After visiting other places where I had practically identical experiences, I returned home. I arrived in Regina, as it happened, on the occasion of a luncheon given by the pool in honour of representatives of the weekly newspapers then assembled in that city. On that occasion I was asked to address the luncheoners and I explained overseas wheat conditions as I am doing now. I told the pool they had many friends in the old country and in continental Europe, but naturally they had some enemies. No organization like that could spring into exist-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
enee so suddenly, powerfully and spectacularly without creating some enemies. As a matter of fact, they made some enemies on whose toes they had. trampled because they were wanting to sell as directly as possible to the consumer. But I informed them that they had more friends than enemies and that they should rigidly maintain the quality of our wheat. Living so far from both oceans, I suggested it was imperative that we should have the very best wheat exports if we were to be on an equal footing with our competitors all over the world.
Why should we have interfered in 1929? My hon. friend did not say what we should have done. He was very careful as to that; he did not say that we should have taken charge of the wheat as the government foolishly did, I think in 1917 it was. We all recall how the government commandeered the wheat at Fort William, and no one yet knows why. He did not even suggest that. Why should we have done anything drastic in 1929 with the prices then prevailing? These are the official figures which I obtained just this morning for 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931 for wheat. After I have given them, we might well ask ourselves why any government should have interfered, as my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggests we should have done, in the fall of 1929:
Price of Wheat at Fort William. Basis No. 1 Northern, June 1 in Each Year
Year	Per	bushel1027	
1	65}1928	
1	16}1929	
1	07}1930	
1	1111931	
58}
When my hon. friends took charge of government on August 7 last, No. 1 northern wheat basis Fort William was $1; now it is 58} cents and was down as low as 50 cents. What are the government fussing about now when they did not do anything themselves when wheat was at 58} cents at Fort William although they wanted the Liberals to do something drastic when it was from $1.39 to $1.41 in October, November and December, 1929, or over twice as much?
After the freight is deducted, the value of the wheat to the farmer on the first of June, 1930, or just about the time parliament prorogued, was 93} cents at the average shipping point, say in Saskatchewan. On the first of June, 1931, the value was 43} cents net to farmer or 53 cents less this year under a Tory government than it was last year under a Liberal administration. The inference on my hon. friend's part was that the Liberal administration was responsible and 
that we should have done something. I wonder if my hon. friends would want to do anything drastic to-day about wheat if it stood at $1.11} on June 1. I believe they would think they were in clover under such good prices. On the 7th August last year when my hon. friends came into power, I repeat, wheat was at $1 a bushel at Fort William on the basis of No. 1 northern. Today it is hovering around sixty cents and it has been down to fifty cents. There was apparently some attempt on the government's part to do something, through Hon. H. Ferguson in London, but they did not do anything. What were these gentleman going to do now who in 1929 were going to round up the world in regard to wheat? When there was a suggestion of a conference with Russia, our friend the High Commissioner for Canada in London must needs go to Rome and attend the International Institute of Agriculture there where an international wheat conference was being held at the same time. Before he was there twenty-four hours, he had them all at each other's ears, divided into two hostile camps; the exporters and the importers. The result was that he, the high commissioner, went to London with the exporters and left the remaining ones the importers to organize and go to Paris as a rival organization. These are two great diplomatic Canadians:	the
Prime Minister and his appointee in London. They are two choice diplomats, two of the same kind. They go out with bludgeons, upset the whole applecart and their merchandizing efforts are naturally abortive. The London conference was abortive; they did not do anything except appoint a continuing committee to gather statistics that were already being collected by the Agricultural Institute at Rome and the League of Nations.
But they did finally do something. Yes, there was the five cent bonus to absorb some freight on export wheat. We on this side have been chastised for not having approved of this five cent absorption. We are not sure just who is going to be benefited. We are of opinion it is intended by the Prime Minister to be in the nature of compensation for what we have had to pay for the high protection imposed on our goods last year, in the September session and again this year. The increase from 6 to 7} per cent imposed by the previous government on our farm implements has been raised to 25 per cent by this government. Even if we get this five cents per bushel bonus, it is something that is coming to the farmers and we are prepared to take that little crumb from the rich government's table provided it is a crumb, provided it is a little bit

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
of bread instead of a stone, provided it is fish instead of a serpent. We are not yet sure what it k. Under the law as it exists and as announced by the Prime Minister, the only one who can earn that five cents is the exporter. I say that without any reservation. How is one to know what is being exported except from the documents which the exporter holds. If that be so-and it is so-the farmers will not get that five cent3. How will it be known where the wheat is going? How will the farmer know? How will the initial buyer know? A great many of the domestic millers buy their wheat straight from Fort William, not knowing or caring who grew it originally or where it came from. Consequently the conclusion we arrive at as the proposal now stands, and it is a logical conclusion, is that the exporter is the only one that can earn this five cents, and he may split it with the buyer abroad in order to ensure a sale in this depressed market. That means that the miller on the other side of the water will be subsidized by Canada against the Canadian milling interests. And that policy comes from the Canada first party! Surely that was not their intention but that is apparently the policy that was announced by the Prime Minister in his budget. I am as satisfied as that I am standing here that the only way that policy can be carried out in accordance with what seemed to be the intent of the Prime Minister is to give the five cents to the farmer at the point of shipment, and give it on all wheat. You cannot make a distinction between export wheat and domestic wheat. It is utterly impossible.
There is one way in which this policy might be worked out. Under the old wheat board the farmers got participation certificates. Every farmer who sold a load or carload of wheat in 1919 received an advance of $2.15 a bushel for No. 1 at Fort William, and for the balance he received a participation certificate, which he presented to the wheat board after the year's operations were over, and then got his final payment. The same might be done in the case of the five cent freight bonus. Give the farmer that ships a load of wheat either for domestic or export use a participation freight certificate for five cents, per bushel and then present that to the government foi payment. That is I believe the only way to do it. I am giving the government a tip on this matter, and while I am giving advice and pointing out how the policy might be worked out, I would say that it is absurd to discriminate against coarse grains, because when you limit it to wheat you are subsidizing the one thing that should not be subsidized. But
the government are offering this as a peace offering to the west, and in limiting the policy to wheat they are discriminating against the man who finds it more convenient to grow rye, or barley or some other grain Our friends here from the west know that there are some farming districts that are not suitable for growing wheat, and the government is going to penalize them by not giving them this crumb, if it proves to be a crumb. It is an attempt to speed up the one thing we do not want to speed up artificially, and that is the acreage of wheat. I do not think it will be speeded up much by this policy, if at all, but certainly the policy discriminates against the man who is growing coarse grains and feeding stock in districts where wheat cannot be grown to advantage. So I would make the further suggestion that the government, instead of making two bites at a cherry and mumbling around all about it and trying to do something for the farmer that they do not know how to do apparently, should come straight out with the bonus for all cereals, and then there will be no difficulty in the clerical work associated with such a workable policy. I know the government will not take this advice. They do not know even that it is good advice. They are just blundering along, hopelessly helpless and helplessly hopeless, in their vain attempts to do something.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: None knows that
better than the Tory rearguard over there. I have some further figures, Mr. Speaker. I wish I could make the clock stand still like Joshua did the sun, but time is passing. So much for my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Unless this five cent policy is rescued at once it will do more harm instead of good to the farmers. It will be simply subsidizing the dumping of wheat on markets that are already over-dumped. Like my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, who, when he thought a month or so ago that butter had reached a "rock bottom" price at 22 cents a pound, agreed with the Australian authorities that they could dump vast quantities of Australian butter in Vancouver on the market, only to find then a still lower "rock botom." That is what they are apparently going to do now with the five cent speech-the five cent bonus to the wheat exporters unless quickly switched in committee to the western farmers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, it is another
five cent speech, with very much more in

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
it than the other one. The farmers in the west know that this five cent policy as it stands now is not worth anything, and they are as mad as wet hens over it. It is just pretending to do something. Where did the government get the idea to begin with? We have all heard of Robert Whiteside. He thinks that there is a credit balance of nearly $80,000,000 due to the farmers of the west from this government, and he got up on his hind legs and said:	I do not want a pegged
price for wheat so long as the government pays us that money that is owing, by absorbing the freight at the rate of four or five cents a bushel. The government have borrowed the idea from this farmer, it would seem, because he was the first one who announced it, so far as I know. The government however does not know how to put it' into operation. We will have to get Robert Whiteside of Saskatchewan down here.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is here.


William Richard Motherwell: I think he is. I
shall be glad to arrange an interview, so that he may advise the government on this freight rate question.
I pass on. I have a note here, "R. B. in London, Paris and Belfast." R. B. is not present. I have never been fortunate enough to have him present this year while I was speaking in the house. I thought I was going to have the Prime Minister honour me by being present to-day, but I am not going to let his absenece prevent me from saying what I have to say. I am going to refer once more, and for the third time, to his remarkable speech at a banquet in Belfast when he was being honoured by one of the greatest seats of learning in the world, in one of the greatest industrial cities in the world, by the university of Belfast. Canada's Prime Minister was worthy of the honour, but what a strange conception he had of gratitude in the speech that he made on that occasion. I have quoted long portions of that speech before, and it has never been noticed by anybody opposite. I felt rather disappointed at this. I thought I had a real scoop, but I was advised never to mind about quotations the next time, but just give it off the bat, and that is what I am going to do.
You can imagine the Belfast hosts all seated around the banqueting table after the decorations had been bestowed on the Prime Minister. The banquet was presided over by Viscount Craigavon, the Ulster premier, a very distinguished gentleman, and among the guests present were the members of the upper house, the lower house, and the judiciary- all the gentry and upper ten of Belfast, and
{Mr. Motherwell.]
there are many there. If you ever want to see a real Irish gentleman, go to Belfast, and they know a gentleman, too, when they see one. When the banqueting was over and the speeches began, our Prime Minister, of course, took a prominent part, among the others, as he always does. It was "a" part though, not "the" part most Canadians would have preferred. On this occasion he led off by telling them that the time had come when the various units of the British commonwealth must be held together by economic ties, and if these economic ties were not provided and gotten from some source, then the British Empire, like other great empires of the past, would dwindle and disappear. I have on another occasion read that portion of his speech, and anybody who wants to challenge me to produce the evidence may be sure that I have not left it upstairs in my room. I have it ready here. But our Prime Minister, not satisfied with that, poked his finger in his hosts' eyes by reminding them of the Boston tea party. Well, every historian and Britisher over there is sorry that the Boston tea party ever happened. It led eventually to the war of independence and to the actual independence of the United States. Who was responsible for that? We know who it was. It was a stupid crown, supported by a feeble minister like Lord North, and they drove the American colonies into independence and where they are to-day. It was this that the Prime Minister reminded his hosts of on the day that they had honoured him. That seems to be the essence of stupidity, if not worse. He went on and repeated it several times; I have the report of his speech here. He said that while at one time the ties of kinship were all right, to-day the world has come to such a pass that there was nothing but the ties of business and economics that would keep the empire together. That kind of jarred our friends in Belfast. They did not say anything about it for a week or two, waiting to hear what Premier Scullin and Premier Forbes of Australia and New Zealand would say on this important question when they arrived in Belfast shortly afterwards. They took absolutely the opposite stand; they said, "All right, let us have ties of an economic nature. But the ties that have held us together so long are the ties of kinship, the ties of blood and tradition, and the chances are that when these go our economic ties will not hold us." After the arrival of Premier Scullin and Premier Forbes, the same newspaper got its second wind, it came to itself, for it had been completely knocked out by the Canadian Prime Minister. They spoke pretty frankly. However, if you want to know

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
all the rest of it, is it not written in the chronicles of Hansard? To save time I will refer hon. members to my speech in the debate on the address. On this point let me ask: What right has the Prime Minister to castigate the farmers on the prairies, who are in despair and do not know which way to turn, for talking about secession, not knowing what else to talk about to draw attention to their present plight, when he himself, in Belfast of all places on earth, predicts the downfall of the British Empire? No farmer on the prairies ever uttered such a libellous statement against the loyality of the various units of the British commonwealth of nations. And this from the sublime and superloyal Tory party of Canada! Have they become so entirely absorbed in their "Canada first" policy that they are forgetting all else, as if any nation can live to itself? No wonder their policies are what they are. When they want more revenue they shut it off by the imposition of prohibitive tariffs. When they want our dairymen to get a better price for butter they dump Australian butter on our markets. God knows what they will do next! That is what the people are wondering-what will this rattlebrained government do next? I do not know; that is a conundrum. And they do not know themselves, unfortunately.
Now, let me deal with the income tax. We have been castigated for calling this a millionaire's budget. Yes, we have been wrong in that respect-it is a multimillionaire's budget. A lot of the millionaires, the low down fellows on the schedule are taxed higher; it is the multi-millionaires who have gotten away with the swag. This is no guess work. Anyone can get this information where I obtained it-at the taxation office. I should like to put all these figures on Hansard. If they are proud of their budget they should allow me to do so, without reading the whole ghastly record. The small salaried men from $3,000 to S8,000 get a drop in the aggregate of $50 or $60; then those in receipt of taxable incomes, from $9,000 all the way up through the various gradations to $130,000 will have to pay a higher tax.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: Let my hon. friends opposite enjoy themselves now and again; there will not be many opportunities for them to do so. From $9,000 up to $137,000, to be exact, those in receipt of such taxable incomes pay more than they did under the Robb or the Dunning budget. But these are the medium to moderate income men including possibly some millionaires. After you get
past the $130/100 into the million dollar taxable income class, those multi-millionaires
in receipt of such incomes are taken care of by this millionaire government. Well, what is the use of being in power if one cannot look after number one and one's multi-millionaire friends? So we have those modest hon. gentlemen sitting around the council table planning how they can relieve the treasury of millions of dollars formerly paid to the treasury under the Robb and Dunning budget. The man in this schedule in receipt of $140,000 of taxable income saves $163, but the rate is graded rapidly until the man with a taxable income of $1,000,000 holds back from the treasury $116,803 that otherwise, I repeat, under the Robb and Dunning budgets would have been paid into the national exchequer.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The hon. gentleman says he got his figures from the income tax department. Does he not know that from the same department he can ascertain that there is not a single $1,000,000 income in Canada? Will he be honest enough to make that statement?


William Richard Motherwell: Will my hon. friend just keep his seat until I am through? If he would do so he would not have to ask me any questions. I have got this official schedule all marked off exactly and certain notations made by myself thereon. My hon. friend has simply picked me up before I have fallen-something he is often in the habit of doing. My information is that some fifty or sixty men pay income tax on incomes of from $137,000 up to $500,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many?


William Richard Motherwell: From $137,000 to
$500,000 there are fifty or sixty men who pay income tax on that basis. Those particulars as to numbers are not on this official document, but I got that information from a fairly authoritative quarter. I am told that from $500,000 of taxable income up to $1,000,000 there is not now one payer of such income tax. But how many were there yesterday, or during the good times preceding mid 1929? Why is this high schedule there? Because of the possibility that with the promised prosperity that is supposed to follow with the coming of this government, and will surely come again some time, those men will all be in the multi-millionaire class again. But even suppose there is never a Canadian taxable income that is higher than $500,000, why should these fifty or sixty gentlemen on these high income tax schedules be relieved to the extent that they are by this budget, at the expense of the poor fellow who is

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
nearly down and out through the medium of more sales, customs, stamps, etcetera, taxes?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Richard Motherwell: I will let him talk till the cows come home if Your Honour will give me the additional time he takes out of my forty minutes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If you
will allow me another question?


William Richard Motherwell: I object.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: What is the use
of his taking up my time?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to ask a question.


William Richard Motherwell: The income tax for the millionaire is still higher-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to ask the hon. member this question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: (York-Sunbury): The hon.
member gave me permission to ask a question.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, am
I going to get five or ten minutes extra for this?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Do I understand the hon. member for Melville to allow the question or not?


William Richard Motherwell: No, I do not.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: If I thought it
really was a question, I would permit it even out of my own time. The highest income tax paid or to be paid by the multi-millionaire now by this budget is $246,125. Even under this reduction this income tax is still higher than it is in the United States on similar income taxpayers by about $5,000. How can our friends opposite say, then, that this reduction in the multi-millionaire income tax will attract capital into Canada when our income tax on these very large incomes is still higher than it is in the United States? They cannot have it both ways. I just want-to puncture that little argument, and at the same time incidentally show that the taxation in Canada, is still higher on the multimillionaire than in the United States. Therefore the government cannot claim any justification for the expectation that this

budget will attract capital back to Canada because of this adjustment of the income tax.
But as bad as this is, there is worse to come. Just think of it, Mr. Speaker; here we have a government which admittedly includes at least four millionaires, possibly multimillionaires, sitting around the council table and trying their best to withhold millions of dollars from the treasury by lowering the income tax on multimillionaires. Why, Mr. Speaker, if I bought a jimmy and a kit of safe-cracking utensils and started out to do the same thing on the treasury bank, I would be in the penitentiary in no time, but because one can do it legally, around the council table, it is a different thing.


Mr. MANION:: I rise to a point of order.


William Richard Motherwell: Point of grandmother; sit down.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Minister of Railways and Canals is rising to a point of order, as he has a right to do.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman made the statement that if he did what a number of members of this cabinet did, he would be in the penitentiary'. I do not think he has any' right to make any' such statement.


William Richard Motherwell: Whatever my hon.
friend wants, I will take it back, for the sake of saving time and getting through before time is called.


Robert James Manion: I should like to draw to
your attention also, Mr. Speaker, the whole speech of my hon. friend. I think he is continually making statements Vhich are out of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The words used by the
hon. member for Melville undoubtedly should bo called out of order. They are unparliamentary. I will ask him to withdraw them.


William Richard Motherwell: I will withdraw
anything at all in order to get ahead and save time. I hope I will get my additional five minutes. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not like these naked facts. I did not expect they would; I would have been disappointed if they had.


Robert James Manion: They are not true, that is the trouble.


William Richard Motherwell: What is not true?
I have before me, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the old War Revenue Act of 1929. This budget is much worse, as under it, the exemptions under the sales tax have been shot to pieces.

The Budget-Mr. Mullins
Under the Dunning budget there was a very-exhaustive list of sales tax exemptions, but these all have been cancelled and a new, but much smaller schedule, substituted. I defy anyone to state definitely what sales tax exemptions have been changed or dropped without most laborious research. It is all mixed up; it is not in the same consecutive order, and no layman can work it out correctly. I have done the best I could, and I find a number of articles which were exempted from sales tax in former budgets which do not carry that exemption now. For instance there is condensed milk, evaporated milk and powdered milk; lard compound and similar substances, made from animal or vegetable stear-ine or oils; hops; chicory, raw or green; materials for use only in the construction, equipment and repair of ships; ships licensed to engage in the Canadian coasting trade; manila fibre for use only in the manufacture of rope not exceeding one and one-half inches in circumference for the fisheries and boats bona fide purchased by individual fishermen for their own personal use in the fisheries.
I have only about four minutes; I do not know whether I shall be allowed the time taken up in interruptions, so I will not continue, although there are 135 formerly exempted tariff items with which I have not time to deal. However, before these items are taken up in committee I hope the government will bring down something more specific as to the changes which have been made with respect to these articles which were exempt under the old Sales tax, but which are not now exempt. I think there are scores if not fifties of those items; there are so many that at short notice one cannot find them all.
Is there not something with a heart the government can do? Cannot some good come out of Nazareth? Have this government done nothing good? Yes, they have; what about [DOT] the Stamp commission, and a good commission, which found out what we already knew through the Turgeon commission? The government found out what they should have known; they found what everyone else knew, and what the Turgeon commission reported some years ago, that future selling was unavoidable. Why, all kinds of commodities are bought for future delivery; even transportation, especially water transportation, is bought for future delivery right in the city of Ottawa, yet these precious hon. gentlemen, composing this alleged business-like government, had to ask a commission to find out what was so obvious to everyone and which was before them in the report of the Turgeon commission presented to the government of five or six years
ago. Speaking of the Stamp commission reminds me of postage stamps and Bennett budgets, as-
Every time we lick a stamp,
Or drink a cup of tea,
And see our scanty coin recede We'll swear at the great R.B.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to my hon. friend and neighbour, I cannot help thinking he is like a bird which is described in the dictionary. It is called the dodo bird, and it flies backward but does not know where it is going. It does not look where it is going; it just looks in the direction from which it came. I never heard a better country school campaign talk than that just delivered by the hon. member opposite. He talked about wheat, as usual, nothing but wheat, and he went over to England to do something. I should like to know what he did. He toured all over England in a high powered car with a chauffeur, but what did agriculture get? It got nothing.
I have only a limited time to speak, so I must hurry on. When I think of the great men of Canadian politics of the olden days, I wonder what they would think of the speech of my right hon. friend if they were looking down and listening to him. As a contrast let me read what Hon. George Brown said in Belleville in 1857:
Who cannot see that Providence has entrusted to us the building up of a great northern people fit to cope with our neighbours of the United States and to advance step by step with them in the march of civilization? Sir, it is my fervent aspiration and belief that some here to-night may live to see the day when the British flag shall proudly wave from Labrador to Vancouver island, and from our own Niagara to the shores of Hudson bay. Look abroad over the world and tell me what country possesses the advantages, if she but uses them aright, for achieving such a future as Canada enjoys.
And now listen to what Sir John A. Macdonald said. I should like the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to listen, because I have a message for him. He has a habit, when hon. members on this side are speaking, of finding fault or not paying attention; he read a newspaper upside down the last time I spoke in the house, so I ask him now to pay attention to what I am going to say. We are neighbours in western Canada, and I should like him to carry to that country the message I am going to give him. I want him to listen to what Sir John A. Macdonald said:
When this union takes place we will be at the outset no inconsiderable people. We find ourselves with a population approaching four
The Budget-Mr. Mullins

millions of souls. Such a population in Europe would make a second or at least a third rate power, and with a rapidly increasing population, for I am satisfied that under this union our population will increase in a still greater ratio then ever before-with increased credit -with a higher position in the eyes of Europe -with the increased security we can offer to immigrants, "who would naturally prefer to seek a new home in what is known to them as a great country, than in any one little colony or another-with all this I am satisfied that, great as has been our increase in the last twenty-five years since the union between upper and lower Canada, our future progress, during the next quarter of a century, will be vastly greater. And when, by means of this rapid increase, we become a nation of eight or nine millions of inhabitants, our alliance will be worthy of being sought by the great nations of the earth .... Instead of looking upon us as a merely dependent colony, England "will have in us a friendly nation-a subordinate but still a powerful people-to stand by her in North America in peace or in war.
Then I come to what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
We have learned to love British institutions, because in British institutions we have found more freedom than we could have had as subjects of France. How many times in that grand old city (Quebec), which I have the honour to represent, looking at the banner of St George waving over her proud citadel; How many times have I said to myself that that flag represented the defeat of my ancestors, but at the same time recalled the thought that it was the flag, the most precious to the human race, the flag" of liberty. I love England. I honour and esteem English institutions. I do not regret that we are now subjects of the queen instead of France; but may my right hand wither at my side if the memories of my forefathers ever cease to be dear to my heart.
These great men walked the streets of Ottawa but a few short years ago. I wonder what they would think, listening to such speeches, such wailings as we have heard from the other side. It was said, and rightly, what doubting Thomases! Do they remember when in 1927 the Conservative party voted with them? The gentleman who defeated me took fright and said, there must be something wrong when the Conservatives will vote with the Liberals; there is something wrong with the budget.
Now, there is no narrow, small politics on this side; we are too big for that. We have never played narrow, small, picayune politics. We are here for greater things. We want to build up this dominion, and we cannot do so if we indulge in that sort of thing.
I wish now to say a few words with respect to the tariff. The hon. gentleman said that we went all over the country talking on every platform nothing but butter, and that we slipped in on Australian butter. That is absolutely wrong. We used the tariff on every platform; we used the Dunning 'budget on every
I Mr. Mullins.]
platform. And we did use the butter. I admit it. But we were justified in using it. Any minister of agriculture or any government who would make a treaty like that, against the interests of the dairy industry of this country, had a right to be defeated. Hon. gentlemen opposite have a right to sit where they are now, and I am afraid it will be a long time before they reach this side again.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have preached free trade and practised protection. When was there ever a greater protectionist budget than the Dunning budget, with its countervailing duties. I have here a cartoon; I wonder whether the ex-Minister of Agriculture ever saw it. It certainly went a long way towards the defeat of hon. gentlemen opposite. It shows the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) swimming, and along comes Mr. Dunning and steals every bit of his clothing; he steals the protective principle and the protective policy of the right hon. gentleman. I will let the ex-Minister of Agriculture see the cartoon if he wishes; it appeared in the Country Guide, which surely is not a Conservative paper. As I say, that cartoon had much to do with the defeat of the party opposite. Stealing the policy of those on this side of the house-do they call that fair politics? They steal every item of our policy, preaching free trade and practising protection.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have a prosperous country without protection, and I am not afraid to talk protection if I do come from a constituency which has not a smokestack in its entire area. My constituency is all agriculture, but I want to tell hon. gentlemen opposite that we do not care a snap of the finger for duties: the tariff is not bothering us at all. Let me assure my hon. friends that they can no longer preach free trade and win a seat with that doctrine. But what does it matter what the tariff is so long as we can buy goods at the right prices? [DOT] I remember buying a binder for $150 when the tariff was 33J per cent. I see the exMinister of Agriculture is going out; I am sorry, because I have a lot of material which I was going to give him later on. He knows that I am coming to the live stock end of the discussion. No, Mr. Speaker; you cannot preach free trade any longer because the farmers will not accept it. As I was saying,
I could buy a binder for $150 when the duty was 33 i per cent. But, I repeat, what difference does it make what the duty is so long as the consumer is not exploited?
The Prime Minister has told the country that he will not permit the consumer to be exploited. If that is the case, surely my free


IS, 1931
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Mullins
trade friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) can want no more. There is a lot of fault found about increases in various lines, but I take a clipping from a newspaper and I find that commodities have not been raised in price. Machinery has not gone up in price, the prices of staple commodities have not gone up, and the fact is that a high tariff does not mean a raising of prices.
William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend refer only to commodities produced at home, or does he refer to importations alone? He says the tariff has not raised prices.


Henry Alfred Mullins: It does not raise the price of any commodity.


William Daum Euler: Hard coal has gone up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it has not.


William Daum Euler: Yes, it has in my town.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is $1.10 cheaper than it was last year.


William Daum Euler: Not in Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read the paper.


William Daum Euler: I know what it is in my
own town.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I have here a document drawn up by the manufacturers under their own signature, in which they agree not to raise the prices. In many cases they have reduced them. There is the document, under* taking that prices shall not be advanced. As I say, we do not care what the duty is so long as prices are not advanced, and as a matter of fact I have known prices to be lower under a tariff than under free trade.
I come now to agriculture, which is the basic industry of this country. May I ask what progress we have made in the last nine years under the administration of the exMinister of Agriculture? How far have we progressed, with all the agricultural students all over the country, and with inspectors grading the farmers of western Canada? Throughout the west you will find a horde of agricultural students running over the country, grading the farmer and his products. Let me mention some of the articles affected. Take hogs: in the different stockyards there are graders grading hogs to the detriment of the farmer. That system was introduced by the late minister. Then you have a system of grading beef in the different packing plants-another system instituted by the hon. gentleman. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman remembers that other system he introduced whereby the packer is allowed to take $2 a head on all male lambs slaughtered. I 22110-167
do not think the little lamb, when he looks at him from the pasture, would feel like following him to school, as the lamb followed Mary. Under the administration of the exMinister of Agriculture, exports of bacon dropped from 120,000,000 pounds to 20,000,000. We are exporting to-day about 20,000,000 pounds of bacon as compared with 120,000,000 pounds in those days.
What did he do in regard to transportation? He inaugurated the Petersen commission, the greatest farce ever placed on record in any parliament. One man, Mr. Symington, drew $10,000 from that commission, and in all it cost the country $35,000 for the effort made to obtain lower freight rates on live stock. All we have received has been the promise to do something. In every newspaper one would pick up there would be found the statement that the rate on li"e stock to the British markets would be reduced from $20 to $15. But nothing has been done to obtain these lower freight rates, except to spend the money of the people.
I remember taking one boat and appealing to the hon. minister to help me out, but what did I get? I got a rate of $27 for space on the Victor, a government owned boat. It is true that that boat sailed to Dundee and not to Liverpool, but I was subjected to a rate of $27 instead of the present rate of $15. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) was not in the house a week until he had obtained a $15 rate on cattle, and to-day a very healthy trade is springing up in the live stock industry because of the present administration. The hon. member spoke about wheat, but he did not say a thing about the live stock industry. I wonder if he looked into the matter while he was in Liverpool? I wonder if he visited any of the markets while he was over there? I did not hear him say that he did; he ignored the industry altogether. He did nothing at all to foster this trade which, along with wheat, is an important basic industry in western Canada.
1 contend that no farmer can be successful unless this live stock industry is fostered. The question is put:	What have you got to
offer, what are you going to do'to aid the agricultural industr}'-? First, I say let us have lower, freight rates. Much attention has been paid to the Crowsnest pass rates, but we had a rate in the old days known as the Manitoba rate which was far lower. The Conservative party was defeated in Manitoba in 1926 because of a most slanderous and diabolical lie which was broadcast to the effect that if Mr. Meighen was elected he

The Budget-Mr. Mullins

would abrogate the Crowsnest pass rate and it would cost the farmers of western Canada $40 for every car of wheat they shipped. That was not the case because Mr. Meighen had no intention whatever of placing a $40 rate on wheat.


Mr. BROWN:: I suppose the hon. member knows that Mr. Meighen opposed this rate during the time he was in the house?


William Richard Motherwell: He abrogated it.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Mr. Meighen never intended to touch the Crowsnest pass rate in any manner, shape or form. I ask the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown):	Do you
remember anything about the Manitoba rate?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Did the hon. member
speak about that rate in his constituency? Did he give the Conservative party any credit for it? Were not those rates much lower? This rate which was taken away in 1918 belonged to us. The Manitoba agreement lowered rates, as compared with the Crowsnest pass rates, by four cents per hundred pounds on grain from all points in Manitoba to Fort William and Port Arthur, and 15 cents on all general merchandise from Fort William and Port Arthur to all points in Manitoba and from all points in Manitoba to Fort William. The Crowsnest pass agreement applied only to limited commodities and in limited territories and on movements in one direction only, whereas the Manitoba contract covered every point in the province and movements east, west, north and south.
On October 6, 1903, an agreement was reached with the Canadian Pacific Railway providing for uniform rates on all railway lines in Manitoba to Fort William, and from Fort William to all points in Manitoba. On October 7, 1903, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company filed with the railway commission its tariff for reduced rates. Those low rates under the Manitoba contract remained in force until March, 1918, when they were overriden by the War Measures Act. In 1919, subsection 5 of the Railway Act was passed in an endeavour to override the Manitoba contract. This subsection was to remain in force for three years, and in June, 1923, an amendment was passed which was to remain in effect until July 6, 1923. The Crowsnest pass contract was never taken into account in connection with rates after the Manitoba contract came into force. Manitoba's contract was taken as a guide for everything. That agreement covered every commodity both coming in and going out of the province.
[Mr. Xluilins.l
The western farmer cannot stand heavy freight rates on commodities coming into and going out of the country, he must have a reduction, and I make an appeal to the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) to give assistance to get commodities out of the country. This is one of the difficulties with which western Canada has to contend. We care very little about the tariff, it is the transportation problem which troubles us. I believe that under the administration of the right hon. gentleman who has charge of the affairs of this country, we will see different and better times in western Canada and for agriculture generally. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the house, but I will have something to say later on these matters.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I wish to occupy the attention of the house but for a brief period in order to discuss a very few of the matters dealt with in the budget. The hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) made a speech in the house last Friday in which he dealt with the old age pension issue as it was placed before the people of eastern Canada during the last election campaign. That issue was an exceedingly important one in the campaign because the position taken by the Conservative party undoubtedly resulted in a number of constituencies being carried by that party which otherwise would not have been carried. I think it is most important that there should be no misunderstanding whatever in the minds of any hon. member of this house or of the people of the country as to the exact position taken by the Conservative party in eastern Canada.
First of all, I would like to place on record the plank in the platform of the Conservative party which was adopted in 1927 at the Winnipeg convention. The resolution dealing with old age pensions read as follows:
AVhereas all needy aged persons wherever resident in Canada, qualified by residence have equal right to old age pensions, and
Whereas the present federal pension law is inadequate and unworkable.
Therefore be it resolved that pension legislation should be the subject of federal legislation only.
That, it will be noted, contemplates the establishment of a purely national or federal system of old age pensions, and that was the platform of the Conservative party in eastern Canada during the campaign.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is yet.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend says: "It is
yet;" but the point I wish to make clear and

The Budget-Mr. Ilsley
that I will make clear before I finish my remarks on old age pensions, is that there was a second part to that plank and that was that the system was to be inaugurated immediately. The word "immediately" was defined as meaning at the first regular session of parliament. Those were the utterances of responsible leaders of the Conservative party in the maritime provinces, and it was upon those definite promises that they won seats. I think I can make that clear before I resume my seat.
Before I put on record the utterances of the Conservative leaders, I want to refer to one remark that was made by the Minister of Fisheries the other day. He stated I had said in the house, and had misled certain other hon. members by doing so, that he had promised to resign within three months if the old age pension promise was not implemented. If hon. members are interested in the matter and will consult the speech I made, they will find that I said simply that the minister had been reported as stating that it would be put into effect in three months, and I wanted to know whether that was correct or not. He rose in his place and stated that it was not correct. I unreservedly accepted what he said on that point, but I said and I still say that he promised the electors of Nova Scotia that the old age pension legislation by which the federal government would assume the full cost of the burden would be passed at the first regular session of parliament, which is this session. I can prove that by other references.
The Minister of Labour made a speech on this matter of old age pensions in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. As reported in the Halifax Herald of June 24 of last year, he said:
Again Senator Robertson referred to the Conservative convention at Winnipeg, and to the unanimous endorsation given by that convention to the proposal to establish a purely federal system of old age pensions, the cost of which would be entirely borne by the federal treasury.
"The present act is nothing but a piecemeal proposition," he said. "Are you going to be content to pay your share of the pensions of the old people of British Columbia, while your own aged people are getting nothing?"
"The King government," said Senator Robertson, "paid out in old age pensions last year about $2,000,000. Previous to that they discontinued the Agricultural Aid Act, the Technical Education Act and the federal aid to highways, all of which were established by the previous administration, thus saving about $6,000,000 a year. And yet Mr. King, after taking $6,000,000 from the people of Canada, is now offering them a sop of $2,000,000 in old age pensions, and is saying to the Canadian working man "after you are 70 years of age we will pay half of a pension of $20 a month for you."
Two or three months ago the present Minister of Labour made a speech in another place, and that speech was mentioned in the press of the maritime provinces. A telegram was sent to him by a Conservative paper there and this is the telegram which he sent in reply as published in that paper:
No change in Prime Minister's intention regarding old age pensions legislation. Impression gone abroad that legislation providing for dominion administration to be passed at this session. In my opinion this quite impossible-
Why does he say "impossible"?	.
-because of the jurisdictional question-
Yet the jurisdictional issue was ridiculed by hon. gentlemen opposite in the last campaign. -having to be first adjusted by agreement with provinces and confirmed by provincial enactment. This does not, however, prevent the provinces continuing to administer and the federal government paying the larger [DOT] proportion of total cost. Expect amendments to existing act probably made this session, but not to extent of providing for dominion administration until necessary preliminary matters have been discussed and settled with provinces. Prime Minister's public forecast holds good.
But what I suggest is that' between the assumption of office by this government and the present time there has been abundant opportunity for those preliminary matters to have been discussed and settled. So much for the Minister of Labour.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) spoke on this matter repeatedly in the maritime provinces. The first speech he made was on July 2, at Yarmouth, as reported in the Halifax Herald of July 3, at page 5, column 6. This is what he said:
"If the Conservative government succeeds on July 28, and I have every reason to believe it will," Mr. Bennett exclaimed, "I will see to it that old age pensions are paid to every province of the dominion from the federal treasury."
When the Prime Minister made the statement-
If the Conservative government succeeds on July 28, I will see to it that old age pensions are paid-
-he meant if and when the Conservative party gets into power he did not mean at some future time and any person hearing that utterance would place no other interpretation upon it.
The present Prime Minister proceeded to Halifax where he made a speech on July 3, which was reported in the Halifax Herald of July 4. A summary of what the Prime Minister said in that speech in reference to this and other matters was published on the first page of that paper. He said:
As an earnest of his sincerity, Mr. Bennett made it plain that every maritime Conservative
The Budget-Mr. Ilsley

member who is elected on July 28th would be at perfect liberty to vote in parliament against him and his government if he failed to carry out to the letter the definite pledges he gave last night, among which were the following of vital importance to the people of Nova Scotia:
1.	Dominion cooperation in the construction of the Halifax harbour bridge as a national obligation in relation to a national port.
2.	The immediate payment of old age pensions to the people of Nova Scotia and the other provinces of Canada 100 per cent from the dominion treasury as a duty the dominion owes its needy people who are unable to provide for themselves.
The Prime Minister proceeded to other points in the province where he made similar speeches. At Antigonish on July 9, as reported in the Halifax Herald of July 10, he said:
Jn detail Hon. Mr. Bennett outlined to his audience the pledge of the Conservative party to provide a system of old age pensions, the cost of which will be borne entirely by the federal treasury.
There are other quotations from the Prime Minister which I could put on record, but I think these will suffice. I come now to the speeches made-and there were many of them-by the distinguished gentleman who now holds the portfolio of Fisheries in this government and who at that time was Premier of Nova Scotia. He began his campaign at Stewiacke in t'he county of Colchester just outside my constituency. His speech, which was delivered on June 25, was very fully reported in the Halifax Herald, the party organ for the province of Nova Scotia on July 26, and from it I quote the following:
I say the federal government can pay old age pensions. If they can pay 50 per cent is it illegal for them to pay 99 per cent?
A little later on he said:
The Conservative party has solemnly pledged itself to pay the entire cost of old age pensions. ... I believe they will carry out this pledge, and if they do not, I will join with you in voting against them on this measure.
At Aberdeen Beach in my constituency on the 10th day of June, the then premier of Nova Scotia, the present Minister of Fisheries, made a speech which was reported as follows in the Halifax Herald of July 10, 1930, page 2:
Speaking of the position of the Conservatives on old age pensions. Premier Rhodes said that they should be a national obligation.
Then comes perhaps the most emphatic speech of all, made in the town in which I ' have the privilege of residing, before a very large audience, a meeting of three or four thousand people. Those who heard the speech were greatly impressed by it; many of
[Mr. Ilsley.1
them discussed it in relation to old age pensions in my hearing, so that I have a pretty accurate and direct personal knowledge of what the present Minister of Fisheries said in respect to old age pensions in the province of Nova Scotia. This speech was made on July 16 in Kentville, Kings county, and was reported in the Halifax Herald of July 17, 1980, on page 5, the last column:
In referring to old age pensions Mr. Rhodes said: "Mr. King in Liberal Prince Edward Island was prepared to consider federal payment in full, but in Nova Scotia he met the constitutional bugbear and could not pay more than 50 per cent."
The Conservative party stood pledged to institute a system of federal old age pensions at the first regular session of parliament, Mr. Rhodes said, and he continued: "If the Conservative party does not implement that pledge I will retire from public life forever."
Now I submit that there may be circumstances, exceptional circumstances, that sometimes justify public men in not keeping their bounden express pledges-circumstances of a most extreme character. But let us have no misunderstanding in this house about what was promised. If the Conservative government of the day is taking the position that it has to break a promise because of exceptional conditions, let it frankly come out and say so, but do not let us have any misunderstanding about what was promised the people of the maritime provinces in this matter of old age pensions. They were promised in the most express and the most solemn terms that they would get old age pensions in full from this government at the first regular session, and the present Minister of Fisheries said that if that were not done he would retire from public life forever.
Another matter that is perhaps of some interest to the people of Nova Scotia particularly is that of the so-called national fuel policy, concerning which there are certain provisions in the budget. This policy may be divided into two parts, first the rail subventions, and second, increased duties. My own opinion about this policy is that the rail subventions may result in the movement of certain additional quantities of coal. It would be strange if they did not. In some respects the subventions are reduced, but in other respects they are increased, and the public of Canada will be paying larger sums than heretofore to encourage the movement of coal. We naturally expect, therefore, that there will be some additional movement of coal, not a very great additional movement. A few hundred thousand tons will be the limit, as the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) pointed out; and there is no member of this house better qualified to judge

The Budget-Mr. Ilsley
accurately of the effect of subventions than the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, because, as a member of the Mackenzie King administration, he took a particular interest in the working out of the order in council in 1927 and 1928 under which hundreds of thousands of tons of coal have already been moved. Regarding these subventions, Mr. Speaker, I have very little to say in the way of criticism, but I do say that when public men on the Conservative side of politics in the maritime provinces speak about the subventions in this budget as the launching of a national fuel policy they are talking the veriest nonsense. These subventions are merely an adaptation of the subventions provided for in 1927 and 1928. They are simply minor additions to the fuel policy which was put into effect by the King government in 1927 and 1928.
When we come to the second part of the national fuel policy, the provisions for additional duties, different principles apply, but I warn such hon. members as the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), who made a very fair speech the other day on this subject, and prominent -men on the Conservative side of politics in the province of Nova Scotia who are speaking on this question, not to expect too much from the very small increases in. duties that are provided for in this budget. I suppose that if there is one hon. member in this house on the Conservative side who knows more than others about matters pertaining to coal and steel it is the hon. member whom I am glad to see in his seat now, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). He has spent his life in the coal and steel industries. Compared with his knowledge of the subject, the knowledge of the hon. Minister of Fisheries is rudimentary, and it would be so admitted by himself, I am sure. The hon. member for Pictou is in a position to state pretty accurately what would be the effect of particular duties, and I want to refer the house to a speech made by him on May 17, 1926, which will be found at page 3422 of the Hansard of that year. He said, and I invite attention particularly to the concluding part of his remarks:
We should first impose upon coal a duty sufficient to enable us to control our own market. We should have an adequate protective duty on all classes of coal, coke and patent fuel's equal to, say, not less than 25 per cent of the present laid down, c.i.f. cost. That would be, say, $1.25 to $1.50 a ton, the duty to apply to all coal, coke and patent fuel imported irrespective of its origin or the purpose for which it may be used. I have said that the rate should be $1.50 a ton and if it w ere that duty would be considerably lower than that at one time imposed by the people of the United States on Nova Scotia coal then largely shipped and sold by us to New England
cities. Some of my hon. friends may balk at a duty of $1.50 a ton. While the industry is certainly entitled to that amount of protection I wish to emphasize the fact that a rate of duty less than one dollar a ton applied to all classes of fuel will entirely fail of its object, be mischievous and disappointing.
This is the utterance of the best authority on the government side of the house on this matter of coal, and if those are the views of the hon. member for Pictou to-day, I think he owes it to his constituency, to his province and to the country, to tell them that this 75 cents a ton duty will entirely fail of its object, be mischievous and disappointing.
Let me come to two other features of the budget which I wish to discuss, namely the measures designed to afford some additional protection to the grain growers of the west.
I think protection is the right term, because these measures are essentially protective in their nature. The first is the five cents a bushel bonus on the export of wheat. Let me say quite emphatically that I am opposed to that provision; I am opposed to the provision of five cents a bushel as a bonus on export wheat. My reasons for that opposition are as follows: In the first place, it is a discriminatory selection of one commodity. In Canada wheat is not the only exporting industry. As I have repeatedly said, we have most important exporting industries in the province of Nova Scotia. We have industries which at various times become in a very depressed condition. There were four or five moist unfavourable years for apple growers in Nova Scotia a few years ago. Last year was better, but for a few years before that, due to unfavourable crop and market conditions, the apple growers of Nova Scotia were going behind. What justice is there in picking out one agricultural commodity, wheat, and paying a bonus of five cents a bushel on export, and not doing the same thing with regard to other agricultural products? The right hon. the Prime Minister may say:	Yes, but the
wheat growing industry is the biggest industry of Canada. My answer is that it is not as big an industry as agriculture itself. If it is fair to bonus one class of export it is fair to bonus them all. When a year or two ago the United States were trying tr. evolve a plan which would offset the deleterious effect of the protective tariff upon the agricultural industry, they did not apply their export debenture plan to wheat alone, they applied it to other commodities as well. So my first point of objection to the five cent bonus is that it is unjust discrimination against other branches of agriculture.
My second point is that it still further accentuates the discrimination in freight rate*
The Budget-Mr. Ilsley

against domestic purchasers. That subject has been dealt with in this house by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and by other hon. members. The situation that exists in western Canada was graphically described by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) the other day, when he said that poultry raisers and others there were contemplating the importation of wheat from Australia rather than pay the very oppressive domestic freight rates which are so much higher than the export rates. That situation exists also in eastern Canada. This provision in the budget still further accentuates the discrimination between export and domestic freight rates.
My third objection is that this five cent bonus on wheat invites reprisals of a most disastrous kind. A year or two ago when the United States congress was discussing the export debenture plan it looked as if that plan would be crystallized into legislation, and that the exporters of farm products were about to receive a bonus amounting to half the customs tariff rates upon the commodities that they exported. When that stage was reached I received most earnest protests from exporters in my constituency because they knew they would be prejudiced, if not ruined, in attempting to place their apples on the British market in competition with American apples. Now, this legislation is on the same principle as the export debenture plan, although it does not go quite so far. No wonder American newspapers are already talking about the revival of the export debenture plan. Time, a magazine published in New York, contains the following in to-day's issue:
Subsidy No. 1 is a Canadian treasury bounty of 5 cents on each bushel of Canadian export wheat. Thus in selling his wheat abroad the Canadian farmer will have a five c-ut edge over his United States competitor. This provision is likely to stir another demand in congress for the export debenture whereunder United States wheat growers would get a bounty of 50 per cent of the tariff rate (i.e. 21 cents) for every bushel of wheat they sold outside the country.
Therefore, I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should not encourage dumping when we condemn the practice by other countries, and talk about it in a tone of great moral earnestness as something which should be severely reprobated.
The other protective feature of the budget, designed I suppose to assist western agriculture-I do not know what other reason there could be for it

is the proposed duty on Indian corn. I got from the Department of Trade and Commerce not very long ago trade returns to find out where we get our corn. 
A great deal of it comes from the Argentine republic. I find that during the last ten years our trade with the Argentine has been more or less onesided, that we are selling to them a great deal more than we are buying from them every year. During the last five years we have sold them about $68,000,000 worth of goods, and we have purchased from them only about $40,000,000. Of the commodities that we buy from the Argentine republic the most important is corn; it accounts for considerably more than half our total imports from that country. This government has destroyed our trade with Russia by the absurd embargo on Russian goods; they have destroyed our trade with New Zealand by their stubborn adherence to an eight cent duty against the advice of those in the dairy industry who should know what they are talking about; now apparently they are on the highroad to destroy our trade with the Argentine republic. I submit that we should be devising ways and means of encouraging importations from the Argentine rather than discouraging them. What is the use of sending a good will mission to the Argentine, if immediately after their return we impose this duty against one of their principal exports to Canada? What is the use of putting expensive machinery into the port of Halifax for the handling of Argentine corn? The hon. members for Halifax know all about that. What is the use of doing it if we are going to destroy that trade? And the destruction of that trade is not going to help us in this country. I have received letters from those in my constituency who raise pork, beef and poultry, protesting against this duty. They have to have this Argentine corn. They are a long way from western barley. The freight rates on western barley are very, very high, and they assure me most positively that Indian corn from the Argentine republic is absolutely necessary if they are going to get the best results in the feeding of their stock. The 20 cents a bushel duty, according to the best figures that I can get, will place a burden upon Nova Scotian feeders alone of between $150,000 and $175,000 a year. I protest against this proposal. I say it is absurd and suicidal, and I cannot understand why the government inserted it in the budget.
There is another matter that I desire to refer to, and I do so with some diffidence, but with a feeling that it deserves the attention of every hon. member-the duty on that very necessary commodity, gasoline. Gasoline is used everywhere. It is almost as necessary as bread, I was going to say. It enters into the life of the people at every turn. We all

The Budget-Mr. Ilsley
use it-gasoline. Now, let me point out something that may surprise hon. members. The duty on gasoline, when you add the tariff rates to the dumping duty, is over 1Q0 per cent ad valorem. I wonder if hon. members realize that? I will give the house the figures on which that is based. The Department of National Revenue divides the United States, where we get practically all our crude oil and some of our refined gasoline, into nine districts. One is Pennsylvania, New York and district, which includes the Atlantic seaboard. They fix the valuation for duty purposes in that district at 6-672 cents per wine gallon. In Toledo, Detroit, Cleveland and district the value for duty purposes is 7-285. And so it goes on down the list. I am sorry I have not time to give fuller details. But the point is that a different value for duty purposes is placed upon the refined gasoline that comes from each of these nine districts in the United States. I will explain how that works out. Suppose an importer in the city of Toronto is bringing in United States motor gasoline, 58-60, from a western Pennsylvania refinery. Appraiser's bulletin 3715, issued June 5, 1931, to which I refer, fixes the valuation at 6-672 cents per wine gallon; add one-fifth to convert into the imperial gallon, and you have the valuation for duty purposes per imperial gallon at 8-006 cents. The National Petroleum News, in its issue of June 3, 1931, gives the value at the refineries in western Pennsylvania at 4-875 cents per wine gallon. If you add one-fifth to that you find that the value per Canadian gallon at the Pennsylvania refineries is 5-85 cents. The department's value being 8-006 cents, and the real value being 5-85 cents, the difference is the dumping duty, which amounts to 2-156 cents. If you add that to the 2-5 cents of tariff duty, you have 4-656 cents as the actual, real duty on gasoline brought from Pennsylvania to Toronto. In other words, on a product worth 5-85 cents a gallon, you have a duty of 4-656 cents, or 78 per cent. I could place similar figures on record to show that gasoline brought from the mid-continent field, which is the fundamental field, carries an ad valorem duty of 122 per cent, so that averaging the two fields, the rate is over 100 per cent ad valorem.
It has been said that the refineries are not taking advantage of that duty. They are taking advantage of it, and if I had time I could show by figures which I do not think can be controverted to the extent of a fraction of a cent, that the wholesale price to Canadian refineries, for gasoline delivered in tank cars at Toronto, is 3-522 cents higher than the price for which those same importers
could get their gasoline in the United States, freight, sales tax and special import tax paid. In other words, they are using the dumping duty, plus the tariff duty, to keep their price up by something over 3i cents. I am told, though I have not been able to check the information, that the difference is greater in other parts of Canada, and that one would be perfectly safe in saying that the wholesale price is 4 cents a gallon greater than it would be but for the duty. On the 600,000,000 gallons of gasoline used in a year by the Canadian consumers this tax, levied for the benefit of the refineries, amounts to $24,000,000. .
When it gets to the retail price the difference is very much greater. Let us take the retail figures, with all the taxes, the state tax on one side and the provincial tax on the other, stripped off. A comparison of prices from coast to coast in Canada and the United States gives the following figures, per imperial gallon in both cases, as the retail prices of gasoline, omitting provincial road taxes, in effect June 1, 1931, as published in the National Petroleum News of June 3, 1931, pages 92 and 93:
Halifax.. .. Toronto.. .. Border Cities Fort William Winnipeg.. .
Regina	
Calgary.. .. Vancouver.. New York.. Buffalo..	..
Detroit.. .. Duluth.. .. Minneapolis.. Minot, N.D.. Butte. Mont. Seattle.. ..
22.5
19.5
19.5
23.0
22.0 26.0
23.0
23.0 15.96 16.56 14.16
15.00 14.64 16.68
18.00 9.6
There is an average difference of over 7 cents a gallon in the retail price across the United States on one side of the boundary line, and the price across Canada on the other side, and that difference is due to the tariff and the dumping duty. I submit no other explanation is reasonable, and no other explanation can be made to fit the case. I do not know what hon. members of this, house think about this situation. Here is an industry which employes 5,000 people and pays out $8,000,000 yearly in wages and salaries, according to the last bulletin issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce. That industry gets from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 in excess prices from the people of Canada. Every fisherman who has a little gasoline boat in a cove on the bay of Fundy; every farmer who has a truck; every man or woman of moderate means who has a small car, pays,

The Budget-Mr. Ilsley
by virtue of the tariff, between three and four cents a gallon for the benefit of these refining companies, some of which are more than half owned by foreign interests, since the oil refining business in Canada is largely controlled by the Standard Oil.
I submit that this is a case for the exercise of the powers which were taken by the Prime Minister and his government last September. If we read the debates of that day we will find that it was not laid down simply that if the price went up these powers would be exercised; it was promised by the Prime Minister that these powers would be exercised if there came about too great a discrepancy between the price here and the price abroad, showing that the duty was being used by the home producers in order to keep up prices beyond what they would be otherwise by reason of the interference with the free play of economic forces. These promises were made last September, and I submit that these powers should be exercised now. If these figures are wrong, let the oil companies come forward with an explanation. Do not let them do what one gentleman did in this morning's paper, simply accuse an hon. member of the house of not knowing what he was talking about. Let them give an explanation. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) made an extremely able statement the other night, going into the financial structure of these companies. He showed that the greatest abuses exist which permit these companies to exploit and plunder the people of this country through the tariff. The government should take action in this matter, or at least the oil companies should state why the government should not take action, because a prima facie case has been made out against them which calls for the exercise of the powers taken by the government in their legislation of last September.


Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up much of the time of the house in connection with this debate, since the budget has been thoroughly discussed from every angle by many hon. members, particularly with regard to the subject of coal, in which I am particularly interested. That matter has been ably discussed by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) and also by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Smith), so that repetition on my part at this time is uncalled for.
However, before the discussion ends I wish to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) for the very splendid budget he brought down this year. For some 
years I have been studying our Canadian budgets; I have heard five budgets read in this house and have studied a great many more, but I have never understood a budget so thoroughly as I understood the one brought down this year. It explained the condition of affairs in Canada as it never has been explained before, and I am sure it must be gratifying to the Minister of Finance to have his budget so well received by the people of Canada. We have captains of industry, manufacturers, presidents of coal mines, and the president of our coal union of the United Mine Workers of Cape Breton, giving the budget a very favourable reception and looking for something to come out of this policy for which the country has been waiting so long.
I am a protectionist, and I took my first lesson in 1878, at a political meeting at which Sir Charles Tupper announced his national policy. I was only a young fellow at the time, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I was very much impressed by the views expressed by Sir Charles Tupper on that occasion. He was making a tour of Canada, commencing in the city of Sydney in the east and going right across the dominion. At that time, as hon. members know, the country was in a state of very serious depression, and conditions were worse than they are to-day. The question which was being discussed then seems to be equally important to-day. At that time it was not merely a matter of free trade versus protection; it was a question of industrial life or death, and I believe the situation is the same to-day. The coal mines were not working at that time. There was only one working in the southern and one in the northern part of the island. Sir Charles Tupper declared that the day would come when steel works and coal mines would be numerous throughout Cape Breton island, and a duty on coal was imposed. A brief history of the Nova Scotia coal industry might be interesting. In the year 1879 the province of Nova Scotia produced a total of 866,220 tons. These figures, by the way, are from the records of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. In the following year, 1880, the duty was raised from 50 to 60 cents a ton and in that year the production of the Nova Scotia mines jumped to 1,777,669 tons, or more than double the output of the previous year. That was the greatest comparative increase in the history of Nova Scotia's production in any one year since confederation. It shows what can be done by an increase in the duty on coal.
Members from Cape Breton have in the last five years been endeavouring to solve the coal problem. We have brought forward

The Budget-Mr. Johnstone
several proposed solutions but they do not seem to have materialized. We tried to get. the people of Canada to use coke instead of hard coal, and I am sure that if anyone would use coke manufactured from Nova Scotia coal instead of using hard coal, that person would never use coal again. Coke is cleaner, freer, gives a better fire, and altogether involves less trouble in its use. The coke bill, of course, was of no advantage to us, because coal was coming in free; and the rebate on slack coal brought in for coke purposes made impossible a solution so far as we in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, were concerned.
The miners of Cape Breton have been looking for some time for something of this nature. Clouds have been hanging over the heads of the miners. Starvation has been staring them in the face in many instances, and work seemed to be getting scarcer every day. But a ray of sunshine came to them, a gleam of hope, when the Prime Minister, on his political tour, announced publicly that he would institute a fuel policy. He has taken the first step in the direction of such a policy, and I may say here, Mr. Speaker, that it is not surprising that within the last week men who are opposed politically to the right hon. gentleman and his government should get up on the platform in my own county and say emphatically that the budget was worthless to the coal industry. These men might at least have allowed our people to derive some encouragement from the budget. There was no necessity for them to attempt to discourage our miners. Whatever the result may be. we do not know, but we hope for the best. And after all, what have these men who talk that way to say with respect to the record of their government? What their government did at that time was simply to lower the duties on coal and to insert in the tariff certain schedules providing for a series of drawbacks the effect of which was that the duty was reduced almost to the vanishing point. What has the present government done in its short period of office so far as coal is concerned? It has imposed a duty of 75 cents specific, the highest duty in the history of Canada. It has removed anthracite from the free list and imposed a duty of 40 cents a ton; it has taken coke off the free list and imposed a duty of SI; it has imposed a duty of $7.50 on charcoal; and it has prevented Russian coal from coming in, and thrown up safeguards against the dumping of coal into Canada. Notwithstanding this, these men declare that the budget is worthless to the coal industry.
It seems to me that we have too much politics in Canada. I do not see why a government which has just come into power should be subject to abuse when it brings down a budget containing certain provisions that will improve the condition of things in the country. Why should the opposition indulge in such criticism before they see what the actual results are? Here is something which we have been endeavouring for nine years to get in the coal industry. We have it to-day. I say to my hon. friends, why not wait and see the result of this? A year from now, two years from now, will be plently of time to criticize this budget, when we find out exactly where we stand. There is no use in abusing it to-day. I do not expect to see any immediate effect: our contracts are all made already. But I do believe that the subventions this year will assist us materially in our coal trade in Cape Breton.
Years before confederation coke was coming into Canada free, while we were selling Nova Scotia coal in the United States under a duty of $1.75 a ton. That was the condition of affairs when the great statesman Haliburton came to Nova Scotia on his tour of the dominion. He made a prophecy then, for apparently he had a vision. He asked,-"How is it that coal is coming free into Canada while you are sending coal into the United States under a duty of $1.75, when you have a beautiful waterway, the St. Lawrence, whereby every ton of coal could be shipped to other parts of Canada? Canals will be built on which you can carry your coal to the west". At that time there was not a ton of coal being shipped on the St. Lawrence, nor was there a canal in Canada. To-day the St. Lawrence has been made a perfect waterway for the largest steamships in the world, many of them filled with coal. This has all come about through the national policy announced in 1878 by Sir John Macdonald.
I am a firm believer in protection and in interprovincial reciprocal trade. I might quote the words of Mr. Burnaby, trade commissioner for the maritime provinces, addressing the border cities chamber of commerce the other day. He said:
We cannot be expected to bear up our end in building a nation unless we can sell our products.
Then he set forth the principle of interprovincial trade, urging the largest possible development of such trade to the mutual benefit of every province and to the Dominion as a whole. The only way in which Canada can be built up is to protect her industries, her raw materials and natural resources, and to allow in free of duty those commodities which we cannot produce. Our raw materials are being sent out of the country to be

The Budget-Mr. Johnstone
manufactured and then are being returned as finished articles. There is a very good example right in my own constituency. The Liberal government of some years ago entered into a contract with an American firm to lease twelve hundred thousand acres of pulpwood land at a very small rental, I think no more than $6,000 per year. This lease was for ninety-nine years, and year after year, month after month, large steamers are going out of Ste. Ann's bay filled with pulpwood for the United States. Our forests are being devastated because no effort is being made to plant new trees. But that is not the worst of it. There is being sent out of the country our greatest asset, our young men and women. These young people have been educated at the expense of the Canadian ratepayers, and they are following this pulpwood in order to take part in its manufacture in the United States. Why not keep that pulpwood in Canada to be manufactured here by our own people? Ever since 1878 I have been in favour of adopting this course, and I shall continue to be in favour during the few remaining years of my life.
I have great faith in the policies of the present administration. I have great faith in the budget which the Minister of Finance has brought down. The people of Canada should unite to make this country a great nation. Under the policies brought down by the Minister of Finance Canada can become an independent nation and derive the benefits of her own wealth; she can become independent rather than being dependent upon the United States.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to continue unduly the discussion on the budget as I believe this matter should be disposed of so that the house can take up other matters still to come before it to the end that the session may soon be brought to a. conclusion. However, representing as I do one of the coal counties in the province of Nova Scotia-the county which has been mining and exporting coal possibly longer than any other county in Canada-I feel that it is incumbent upon me to give thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) for the interest he has shown in the coal industry by increasing the duties on coal. My thanks are due to him, as are the thanks Of the miners of the province, not only for the increased duties but also for the rail subvention on coal. I have no doubt that these changes will go a great way towards increasing our markets in the central provinces.
" Speaking in the house this afternoon the hbn. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley)

was good enough to make some very complimentary remarks in regard to myself and my knowledge of the steel and coal business. He devoted some time to quoting a speech which he says I made in 1926. It is quite likely that I did speak along the lines he intimated. I was a young man at that time; let me hope I have learned something since. The duties on coal are not as high as I should like to have them, but I am very glad, as are the people of my province, to know that the budget provides considerable increases in the coal duties. These are the highest duties on coal we have ever had, but I hope they do not mark the limit in that regard.
In 1925, under the regime of our hon. friends opposite, the effective duty on bituminous coal was reduced to 50 cents per ton for both run of mine and slack, anthracite and coke being put on the free list. That was the situation in regard to coal duties on June 1, when the Prime Minister by his budget proposals raised the duty to 75 cents per ton, on soft coal, including run of mine, slack and screenings; on anthracite to 40 cents per ton and on coke to one dollar per ton. Not only have the duties been raised, but an embargo lias been placed on Russian coal and an increase has been granted in the rail subvention. In addition to these measures, provision has been made to guard against the dumping of American coal at slaughter prices. I submit that these actions make a good beginning, and the miners of Nova Scotia accept them as such. I never had any doubt as to the honesty of the Prime Minister's intentions in the further protection of the coal producers in eastern, central and western Canada; neither had I any doubt that no undue delay would occur in the bringing down of effective tariff legislation to that end, and my faith has been justified.
Personally, I should have liked to see the Prime Minister go much further in dealing with the iron and steel industry, but I realize his difficulty and the tremendous pressure of work which confronted him. I can assure him that the people of the maritimes appreciate the situation and applaud the action which he has already taken, believing as they do that such action will result in great advantage to the coal mining industry which contributes so largely to our prosperity. No other prime minister of Canada has had to face a similar situation, and in view of these conditions we are prepared to wait for another year at which time we hope further assistance will be given to the iron and steel industries.
I regret that the former Minister of National Revenue, the hon. member for North Waterloo

The Budget-Mr. Cantley
(Mr. Euler) is not in his seat. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member. His views on most questions are reasonable. His views on fiscal matters march closely with those held by hon. members on this side of the house, and because of his ordinarily good judgment on other questions, I was much surprised the other day,to hear him express his views in connection with the action taken by the government with regard to Russian trade. I have no sympathy with the suggestion that Canada should sever trade relations with the Soviet government because of its repudiation of God and its contempt for religion. The Lord God of Hosts still reigns, His arm is not shortened and, in His own good time and way He will deal with Russia. My approval of the action of the government in placing an embargo on trade with Soviet Russia is based upon quite different reasons. Russia occupies in Europe an area corresponding with the position of Canada on the American continent. Russia's products are the same as ours-wheat, other agricultural products, lumber, coal. In these we are competitors and always will be. What, therefore, have we to gain by trade with them? Can we or should our people be asked to compete with the labour of serfs whose standard of living and social relations are barely, if at all, above those of the beasts of the field. It is on these grounds that I applaud the action of the government, and for the same reason the people of Canada will judge the government as to its decision and action in that matter.
For the first time since becoming a member of this house, I had on June 1 the privilege of hearing a real budget speech, with a full statement of our national fiscal position, a complete balance sheet of the dominion given parliament by the right hon., the Finance Minister, before stating his proposals for meeting the situation confronting us and providing the necessary revenue to meet the country's immediate, pressing needs.
As to the remarks of the financial critic of the opposition, successful advocate and experienced debater as he is, when I listened to his criticism of the budget proposals of the finance minister, when I recalled the eloquent and powerful speech made by him in this chamber a few years ago, on which occasion he spoke with conviction based on uncontrovertible facts, and when I recalled his then confident assurance and joy of battle as contrasted with his lack of enthusiasm for the task assigned him by his leader, I confess he had .my sympathy. Frankly I thought the speech unworthy of him, containing as it did no valid or worth while opposition to the
budget proposals suggested-a two and a quarter hour sermon on the text "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"-and finally coming down to the wail of a dissatisfied child who wishes to express his misery, although conscious that little attention will be paid to his bewailing.
My honourable, bluenose friend, the exMinister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) played with a matter of percentages when dealing with the sales tax; he stated that the budget now before the house had raised the sales tax 400 per cent. True, but it is also true that the government of which he was a member raised the sales tax 100 per cent. That 100 per cent increase was a much greater increase than the 400 per cent of which he now complains, because they then doubled the sales tax, raised it from 3 per cent to 6 per cent, whereas the proposal before the house increases the rate from 1 per cent to 4 per cent, so that the sales tax to-day is but two-thirds of that imposed by the government of which my hon. friend was a member. He suggests the 4 per cent tax will bring in 52 millions of dollars. If that be true, then the 6 per cent tax of my friends opposite brought in $48,990,076. more than the 52 millions- he estimates for the present year's tax. This is evident from the fact that for the year ended March 31. 1924, the sum of $100,990,076 was collected by way of sales tax under the government of my hon. friends opposite.
My hon. friend put on Hansard, as reported at page 2296, a quotation from a reported speech of an English economist, with the dictum that high tariffs stimulate the growth of nationalism. Is that a fault? Is that anything that we in Canada need fear? With a dominion continent-wide, with diversity of races, language, occupations, trades and markets, is the growth of nationalism to be condemned?
The hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth welcomed any tangible assistance to the coal industry, but he did not think the increased duty would give the industry of Nova Scotia practically any additional advantage. Let us review the tariff history of the coal trade since confederation.
From the inception of confederation, 1876 to 1879, those years, coal was on the free list. In 1879 the Conservative finance minister imposed a duty of 50 cents per ton on anthracite and 60 cents on bituminous coal, with 20 per cent on coal dust. In 1886 anthracite was placed on the free list, the 60 cents on bituminous remaining, with 20 per cent on coal dust. In November of the following year, 1887, anthracite coal dust was placed
The Budget-Mr. Cantley

on the free list by order in council, the mistaken reason given being that anthracite coal dust was not a competitor of Canadian-mined coal, though it certainly was then as now being largely used for steam boiler fuel.
No further change was made until 1890. Anthracite coal dust then remained free as in 1887 with 60 cents per ton on bituminous, 20 per cent on soft coal dust, with anthracite, including screenings, on the free list. These duties remained until 1897, when under the first Fielding budget the duty on bituminous coal was reduced from 60 cents to 53 cents, while the duty on such bituminous slack coal as would pass through a one-half inch screen was placed at 13 cents per ton. For ten years no further change was made until the Fielding budget in 1907, which retained all classes of anthracite on the free list, continued the duty of 53 cents on bituminous under the general tariff, but reduced it to 45 cents under the intermediate and 35 cents under the British preferential tarif, and fixed the rate on bituminous slack at 14 cents with the intermediate at 12 cents and the British preference at 10 cents per ton.
These rates continued unaltered until 1924, when (he King government reduced the general tariff on bituminous to 50 cents, raising slack fo the same level, which remained in force until now changed by the proposals of the leader of the government. By the proposals of the finance minister, the duty on bituminous coal and coal dust of all kinds has been raised to 75 cents general, with a tax of 40 cents per ton on anthracite and SI per ton on coke. Hard coal from Great Britain remains on the free list. These latter coal duties are the highest so far imposed in Canada on foreign fuel.
This, Mr. Speaker, I submit is a fairly good start in the direction of a national fuel policy. That is the gift horse which the official critic of the opposition does not care to look in the mouth. I suggest he would prefer that the gift horse did not appear at all; indeed, his amendment now before the house, if adopted, would dispose of the horse and the major advantage we are getting from the tariff. That is the situation so far as he is concerned, and that is his view as expressed by the amendment which he has moved.
But the financial critic's political friends do not ali agree with him, for here is a Cape Breton paper's report on whait the mayor of North Sydney thinks of the coal duties:
Mayor Kelly of North Sydney is credited with having stated at least week's meeting of the town council that the Bennett budget was the best budget for Cape Breton ever submitted to parliament. The value of this testi-

mony is that it comes from one who knows, and who has no strong bias in favour of the Conservative party. It is a view which is shared by practically everyone in Cape Breton.
That is Mayor Kelly's view of the budget, and may I remind the hon. gentleman that Mr. Kelly was for some years the representative of his county in the parliament of Canada, sitting with my friends opposite. The value of this testimony is that it comes from one who knows, one who can safely be said to have no strong bias in favour of the Conservative party.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. BEAUHARNOIS POWER CORPORATION


PRESENTATION OP FIRST AND SECOND REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration) :: Mr. Speaker, if I might intervene at this juncture for a moment, with the consent of the house I should like to present the first and second reports of the special committee on the Beauharnois power project. The reports are very short, and are as follows:
First Report
Your committee recommend that they be given leave to print, from day to day, the minutes of proceedings and evidence taken, and also 9ueh representations, arguments and papers submitted as may be directed by the committee to be printed, for the use of the committee and members of the house, not to pxceed 600 copies in English and 200 copies in French.
Your committee also recommend that they be given leave to sit while the house is in session.
Second Report
Your committee recommend that leave be granted them to employ counsel for the purpose of assisting in the investigation of the matters referred to them by the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the wish of the house that the reports be received?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Mr. GORDON moved that the reports be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave

The Budget-Mr. Cantley
the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.
Thomas Cantley: When the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had referred to the statement of Mayor Kelly of North Sydney, that the Bennet budget was the best budget for Cape Breton ever submitted to parliament. I propose now to turn to the reaction to the budget of the American anthracite coal operators who have hitherto found so large a market for their product in Canada.
That the new duties will be effective in reducing the sale of American coal in Canada is evidenced by the attacks now being made by American coal producers on Nova Scotia coal and coke in a statement recently issued and now being circulated, which says in part: The tests show that American anthracite is a much more efficient and economical fuel than either Welsh coal or coke, and that at current prices the use of Pennsylvania anthracite means a saving of $1.75 a ton to the householder when actual heating value is considered.
The statement is, to use the words of an eminent British statesman "a frigid and calculated lie." Those who have had experience with all types of fuel available in Canada may be permitted not only to doubt this assertion, but to challenge it definitely and positively. Tests carried out under official auspices and supervision have shown that Nova Scotia coke is superior to American anthracite, that it does better work at less cost. The results of these tests, well known to our people, merely confirm the experience of those who have used both Nova Scotia coke and American anthracite. We welcome every comparison of these types of fuel, confident that where Nova Scotia coke is given an opportunity to demonstrate its real value, it will be proven not only equal to but better than the best of any other variety of domestic fuel. The results in the Nova Scotia schools, where imported anthracite has been replaced by Nova Scotia coke, are perfectly satisfying both in economics and heating value. Through displacement of anthracite coal by Nova Scotia coke thousands of dollars are being saved every year.
Now, if the coal mining industry of Canada is to be saved from disaster, a protective duty is needed on all forms of fuel, whether they be bituminous or anthracite coal or coke. To be effective, the duty should not be less than $1 a ton. I am content for the moment with the increase to 75 cents on bituminous coal and to a dollar on coke. But I hope to see the day not far distant when the protection will be increased to at least a dollar a ton. Viewed from the standpoint of protection offered most Canadian industries over
a long period of time, the coal trade is entitled to protection of at least $1.50 a ton. Further, the rebate of duty on bituminous coal, as provided for by items 1019, 1049, 1065 and 1066, should be cancelled, and with their cancellation should disappear the subvention paid the Nova Scotia coal, industry, which for part of the fiscal year 1930-31 amounted to $135,209.23. May I point out that the coal and coke imported during the fiscal year 1930-31 totalled 18.311,521 tons, of which Great Britain supplied 1,081,070 tons. A duty of one dollar per ton on all the coal and coke imported, with a preference of 25 per cent in favour of Great Britain, would have provided a revenue of $18,041,235.50, as compared with the duty collected in 1930-31 of $6,916,098, less drawbacks of $1,157,679.43, or a net revenue from the coal duties of $5,758,418.57. The increase in revenue would be $12,282,816.93, to which could be added the saving due to cancellation of the subvention paid on Nova Scotia coal used in iron and steel production, which for the portion of 1930-31 was $135,209.23 as I already stated. This would give an increase in revenue of, say, $12,418,026.16. The additional revenue is needed. Why not secure it when it can be obtained without imposing any unfair or undue burden on either domestic consumers or manufacturers? Of course, I realize that the revenue from this source would diminish in proportion as the duty was effective in replacing foreign by domestic fuel.
May I point out that the Nova Scotia iron and steel industry now pays duties ranging from 10, 15 to 25 per cent on such items as caustic magnesite, necessary for the steel furnaces, as well as on all classes of supplies, such as fire clay blocks, piping, pipe fittings, belting, oils and a score of other items, all absolutely necessary for the operation of their plants. The great bulk of these items are produced in and supplied by Ontario. The Ontario iron and steel producers have a great advantage over Nova Scotia in their relative distributing positions. Those of eastern Canada, Sydney and New Glasgow, are at the extreme east, more than a thousand miles from Montreal-as a matter of fact, 1,065 miles-which city is the eastern gateway to the markets of Quebec and Ontario, where 90 per cent of Nova Scotia's iron and steel products must be sold. We have practically little or no market for our iron east of the city of Montreal; that is the gateway for the great consuming centres of this country. To reach that gateway we must compete there with the iron and steel products of Europe which, whether from the continent or from Great Britain, are brought across at practi-
The Budget-Mr. Cantley

cally ballast rates. Our friends from the west are interested in this matter. If cheap tonnage is to come to the port of Montreal to move their grain to European markets, that tonnage needs a certain amount of stiffening for crossing the Atlantic, particularly in bad weather. The result is that they are willing to carry, and do carry, heavy tonnage such as iron, steel and coal at practically ballast rates. They are quite content if they get a rate sufficient to pay for the loading and discharge of the cargo, because they save time, make better weather and avoid damage to their ships by having a larger amount of ballast than the ordinary water ballast usually carried.
We in Nova Scotia must compete with those ballast freight rates and other conditions, and what are they? We must remember that at Montreal, Nova Scotia coal and steel must meet the competition of continental and British material produced with much lower paid labour and having the added advantage of ocean freight based on practically ballast rates of 6 shillings, or $1.44 per ton as against full carload rates from Sydney of $6.94 to $7.39 per ton, or a carload rate to Toronto of $11.20, as against say $2.69 from Hamilton to Toronto. The fact is that the Hamilton steel plant is so situated that probably from 75 per cent to 90 per cent of its output can be sold, and actually is sold, within one or two hundred miles of its mills. It also has the advantage of direct water transport and canal navigation to Montreal and all the lake towns between.
I have here some figures showing the difference between the freight rates from Nova Scotia to Montreal and from Hamilton to Montreal. I am not going to take time to deal with all these figures, except to point out that the lowest freight rate we have to Montreal is over $6 per ton, while on the other hand for several months during the year Hamilton has been and still is able to ship material through the St. Lawrence canals to Montreal for about $1 per ton. We in the maritime provinces have paid our share of the cost of the shipping facilities on the St. Lawrence sj^stem between. Ontario and Quebec, yet we must pay six times the rate they pay in order to get to the Montreal market. Mj' further point is that the very great advantage given Ontario and Quebec through the refunding of the duty on coal, as provided by tariff items 1019, 1049, 1065 and 1066, is a most unfair provision of the tariff as it stands to-day. No good reason can be shown why the Ontario iron and steel plants should be

so favoured and even less in so far as the coking plant situated on the Lachine canal side at Montreal is concerned more especially in view of the duty of one dollar now imposed on imported coke. I believe it can be demonstrated that the plants could easily absorb a dollar per ton on the coal they use.
I am sorry the ex-Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is not in his seat. In his address he said this was a rich man's budget, but the new automobile duties do not point that way. He pointed to the higher postage rate. Yes, we are back to three cent postage, but why? We are back because of a $6,000,000 deficit as a result of the administration of hon. members opposite. Is this a tax which is principally paid by the poor man? I say it is not. I venture to say that 99 per cent of the postal revenue of Canada is provided by the business men, the manufacturers and merchants. They are the ones who pay that tax. In the annual expenditure of the so-called poor man, the farmer, the artisan or the labourer, postage is practically a negligible item.
By the way of further criticism of the budget the financial critic of the opposition stated "We will find that four-fifths of the total taxation is paid by the ordinary people of the country." No doubt that is quite true, but it is equally true that four-fifths, or indeed ninety-nine per cent, of Canadians are ordinary people. I should like to point out also that corporation dividends drawn by foreigners now are taxable; family corporations are abolished, and from the larger incomes the state will take annually one-quarter of every dollar. If this is a rich man's budget, it is not evident on the face of it.
For years in this house attention has been directed to the flood of objectionable, trashy literature coming into Canada, principally from the United States. The proposals now before the house are calculated to greatly lessen the influx of that type of literature- if it can be described by that name-and I am sure the whole country will welcome this step.
Our western friends have been sorely hit by the lack of markets for their grain. 1 note with pleasure the very considerably increased movement of wheat during the past few months, and I also welcome and cordially approve of the proposal of the Prime Minister to readjust rail freights on western grain by a contribution of five cents per bushel on all wheat of this year's crop exported. Canada is a great dominion with varied problems and interests. No one portion can suffer without all portions suffering, and any assistance given the west will ultimately benefit

The Budget-Miss Macphail
the east. Our interests are mutual, and the prosperity of the west is our prosperity. Therefore I applaud the action taken by the government in this matter.
With a few words I shall conclude. As far as unemployment is concerned, unfortunately the world has not seen the end of it and probably will not see the end for some time. Recovery must be and will be slow, but the action of the government, both at the short session of last year and in the legislation now before the house, will go far to meet our needs, and before long Canada again will prosper and progress to a degree which will not be excelled by any country on earth.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: In rising to make a few observations on the budget, one naturally would like to say something complimentary and kind to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett), and I feel I can say that I appreciate the difficulty of the present time. I appreciate too the ability of the Minister of Finance, who is also Prime Minister, and I admire his capacity for hard work, a prodigious amount of which was entailed in the preparing of the budget- a budget which the Ottawa Citizen has truly described as a tremendous barrage of figures. After one has recovered from the extreme exhaustion of the onslaught, and has had time to read it over, there are, of course, some things in the budget that are generally acceptable. I am sure that the five cents a bushel on western wheat, in so far as it is of any use to the western farmer, is welcomed by Canada pretty generally. I believe too that the house and the country approve of the increase in the income tax on corporations from 8 to 10 per cent, and the increased tax on private incomes, so far as it goes. Having said that, I feel that even the good will which I bear the Minister of Finance will allow me to go no further.
I do not think that our present condition is due to overproduction, as has been often claimed, but rather to a faulty monetary system which does not provide enough currency to carry the goods from him who produces to him who wishes to consume them. There are very many authorities who take the stand that we are not really suffering from overproduction. In this connection I wish to quote from a recent speech by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was held in such high regard in this house. I quote from the journal of the Canadian Bankers' Association, Mr. Meighen, referring to over-production, said:
If those who have too much wheat can exchange that wheat with those who have too much of something else, of oil, of gasoline, of
clothing: if people are in a position to do that, the world can use all the wheat there is to-day and more, and can use all the oil that is produced and more, and all the clothing that is produced and more.
If people were in the position to exchange what they have too much of for what somebody else has too much of, we would see that there was not too much of anything. The trouble is that they are not in a position so to exchange.
Were the facilities of exchange adequate, were the world's monetary system adequate to demands for exchange, then the three per cent increase* in the world's products from year to year would mean a three per cent elevation in the standard of living each year for the masses of mankind.
We live in a machine age that produces goods in greater quantities from year to year; and as Mr. Meighen intimates, the amount of gold does not increase as rapidly as the goods in circulation. The result is that we have too little currency and depressed prices; prices are lower than they really ought to be. Our currency, instead of being based on the needs of the people and the necessity for distributing the goods which the people produce, is based on what I believe is an outworn system-the gold standard. And this is the first of six reasons which I hope to give for opposing the budget. A budget which to-day has nothing to suggest in the way of a change in the present monetary system is certainly a budget that can be condemned as a poor one. I consider a change in the monetary system to be more needed than anything else. It is more fundamental than anything else, and the budget says absolutely nothing about it.
The League of Nations have realized the importance of this monetary question, for they have appointed a commission known as the Gold Delegation of the League of Nations, to examine into the adequacy of the world's gold supply as a basis for world currency and credits, and the likelihood of meeting world trade in the years to come. This commission is composed of the world's greatest economists, who have brought in an interim report on these questions. It would seem to me just about time that we began, as a government, a parliament and a people, to listen to the opinions of the world's best economists, not only on the monetary question but as well with respect to trade.
I wish to quote one sentence of what Harold Laski has to say regarding the monetary question. I am quoting from a little book called " Politics." At page 143 this writer says:
No single cause produces such chaos in the modern world as the right of the individual state to control its monetary policy.

The Budget-Miss Macphail
The monetary policies of the powerful nations of the world are, at least in some degree, of concern to us all, and I think it is quite time that as a parliament we realized the necessity of coming to some international agreement on this question. And because the budget does not deal with it at all, does not indicate the need of any study or change in that direction, but rather clings to the very system that has brought about the condition of distress from which we are now suffering: because of this, if for no other reason, I would oppose the budget now before us.
Nor does the budget deal with unemployment. It says nothing whatever about this question. Yet this was the one problem that was before the country last July. Certainly it was the question on which most attention was centred. Indeed, it was so important last year that a special session of parliament was called in September, when we voted $20,000,000 for direct and indirect relief, at the same time raising the tariff considerably-all in the name of the unemployed. It was an exceedingly important question last year; but this year not a word is said about it. The budget does not mention it at all, and yet the conditions, as the Minister of Finance knows, are very much worse today than they were last July. Unemployment is more widespread than it was at that time, and the distress of this winter will be very much greater than it was last winter. Yet no provision is made in the budget to take care of the unemployed. For that second reason I must oppose the budget.
It seems to me that the Minister of Finance, in relieving the great incomes from as heavy taxation as they have borne in the past, has committed a grave error indeed. I think it was an error in judgment, and in this regard he has run counter to the psychology of the people, which I do not believe he understands. I thought he understood it, but obviously he would not have made a mistake like this if he did. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that there is more bitterness in the country over that one item in the budget than over almost all its other defects put together. Even in the closing words of the right hon. gentleman, as he was bringing his budget speech to a conclusion, he appealed to parliament and to the people to bear our common burden equally. Yet at a time like this, when burdens cannot easily be borne, a greater weight is put upon the shoulders of the common people of Canada, while the very rich are relieved in great measure of the burden which they have carried until now. This, I say, is undoubtedly 
giving rise to very much bitterness in the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I trust the hon. member realizes that that has no reference to this year's taxation; that refers only to next year.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Buit it is based on this year's income.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not payable until
next year.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The impression of the public is based on that.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I understood Sir Thomas White mentions this in his book entitled The Story of Canada's War Finance. In discussing business profits and in justifying the tax thereon he says at page 34:
The public opinion is offended at the sight of abnormal profits in a period of great suffering and privation.
The same principle is equally true of today. This is a time of great suffering and privation, and the large incomes are being asked to bear a lesser share of taxation than are the small incomes. That is the third reason why I am opposed to the budget, and these reasons are not very hard to find.
I feel that most hon. members in the house will not agree with my next reason, but it is my own opinion and I wish to state it. I do not think the Minister of Finance should have attempted to balance his budget.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I dare say it will not
balance.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The attempt should not have been made to balance this budget by means of additional taxation. The fact that our commodity price level has fallen so sharply means that private debts have been increased, in many cases having more than doubled. Private individuals are carrying upon their shoulders a weight which hardly can be borne, and to add to that burden a new weight would seem to be too much. By attempting to balance next year's budget by means of taxation the Minister of Finance is taking from the people money which they have borrowed with great difficulty and at high rates of interest. Most people are facing this coming year on borrowed money; that certainly applies as far as extra taxes are concerned. Surely it would have been easier for the government to borrow money as a government. The taxes will be paid with borrowed money anyway, and the government could have borrowed it at much lower rates of interest than the private individual. I am

afraid I would go farther than that and ask this question: Is there any real obstacle to prevent the government from issuing direct the required amount of $75,000,000 or $80,000,000, the amount of the deficit? I do not think there is any obstacle except custom and a sort of miind set. If the government could not go that far, they certainly should have borrowed money on the credit of the country at large and not ask the people of Canada to carry this new' burden. This seventy-five or eighty millions of dollars is being taken out of the already painfully limited purchasing power of the people. Although some of it will go back into circulation it is taking money from those who have the least and who would spend all in buying goods, and putting the money into the hands of those who, for the most part, have more money than they have needs. Because I do not believe it to be good business to balance the budget in this way, I am opposed to the budget.


Mr. YOUNG:: Would not the printing of more money be equivalent to borrowing from the people?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do not think so. I think the printing of more money would really be putting more currency into circulation. This is very badly needed and it would have a slight effect on improving business and raising prices because there would be more money to divide among the commodities on the market. I did not expect the house to agree with me, so I am not disappointed at the hon. member's attitude.
My fifth objection is that the budget increases the tariff. One would have supposed that the people of Canada would know now, if they are ever to know, that an increased tariff does not cure unemployment and does not raise the prices of farm products. If the people do not know that by now, then they are hopeless. The tariff brought down last September, as well as the one contained in the present budget, has decreased and will decrease still further imports and to that extent decrease exports, because it is true that if we do not buy neither can we sell. I think the present budget brings this government within the range of the criticism of Sir George Paish. In discussing politicians and statesmen . of the world, he is reported in the Montreal Gazette of June 9 as having said in New York:
They have done everything in their power to hamper trade. They have increased tariffs, they have raised embargoes, they have created licences; in fact, they left nothing undone to hamper trade. I wish to compliment the politicians and statesmen of the world upon the success of their policy. They have left uothing undone to hamper the trade of the world and 22110-168
The Budget-Miss Macphail
bring ruin. They have succeeded, but it means the suicide of the world. I am not saying that of New York, but of my country and of every country. It is essential that people should realize the danger in which they are, the danger of the complete breakdown of trade bringing unparalleled distress. This is no mere trade depression, it is a catastrophe of the first moment.
Several speakers on the government side of the house have rather preened themselves on the accomplishments of the tariff in September last, through its having brought to Canada eighty-seven new industries. That is all very interesting, but what I should like to know is this: where are the customers to be found who are going to buy the products of those eighty-seven new factories? If we could not consume the products of the factories which we had, how are we going to absorb the products of eighty-seven more? I shall await with great interest the government's explanation. I fancy the Minister of Finance must be impressed by this last fact, because speaking last year in connection with one of the large oil companies, he said:
They have their business all over the world. I made it abundantly clear that we preferred a refinery in Canada to one in Oklahoma and they intimated their intention to avail themselves of the opportunity of constructing a refinery in this country; and I believe they will probably do so. But they would not do so if this item were not there.
I suppose the Prime Minister is referring to the protection which had been given. Further on, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), the Prime Minister said:
I am advised that the refineries are able to meet 50 per cent more than the present demand.
Why have another? That is exactly how I feel about the factories. I feel that the factories, the machines of industrial production that we had, could have met not only our needs but much more, if we could have consumed the goods rapidly enough to allow them to work at full steam. Therefore I really do not take seriously this gain that is supposed to have come from the tariff of last September. I often wonder how the Canadian manufacturer-I mean the really Canadian manufacturer, if such an animal can be run to ground anywhere-feels when these factories which the higher tariffs have induced to come, arrive backed by the great wealth of their country, and are his competitors within his own field. I often wonder whether he is as happy about the matter as we are led to suppose. With the radio, you know, I have had such a dose of Campbell's soup, it makes me wonder. I just cannot imagine the other

m2
The Budget-Miss Macphail

soup factories in Canada being enthused about Campbell's soup.
I come to my last reason for opposing the budget. In the next few minutes I am going to devote myself almost exclusively to its effect upon Southeast Grey. For agriculture generally throughout Canada, with the exception of truck farming, or whatever you call it-the raising of vegetables and that sort of thing-and this pitiful five cents a bushel to the wheat-growers, there is nothing in the budget except burdens. Of course we are getting used to those. I am not enamoured of the five cents a bushel for wheat; I am quite willing it should be given, but as to how much good it is going to do for the farmer after he has paid more for everything else he gets, I am a little dubious. Another objection is that it puts him into the favoured class; and after getting it, what is he going to say to the coal man and all these other fellows who want help?
Southeast Grey is a mixed farming community. We grow only enough wheat to feed our chickens, because the chickens in Southeast Grey do not like barley; they have refined tastes. As I say, we have a mixed farming district, so that the five cents a bushel on wheat, the protection on coal and that sort of thing, do not really apply to us at all. In Southeast Grey there are only two industries: agriculture and the manufacture of furniture, and the furniture factories are at the moment running only a few days a week. The furniture manufacturers may be pleased with the added protection they are to receive, but from conversations I have had with them in the past, I rather think what they want most is consumers to buy their output.
But when one thinks of the agriculturists and the agricultural villages which are scattered throughout my riding, this is what the budget means to us: it means an increase in sales tax of from one to 4 per cent and profits on the sales tax. It means a one per cent excise tax on all imported goods, dutiable and free. It means at least forty cents a ton more on hard coal, and the increase may be more than that by the time the whole thing is fixed up. It means an increase of seventy cents a ton on soft coal. It we buy the prohibited magazines, well, we pay for them. It means one cent more on every letter that is posted, so that in Southeast Grey a dozen eggs will buy only five stamps. It would seem to me it would have been better if the Post Office Department or the government had demanded that the newspapers in Canada pay their own postage; had that been done, possibly we MHcpbail.l
would not have had to have the three cent stamp back again. Then we have the two cent stamp on cheques under $10. I wish some hon. members had been in my riding during the campaign last year because it was really very interesting. I am sure they were having such a lively time in tHeir own constituencies, they could not come; but if they had been there, they would have heard my opposition say:	Look at your cream cheques,
and vote accordingly. Somehow or another I was all mixed up with the cream cheques. What I would say to the good farm women of Southeast Grey and of Ontario and Canada is: Take another look at your cream cheques.


An hon. MEMBER:: And vote accordingly.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And if they had a
chance, they would vote accordingly, but unfortunately they are not going to have it. Now they have to put a two cent stamp on that already greatly diminished cheque.


Mr. MALONEY:: On whom rests the onus of that two cent stamp? Is it the farmer or the creamery operator?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: My experience is that
it rests on the farmer. The creamery operator, I suppose, buys the stamp, but he takes the two cents out of the creamery cheque.
iMr. MALONEY: Is that really a fact?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: If the hon. gentleman
does not know, I shall not waste my time in convincing him. Used cars are prohibited from coming into Canada, although all that the Canadian farmer can afford to buy now is a used car. I was talking yesterday to a man who handles General Motors cars.


Mr. COTNAM:: That is the Sabbath day.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, but you can still
talk on the Sabbath day. He said to me: "How many cars do you think the farmers in my district have bought this year?" I said "Well, it is hard to guess. How many do you usually sell in the season?" He said: "My poorest year was forty and my best, sixty". I asked him:	"How many cars did
you sell this year?" He said:	"One". That
tells a story that does not need to be explained to anybody.
I come now to the tariff items, on 200 of which the duty is to be increased, including such things as raisins, tea and oranges. Just think of raisins, tea or oranges with a tariff tax, an excise tax and a sales tax on theml It is no wonder that a woman who rhymes quite well wrote this:
The baby daily pines away-
He got no vitamine called A,
His hair fell out, his tooth was loose,
He could not have his orange juice.

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
So, on this sixth count, I am opposed to the budget. So far as my people in Southeast Grey are concerned, it means nothing to them but taxation, additional taxation. I was at the annual meeting of the United Farmers of Ontario, and those members of the government who think this is a popular budget missed a treat; they really should have been there. I am, of course, really glad the hon. gentlemen think it is a popular budget while they are here; they are living in a fool's paradise and for their sake it is to be hoped it will be prolonged.
Before closing I want to say one word about the conversion loan. When the loan went over big with the aid of the movies, the talking pictures and that sort of thing, I did not wonder that government supporters pounded their desks. But when, day after day and week after week, one hears about the wonderful work the government did in connection with the conversion loan, one gets just a bit weary. After all, what is the conversion loan? Is it not that people who had government bonds which were going to run out fairly soon saw a chance to get some more, and grabbed it? Does it not rather show a lack of confidence in the present economic conditions, more than anything else? They get a rather nice rate of interest at that, a much higher rate than the United States is paying for loans floated about the same time. The people who rushed to secure the conversion loan were simply out to secure gilt-edged stuff. You do not have to coax people to do that. If the Prime Minister made his "keep free from speculation and wild dreams of sudden wealth and you will be happy and contented" speech in order to lure the timid wealthy into the conversion loan, he paid too high a price, because as I said before he will regret that speech, and I dare say has done so already. The amount of credit which the government members have taken on account of the conversion loan shows that they are rather hard put to it for something on which to congratulate themselves,


Samuel William Jacobs: Before the fair and hon.
member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) takes her seat, may I ask a question? Does she not think credit ought to be given to the government for establishing a hairpin factory?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do indeed. I cannot think what I would do without one.


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was most desirous to point out the fact that his budget differed from previous ones.
We concur in this, but not for the same reasons. It totally differs because the budget of previous years gave evidence of prosperity while the present one acknowledges hard times.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: The budget does not balance, and the provisions made for the coming fiscal year force us to conclude that it will balance rather on the wrong side, because it will be at the expense of those who are already in want.
The Prime Minister had promised everything, on one condition only, that of being placed at the helm of the affairs of this country. What has been accomplished? Where are we? He called an emergency session at great cost and with much trumpet flourishing so as to have 820,000,000 voted to alleviate unemployment. It was a measure, sir, which has only served to intensify the crisis by increasing municipal taxes already too burdensome. Why did he not carry out the work for which the preceding parliament had appropriated an amount of more than
820.000.	000? He would have thus spared the municipalities negotiating loans for the repayment of which the ratepayers already overburdened must again be taxed.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear.


Donat Raymond: The government boasted of having negotiated a convertible loan of 8600,000,000 at 4\ per cent. Through this financial deal the country is the immediate loser of 818.000,000. In fact, bonds at 4J per cent of a previous issue, maturing in 1946, and which were already in circulation, were quoted on the exchange at 8102 50 in May and June, while the public was purchasing these Canadian bonds at 8102.50 the government issued its convertible bonds at $99.50, thereby making the country lose immediately
818.000.	000, exclusive of the interests for the next fifteen years.
Furthermore, this convertible loan was negotiated at a time when the government was seeking new sources of revenue.
Why did it not issue these bonds entirely as registered bonds instead of to bearer?
Canada has 81,493,009.000 of taxable bonds, on which it pays interest to the bearer. Few pay the income tax on this interest. The bearer, the wealthy holders of such bonds, will have the privilege of pocketing their interest without paying the income tax, while revenues will be collected from the masses by means of heavy taxes.

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
The Conservative party had censured butter importation under the Liberal rule as ruinous to the dairy industry and as being the real cause of the slump in prices. When in office, not only did it not bar Australian butter imports, but it favoured them by ceasing to apply the dumping duty of 6 cents per pound; thus reducing the duty from 7 cents to 1 cent, and facilitating the importation of some million pounds of Australian butter since October last.
Moreover, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) had come to an understanding with Australia that not a pound of butter should be sold on the Canadian market at a price less than 32 cents. The agreement stood as long as the price of butter remained above 32 cents, but the day it fell below 32 cents, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) was prone to relieve Australia of this agreement, allowing the latter to flood the market with 750,000 pounds of butter

this lowered the price of our own by 10 to 12 cents per pound.
Why? His answer was that it was through courtesy to a sister nation. Is that fostering the policy of "Canada first?"
The speech from the throne had promised us measures which were to shower upon us unheard prosperity. What do we find in this budget? Taxation.
While the workman is out of work, the farmer sees the price of his products dwindling down from day to day reaching below the cost of production, new taxes are piled on him: 4 cents a pound on tea, 4 per cent on all articles purchased, etc. In the meantime, those who are in a better position to pay, those who have an income of more than $25,000 per year, see their taxes decreased. The rich are relieved in order to burden the poor.
Another measure brought down to remedy the present situation is tariff increase. The protection requested by manufacturers is directed against cheaper products, in order to boost the price of their goods. It is certainly not by examining the balance sheets of large companies that one shall find justification for this measure. Glance over the figures of the income tax of last year, $73,000,000. The income tax returns have increased by a few million dollars each year, although the income tax rate has decreased.
It was contended that high tariff would bring more work to the workman and better wages. The history of protection teaches us that this regime never contributed to obtaining more work or better wages for the working class but simply increased the cost of living and the profits of capitalists. I shall give you an instance. Take the case of textiles in industry.
'Air. Raymond.]
Every one knows that within the last few years, owing to fashion changes and the competition of artificial silk, the textile industry is passing through a world wide crisis. Nevertheless, dividends paid by textile companies in Canada have increased 11J per cent in 1928 as compared with the average dividend paid from 1922 to 1926.
Briefly, this is the history of the Dominion Textile Co., which produces more than all the other companies of its kind. It was organized in 1905 by the merging of a number of companies operating cotton factories in various localities.
Over and above the bonds bearing interest and the preferred stock on which a fixed dividend of 7 per cent has always regularly been paid, the company issued in favour of the original stock-holders 50,000 common shares at S10 per share, that is $500,000 worth.
The very first year, it paid on this common stock a dividend of $6 per share, or the equivalent of 60 per cent on this investment. The dividend was increased from year to year up to 1922, when it had reached $12 per share, which represented 120 per cent on the original investment.
You will recall that in 1919, at the inquiry on the cost of living, the general manager of the Dominion Textile Co. admitted that in 1918, the company had realized 291 per cent net profits. In 1922, its shareholders were again given the privilege of subscribing to 25,000 additional shares at S100 per share, and on which a $12 dividend per share was paid. The same year, fearing that a dividend of $12 per share might rouse the public, a new company was organized under the same name and every common stockholder received three shares for one, with a dividend of $4 or the equivalent of $12 on the old shares. In 1924 the dividend was increased to $5 per share or the equivalent of $15 on the old shares and the equivalent of 150 per cent on the initial investment of 8500,000. From 1924 up to this date, the company has paid, without interruption, dividends which are equivalent to 150 per cent on the initial investment of $500,000, and 15 per cent on the second subcription of $2,500,000 made in 1922.
In February 1928, following an inquiry before the Tariff Board, where producers and consumers were heard, the Liberal Government made some tariff reductions on cotton goods. The general manager of the Dominion Textile Co., the same person who appeared before the Board of Inquiry on the cost of living and who had admitted that in 1918, his company had made 291 per cent, protested. He even wrote to the hon. Minister of

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
Finance (Mr. Robb) that these tariff changes would affect the dividends of the company- dividends of 150 per cent. However, the balance sheet for the operations of the following year, from March 31, 1928 to March 31,
1929,	showed that the Dominion Textile Co. increased its sales by $1,500,000 over the preceding year; that it increased its profits by $120,000, and that after paying on its common stock a dividend at the rate of 150 per cent on the original investment, it still had a profit surplus for the year of $348,000 which was transferred to the reserve. This is the company that contended it was not sufficiently protected. The balance sheet for the operations of the year ending March 31,
1930,	shows, according to the books of the company, that the 50 000 shares subscribed, which were paid $500,000 and converted to 150,000 shares in 1922, have a value of about $12,000,000, and that apart from the enormous dividends paid up to date at the rate of 150 per cent on the original investment, there are accumulated profits amounting to $7,498,000 which have not been distributed.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: This took
place under the Liberal regime.


Donat Raymond: This proves that the Liberal administration had been sufficiently generous towards this company and that the Conservative government was not justified in increasing the tariff to favour this company.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It is to supply work to our artisans.


Donat Raymond: If my
hon. friend will be patient, I shall prove this point in a moment.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: There was
no unemployment last year.


Donat Raymond: I have
given you, sir, the figures as shown by the official balance sheet of the Dominion Textile Co. and published from year to year in the "Annual Financial Review". I question whether a company which pays to its common shareholders, dividends representing 150 per cent on the original investment, without taking into account the accumulated profits and not yet distributed, is justified in asking a tariff increase which will give it a still better opportunity of further squeezing the consumer in order to later on water again its stock.
Unfortunately, this is the history of most of our large corporations who enjoy a tariff protection supposed to be indispensable so as to exist and give work to the working class. Look at the history of the Steel Co.
of Canada, the Dominion Bridge Co., The Canada Cement Co. and others, you will discover the same abuses, and excessive profits realized at the expense of the consumer, thanks to a protective tariff. With the help of the tariff, the stock is watered, production is increased, machinery replaces hand-labour, profits are increased and wages are lowered.
Then one is amazed to find in Canada traces of communism when the working class is starving. These ideas were not brought from Russia or elsewhere, but they took root in Canada and it is the abuses of corporations like those I have just quoted as examples which are responsible for such notions.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: May I ask a question?


Donat Raymond: I am too pressed for time.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Does the Dominion Textile Company buy its raw material in this country?


Donat Raymond: As it is
raw cotton, it must necessarily import it. The history of the Montreal Cottons, another company which operates a cotton factory at Valleyfield is also an interesting one. This company was operating with a capital ot $3,000,000 of supposed paid up shares. In 1911 it reorganized under the name of the "Montreal Cottons Limited" and each shareholder of the old company received two shares in the new company in exchange for one, that is one prefered share bearing a fixed dividend of 7 per cent and one common share. The following year, in 1912, it paid a dividend of $4 on the common stock for which not a cent had been paid into the treasury of the company. The dividend was raised to 5 per cent in 1919 and to 6 per cent in 1920 and has continued to be paid to this day. The amount paid in dividends on watered stock is $3,000,000. The balance sheet of the Montreal Cottons Company for the financial year ending Dec. 31, 1929-it is the last for which I have figures-shows that this common stock for which not a cent was paid, has a value in the books of the company of $3,000,000, and that after having paid dividends at a rate of 6 per cent on this watered stock, about $3,000 000, it still has a surplus in accumulated profits and not distributed of $633,000.
That is another balance sheet of a textile company in favour of which the present government has thought proper to increase the tariff under pretence that it was not sufficiently protected. On certain products, the tariff was raised from 30 per cent to 165 per
The Budget-Mr. Raymond

cent. Do you think that the workmen benefited by it? Far from it-and the Hon. Member for Quebec-Montmoreney (Mr. Do-rion) who. a few moments ago questioned me in this respect will profit by listening.
There are at present fewer employees working in the Montreal Cottons Company and those that work are receiving smaller wages.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: That reminds one of the Beauharnois Power Company.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: It is totally different.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is
however more water in the Montreal Cottons Co. than in the Beauharnois Company.


Donat Raymond: We shall
debate the Beauharnois power affairs on another occasion. We are at present discussing the textiles, an industry which was favoured by the government in September last, with a tariff increase as no other industry was ever favoured, and it is an industry which has made outrageous profits. Aliow me to place before you facts gathered on the spot in Valleyfield itself, where the Montreal Cottons Company operate its mills. I shall not include the last two months previous to the election of July 28 last, as a basis of comparison. It is an old trick at each election, when the Liberals are in power, the manufacturers and their friends the Tories resort to the tariff as a tool to intimidate the working class.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Donat Raymond: I happen to know that on the eve of the last election, the manufacturers as a "bloc" thought of closing their mills, thus throwing on the streets thousands of workers and threatening the bread and butter of hundreds of families with a view of impressing .them the more, and inducing them to vote in favour of a party which pledged itself to grant more protection to industries already highly protected.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Shame, shame 1


Donat Raymond: Fortunately the scheme did not succeed as planned but it was partly carried out. For instance, at Valleyfield, in the mills of the Montreal Cottons Company hundreds of workers were dismissed, the working hours were reduced, the doors of the mills were even closed during eight days in July, and the worker was told: "this is the result of a tariff which fails to
[Mr. Raymond.)
protect Canadian industry." Are we to be astonished now at the tariff increase which begun with the emergency session. It is the government's reward for the support given by industries in the last election, especially the manufacturers of textile products. The public now bear the cost.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Donat Raymond: 
Donat Raymond: They work twice as hard, tire out sooner, and earn 30 per cent less wages. Where two employees were earning now there is only one.
In the carding room 18 men operated 324 machines, that is 18 machines each. To-day, 8 men do the work of the 18 men and receive less wages.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: That is so.


Donat Raymond: With reference to the weavers, a worker who operated 4 looms and was paid $40 every fortnight, now operates 6 and is paid but $22 to $25 every fortnight-40 per cent less.
Another who operated 12 looms at wages of $40 to $45 every fortnight, now operates 82, and is paid but $25 every fortnight, that is 45 per cent less.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: "Canada First."


Donat Raymond: Others who earned in the past $40 every fortnight now earn but $16, that is 60 per cent less, and yet operate more looms.
Workers who earned $4 per day, now earn but $2.
Others who earned $40 to $45 every fortnight, working only through the day, now earn $28 every fortnight and must work overtime.

The Budget-Mr. Burns
Finally, and this will be the last case which I will quote, a worker who operated 12 looms during 80 hours, and earned $32 to $34 every fortnight, now operates 24 looms, works 110 hours and earns but $30 every fortnight.
These, sir, are conditions which disprove the statement of the Prime Minister, as regards work and wages which high tariff affords the working class.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear! hear!


Donat Raymond: What are we to think of those, whose age has lowered the intensive yield, that modern methods of industry call for,-who are thanked for their services and left absolutely without resources.
Is the worker not entitled to a fair share of the results of his labour just like the capitalist is entitled to a reasonable return for his investment?
When the Montreal Cottons Co. was realizing excessive profits, thanks to tariff protection which it deemed indispensable to exist, but which, in truth, only served to increase the price of its goods to the consumer, and thus increase its profits, it never gave to the workman that part of the wages to which he was entitled and which to-day would shelter him from want.
No day passes that I have not to listen to the sad complaints of these good people, whose distress is all the more worthy of being looked after, because unemployment to which they fall victim seems to be the reckoning of the new methods of overproduction, brought on by over-capitalization, and fostered by high tariff.
Poverty knocks at the door of too many artisans' home. And what does the gover-ment do? It increases the tariff on textile products, when the balance sheets of companies are before them, showing outrageous profits; and when these companies in order to increase production and their profits, replace hand-labour by machinery, overloading the worker who remains, while lowering his wages already insufficient. Is this protection for the workman? The problem of unemployment will not be solved by increasing production and decreasing the number of wage earners. The government does not stop at this. It reduces the rich man's taxes to place them on the workman with decreased wages or on the unemployed, by taxing all articles of first necessity, and it cries out to him: "have courage and confidence."
Mr. Speaker, I could not better sum up my thought than by calling this budget: the product of a coupling of politics and finance.


Mr. W. H. BURNS (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to offer a few observations I do so as the representative of a constituency of western Canada, a constituency whose people are ninety-five per cent dependent upon agriculture for a livelihood. Since the presentation of the budget I have received many letters from my constituents offering congratulations, appreciation and thanks to the government for the attention that they have given agriculture by the budget and by their general policy, and I have been asked to convey those sentiments to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett).
*At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on behalf of the farmer of western Canada. It seems to me that those hon. members of the east and of the extreme west who do not know the farmer of western Canada personally will, if they have formed their impressions from speeches emanating from western members of the other side of the house, reach an entirely erroneous conclusion of what kind of man the western farmer is. I am afraid that if they accept those speeches at their face value they will picture the farmer as a selfish, grasping, whining, dissatisfied sort of fellow. This is very, very far from the truth. I think it was the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) who the other day hit the nail on the head when he referred to the western farmer as the "king of optimists." He is an optimist. He has a lot to contend with, but he is not a quitter, and he is prepared to expend all the energy he possesses to make a success of the work in which he is engaged. He is out there to-day with his back to the wall putting up a magnificent fight. He asks quarter from no man, but he does expect justice and fair play. Accorded these, you can depend upon it that the western farmer will make his full contribution to the upbuilding and development of this great dominion of ours, and will do his full share towards stabilizing the economic conditions as they exist to-day.
There is something else to be said about the western farmer. He is not jealous of the east. Perhaps, judging from the speeches to which I have referred, easterners may think that he is. Let me assure the house that there is no member of any section of the population of this country who will be more ready to rejoice at every indication of returning prosperity and improved conditions in eastern Canada than the western farmer. He will rejoice for two reasons; first, he is a true Canadian, interested in the welfare of Canada as a whole; secondly, he fully realizes that almost immediately those improved conditions
2fi48
The Budget-Mr. Burns

will be reflected in better times in western Canada.
The western farmer is a firm believer in the Conservative policy of "Canada first." Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) said when addressing the house last week, we did preach that policy throughout the length and breadth of Manitoba during the last election. That policy the farmers of Manitoba accepted when they returned to this house a large representation pledged to the Conservative cause. If proof of the statement is required that the western farmer is a believer in the Conservative policy of Canada first, I would refer hon. members to the results of the election of July last, when the province returned to this house one Liberal, one National Progressive, two Liberal Progressives, two members of the Labour group, and eleven Conservatives.
The hon. member for Provencher, in answer to a question from this side of the house, said that he hoped the Prime Minister was not trying to convert the farmers of western Canada to the policy of protection by offering them the five cent subvention on wheat. It seems to me this is indicative of a feeling of alarm in the mind of the hon. member. I can say to him now, and give him fair warning, that he has cause for alarm as to the trend of the thoughts of the farmers of western Canada in this respect. We as a Conservative party are rapidly gaining the support and confidence of that section of our people. In the federal election of 1925 there were 43,700 votes registered in support of Conservative candidates in the rural portion of Manitoba. During the election of 1926 that number increased to something over 56,000, while in 1930 the rural vote in Manitoba in favour of Conservative candidates was over 76,000. I think this shows that the farmer is turning to the Conservative party and Conservative policies to lead him out of the rather difficult situation in which he has found himself during the last few years.
The other evening the hon. member for Provencher, discussing the effect of the tariff upon the cost of goods to the consumer, dealt with the matter of agricultural implements.
He chose a rather isolated case and quoted prices from some catalogue of which I had never before heard, to show that a pickling machine for the treatment of grain for smut had increased in cost over the catalogue price quoted by the same company in 1930. I know nothing of that firm or of the line of goods to which he referred, but I can direct the hon. member to a manufacturing concern in my home city of Portage la Prairie which will sell him a pickling machine to-day for less money than he would have paid for it if bought from the same firm in 1930.
As I listened to the remarks of the hon. member in reference to that catalogue, I wondered why he did not analyse the price lists of the leading agricultural implement firms of this country in order to show the effect of the tariff upon the prices of goods. When I went home, however, and procured those catalogues myself and examined them, the answer was obvious. They do nothing at all to prove the contention of my hon. friend. For purposes of record, and to combat the argument put forward by the hon. member for Provencher, I have analysed the figures contained in the catalogues of four large implement concerns of Canada. So far as western Canada is concerned, I would say that these four firms sell at least ninety per cent of the implements used in that portion of the country.' I refer to the Massey Harris Company, the International Harvester Company, the Cockshutt Plow Company and the John Deere Company. I wish to tell you, Mr. Speaker, just what that analysis shows. I took first the Massey Harris price list and examined it item by item, comparing the prices quoted for 1930 with those quoted for 1931, and I am going to give those figures just as I found them. Some of the differences will be small, but I quote them to show that I made a detailed study of this particular price list. This is the price list of the Brandon branch of the Massey Harris Company, and I will give first the catalogue number, then the price in 1930, the price in 1931 and finally the reduction:
Massey Harris-Brandon Branch-Reductions
Mowers:	1930	1931	ReductionNo. 22-18 section	.. . . $ 100 00	$ 98 00	$ 2 00No. 22-20 section	.. . . 101 00	99 00	2 00No. 23-20 section	.. .. 105 00	103 00	2 003 section trailer drill Packers:	No. 22 run-22 wheel	.. . . 142 00	128 00	14 00No. 24 run-26 wheel	.. .. 161 50	148 50	13 00No. 28 run-30 wheel	168 50	17 00

Those are the only increases I can find throughout the catalogue, and I am told by the representatives of the company that there is a change in the design of these sprayers, which accounts for the small increase in price on these three items. Outside of those pieces of machinery and those items I have mentioned, the other prices remain absolutely the same as in 1930.
I come next to the Cockshutt Plow Company Limited, Winnipeg branch. There are absolutely no increases on any implements in 1931 over 1930, but the price lists show the following reductions:
No. 3 power lift gang plough with wood
eveners	$25
Angell disc plough	 25
All sizes of No. 1 and No. 2 tractor
ploughs	_	 25
No. 2 and 3 furrow P.L. disc ploughs..	30
No. 4, 5 and 6 furrow P.L. disc ploughs 35
No. 8-36 run drills	 50
No. 6 disc harrows, 7 and 8 ft	 5
No. 8	disc	harrows,	12	ft	
10No. 8	disc	harrows,	16	ft	
12No. 8	disc	harrows,	24	ft	
15No. 9	disc	harrows,	12	and 18 ft.. ..	8No. 9	disc	harrows,	16	ft	
10No. 9	disc	harrows,	24	ft	
15125 bushel wagon grain tanks	
20
Let us take next the International Harvester Company. The following are the reductions on McCormick Deering tractors:
10 to 20 horse-power.$ 948 10 to 20 horse-power
orchard		960
Farmall gear drive..	993
15 to 30 horse-power. 1,365
1931 Reduction $	908	$40
920	40
943	50
1,290	75
Next on the list is the John Deere Company, Winnipeg branch. The price list of the Winnipeg branch shows no increase in prices over 1930, but 'the following reductions are noted:
Reduction
20 shoe drill	 $15
24 shoe drill	 25
28 shoe drill	
All tractors (7 in number).. .	90
Those are the items as I have taken them from the price list, and I think we can safely say that this government has made good its promise that when the tariffs were increased the consumer would be protected from exploitation. That is what we told the farmers in Manitoba, at any rate in the constituency of Portage la Prairie, and I can go back to them and tell them that policy was carried out and that they have been protected.
The hon. member for Provencher, in the course of his remarks the other night, said:
If the hon. members for Marquette (Mr. Mullins), Souris (Mr. Willis), Selkirk (Mr. Stitt), Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns),
[Mr. Burns.)
Dauphin (Mr. Bowman), Nelson (Mr. Stitt), Springfield (Mr. Hay), and Brandon (Mr. Beaubier) had told their electors that if the present Prime Minister was returned to power he would increase the tariff, I do not believe they would be here to-day. They know that very well, and they know that they told the electors that the Conservative party was not a high tariff party. Can they go back to their electors to-day and tell them that? If they do they will be misleading those who put them in office.
I do not know how the hon. member know3 what we told the people in the constituency of Portage la Prairie. So far as I am aware, he never entered that constituency during the contest. I feel absolutely sure that the information was not given him by my Liberal opponent in the last election. I am proud to acknowledge my Liberal opponent as one of the closest personal friends I have in the world, and I can say that in that contest, on both sides, there was a clean fight. I do not believe there was any cleaner contest anywhere throughout the dominion, and I think Mr. McPherson will tell the hon. member that we did not go about our constituency making misrepresentations to the electors during the campaign.
As regards the farmers of western Canada, we might ask ourselves this question: What are they interested in to-day? It seems to me they are interested in the prices of agricultural implements, in wheat, barley, eggs, butter and farm produce, and in live stock. And what has been the effect of the Conservative policy upon these things in which the farmer of the west is interested?
First we come to the matter of agricultural implements. I believe the statement was made from the opposite side the other night that the policy of the Conservative party was reflected in the prices of agricultural implements. Now I have shown that the only change which has taken place since 1930 has been a reduction, and therefore I say that if it is true that the Conservative policy is reflected in the prices of agricultural implements the farmers of Canada will say, "Give us more Conservative policy."
I have no brief for the manufacturers of agricultural implements. I have a feeling, in common with many of the people of the west, that the prices of these implements are too high. Those figures I have given to-night were quoted simply to show the effect of the tariff on the prices of agricultural implements, and for no other purpose. So far as the prices of these implements are concerned, I should like to see the government take some action for an investigation. I do not know whether the prices are too high or not. If an investigation is held, witnesses summoned to

The Budget-Mr. Burns
give evidence and the manufacturers of implements can prove to the people that their prices are fair and square, it would be to their advantage and put them in better odour with the farmers of western Canada. If, on the other hand, it is found that these prices are not fair, that they are too high, I would say that no time should be lost in taking whatever steps are necessary to secure lower prices on agricultural implements for the farmers of this country.
The farmer is interested in wheat. What has been the effect upon this commodity of the action taken by the government? First, we have the five cent subvention, at which hon. members on the other side of the house would like to laugh. I can assure them that the farmer is not laughing at this action. It has been referred to by some hon. members as the second five cent speech. I wonder who made the first? The farmer of western Canada does not look upon this as a five cent speech but, based upon a conservative estimate of the amount of grain upon which that five cent subvention will apply, it is looked upon as a ten million dollar speech. There is a large surplus of wheat in store in this country for which markets must be found. Has this government done anything to find markets for that surplus wheat? The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) told the house the other night of the efforts made at the Imperial conference to find and encourage markets for Canadian wheat. He told us that they found a feeling existing in England that the grain exporters of Canada were taking or trying to take an unfair advantage of the European countries, that Canadians were trying to corner the wheat markets so that they could dictate the prices. As the hon. minister said, we do not for one moment agree that there was any thought of that nature in the minds of the grain people of Canada, but yet that feeling existed. He told the house of the steps taken to disabuse the minds of the people of Europe of that fact, and I believe, and I think we all believe, that the efforts made in that respect bore fruit. The hon. minister told us that in visiting the continent he found that in Holland, Belgium, France, Germany and Denmark the millers were changing their silk screens in order to make them serviceable for the milling of Argentine wheat. They talked to these people and did what they could to combat this movement. They must have been more or less successful because we find that every one of the countries named have increased their purchases of wheat from Canada in 1931 over their purchases in 1930.
We have been told that the trade commissioners of this country stationed throughout the world have been asked to concentrate upon the finding of markets for Canadian wheat. Not only does this apply to the trade commissioners at present functioning, but additional junior trade commissioners have been appointed and have been sent out into the world with the same instructions-find us an outlet for the surplus wheat of this country.
This government has shown in many ways that it is interested in agricultural matters and that it is doing its utmost to help solve the present problems. I think the results which follow must be attributed to the efforts made by the government. We were told the other day that in 1929-30 the exports of wheat from this country amounted to 155,000,000 bushels; for the first ten months of 1930-31 they amounted to 195,000,000 bushels, and a conservative estimate based upon information as to the bookings for June and July will bring that total up to 234,000,000 bushels for the year, an increase over 1929-30 of 79,000,000 bushels. This is something that interests the farmer of western Canada. When I refer to western Canada I do not intend to limit my remarks to that part of the country. It is the part familiar to me, but we do not claim to have a monopoly on the word "farmer". Perhaps it would be better to substitute the words "farmers of Canada" for the words "western Canada."
This government took very generous action last spring in the way of seed grain relief. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) told us the other day that this offer was more generous than that ever before made by any federal government, because of the arrangement made with the premiers of the western provinces, the terms of the agreement cannot be divulged at the present time, but the minister told the house that when these terms are made known the people of Canada as a whole will be well satisfied with the generous assistance which has been rendered.
There is another thing which reflects the feeling of the Minister of Agriculture, another thing which shows his interest in the producer of agricultural products. Those hon. members who were present the other morning at the meeting of the select standing committee on agriculture will remember the opening words of the minister. He said that he would like the committee to inquire into ways and means of getting into the hands of the producer more of the money actually realized in the sale of wheat. Is that not a laudable objective? He told the committee that he was not relying upon it, entirely, to formulate his policy, that

The Budget-Mr. Bums
he had his policy framed, and that he had his own fixed ideas in the matter, but that he was always ready to receive suggestions which would help him to market the wheat of Canada to the advantage of the producers in Canada.
The farmer is interested in butter and eggs, and I think the action taken by this government in this respect is acceptable to the people of western Canada. During the elections of July last we Conservative members did not have to talk much protection, we found the farmer doing most of the talking along that line. He was insistent that his products should be protected from the flood of dairy products from other lands. The action taken by this government in shutting out those imports from other countries is what the farmer asked for, and that is what he has received. The action in putting an eight-cent duty upon butter and in coming to an arrangement with Australia stands to the credit of this government. The old agreement was still in force under which it was permissible to send butter from Australia into this country under a one-cent duty, but the government made a verbal arrangement with the officials of Australia whereby they were not to release butter to this country under thirty-two cents per pound without first receiving consent. That shows that this government has a thought for the dairy farmer, and it shows action in the right direction.
Let us look for a moment at the results obtained because of the action taken by this government. I have the figures under my hand, and I am going to deal with just three months of 1930 and three months of 1931.
I shall first	give the imports	of butter as
follows:		
	Quantity	Value
1930-	pounds	dollarsMarch.. .	. .. 8,029.435	$2,733,265April.. .	. .. 2.698,270	893,182May.. ..	.. . 2,952,367	904,749Total.	. . 13,680,072	$4,531,196Following	the action of the	present Conservative government, we find	these figuresfor butter imports for the same	three monthsof 1931:	Quantity	Value1931-	pounds	dollarsMarch.. .	. .. 1,181,081	$ 330,962April.. .	. .. 497,562	169,356May.. ..	.. . 214,810	63,953Total.	. . 1,893,453	$ 564,271
So that for the three months of 1931 the butter imports amounted to 1,893,453 pounds 
as against 13,680,072 pounds for the corresponding three months in 1930.
What was the result of the action of the present government in regard to the importation of eggs? The following are the imports of eggs for the same three months of 1930 and 1931:
Quantity
Year	dozens
1930	 1,252,734
1931	 33,988
This shows that 1,218,746 dozens more were imported in 1930 than in 1931. That again, I say, is what we promised the farmers of the prairies of Canada would be done. That is what has been done, and we can go home to our constituents and tell them what we have done and that we made no misrepresentations to them.
The farmer. I have said, is interested in live stock. What has the present government done to encourage the live stock industry? One of the first acts of the Minister of Agriculture was to arrange for boats and shipping facilities once again to enable the farmers of Canada to enter the British market with their live stock. In the next place he sent trial shipments to Great Britain. Because of the fact that that trade had been absolutely lost, it was necessary to start building it up again from the foundation. It was essential to find out the requirements of the British market, and for that purpose trial shipments were sent over. Boats were loaded with the different types of Canadian cattle with a view to discovering the most profitable type for shipment to the old country. Valuable information was obtained, and as a result Canada is gaining by the foresight of the Department of Agriculture under the present administration. It has been said that the shipping overseas of those cattle and the reentry into the British market for the first time in years is not the only advantage we have gained. We are getting rid of our surplus, and by so doing have increased the domestic price by from one-half to three-quarters of a cent a pound. Moreover the department has been making experiments in regard to the feeding of live stock in this country. Many farmers of western Canada are for the first time in their lives going into the business of feeding stock. This was something new to them, and the Department of Agriculture, realizing this fact, experimented and placed the results of those experiments in the hands of the farmers of the prairies who are to-day using those facts to very good advantage.

The Budget-Mr. St. Pere
Mr. E-C. STmPERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, the budget which the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) has brought down, is evidence to us, in the first place; that he is a very efficient accountant; secondly, that he is a hard worker. Nobody can deny the strenuous efforts he has made to have his policy prevail with the masses; however, anyone who studies this budget in its details, will conclude, as did a great American economist, when the Dingley Bill was enacted in the United States, that
the tariff provisions of this budget

1 shall
even state-the tariff decisions which it embodies, entitles it to be termed the "tariff of exaggerations."
The right hon. Prime Minister is also Minister of Finance; he appealed to the patriotism of the Canadian people in order to help him in carrying out his plans. This policy of aid, sir, I consider the Liberal party did its large share in furthering at the last session. That short session gave the Minister of Finance sufficient time to state again to the people of this country that a high tariff could but serve their interests in every way possible.
If we glance over the history of the various countries, we shall find that governments which adopt the policy of high tariff have many points in common. President Hoover, the rival of the Canadian Minister of Finance, recently appealed to the great American public as follows: "Let me carry on our policy and soon we shall see poverty banished from the nation." For the President as well as for the Canadian Minister of Finance, present conditions are too notoriously in contradiction with their boastful prophecies, for the people of Canada and the United States not to feel their effects. Our deficits are widely known and everybody expected this financial crash. The Prime Minister must now bear the consequences. It is useless to blame his predecessors; the great economic problems of a nation are not dealt with in this manner. The people allured by fine pledges face to-day a situation which smothers them. The industrial depression has become more acute this summer, the unemployed have increased, and every one wonders what will happen next autumn and winter. Our trade- it could not be otherwise with a policy of high tariff-our imports have decreased and our exports, ever following this old economic rule that bartering is at the base of trade, our exports, I state, have dwindled down enormously. What was the result? Our working classes which depended on our exports to supply them with work the year
round, to-day face either complete or temporary idleness, or the impossibility of finding work with our Canadian industries. There is but one safeguard for our workers. It is our exportations. As Mr. Greene, the president of the Federation of American Workers stated recently, it is only in exports-an assurance of the prosperity of a nation's business-that workers can find a guarantee of permanent work.
Let us now, sir, examine, I shall not say the remedies but the panacea advocated by the hon. Minister of Finance to relieve the depression existing in Canada. I shall enumerate them for I really think the Minister of Finance is convinced of the opportunity of applying the tariff policy which he advocates. The remedy to his mind, consists in taxation and high tariff.
Taxes. The right hon. Minister of Finance stated, at Maisonneuve, when he opened his election campaign in Quebec, that he would tax the people. It is exactly because he did fulfil this pledge and applied his policy, that the workers and consumers of my com-stituency, as well as others throughout Canada, protest at present.
Taxation-that is an old economic principle which is daily applied-taxation, I state, must be carried out with the people's approval, without laying dry the source of revenue and, especially, without overburdening the people. Such legislation must contribute to the happiness and prosperity of the majority of the people. What do we find in the present budget? Is the assessment of taxes embodied in the budget, just? My answer is nol Why? Because this budget unjustly taxes the poor on the following articles: anthracite coal, that, so to speak, is the poor man's coal. I am not a pessimist, however I have noticed that the business man's ambition often makes him forget the precepts of justice and charity, and I am wondering whether during next winter the price of anthracite coal, instead of being $16.50 per ton-delivered in the cellar-will not reach $17. Coke, oranges, canned goods, tea, clocks, etc. have all been taxed.
The sales tax. Ohl this brings forth the public's first and strongest protest. While unemployment is everywhere, this tax, which is increased from 1 to 4 per cent, will reach all families. To this, add the import tax of 1 per cent and there you have enough to heavily burden the budget of every householder. The right hon. Minister of Finance was quite open in his statement. He simply said that 52 per cent of the taxes which he intended to levy so as to wipe out the deficit would be derived from the sales tax. The general tariff increase greatly alarms-I shall not say solely-the
The Budget-Mr. St. Pere

workmen of my constituency, but also people of ordinary means and consumers.
Reduction of taxes. Although, sir, representing a large constituency of workmen, I am not one of those who were elected since 1921, by advocating a conflict between labour and capital. I always endeavoured and done my best to convince employers that the workmen should not be considered as machines, but really their greatest asset. I know that the method of action has been very well worked out. True, the changes brought about in the income tax unburden to some extent., heads of families and bachelors, but if we pass on to the following classes, we find that the burden falls upon the shoulders of the middle class. Any one living in cities, anyone who has taken the trouble to mingle with builders and contractors, will find that they are really anxious to expend yearly in new buildings the surplus of their earnings of the preceding year and thus employ our workmen. I state that they are the ones who will most feel this tax.
I am well aware that some economists and neoeconomists have advocated decreasing the tax on large incomes for the following reasons: because the people's savings are not sufficient for the requirements of industry and that of small dealers. This reason cannot apply in the present ease, since the Minister of Finance stated recently that the banks overflowed with money and that the western farmers all had deposits to their credit in banks.
Other economists give as a reason that the money turned over to the treasury prevents those who have wealth from utilizing it to foster industries and thereby provide work for the unemployed. It suffices to know the turn of mind of those who, at present, have wealth to convince oneself that this is not a valid reason. Take the business men. They themselves tell us that owing to overproduction and under-consumption, industries are greatly depressed. Can we rationally suppose that if such distress exists the wealthy will take advantage of this tax reduction to place their exempted income in new industries?
On many occasions we were told in the house-and these statements came from members of the government-that the Conservative government did not seek its tariff policy or its inspirations in the United States. Anyone who has followed what has happened in the United States for a number of years, whosoever has taken the trouble to study the plans of tax reduction advocated by Mr. Mellon, will acknowledge that the Conservative party of to-day, if its ministers did not personally travel to the United

States to seek the necessary information they required must nevertheless have found some good points in the plans of tax reduction of Mr. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury in the United States, plans which the United States people, as a whole, disapproved. The present government simply copied what Mr. Mellon did in the United States.
I am aware that the tax on large corporations has been increased from 8 per cent to 10 per cent; but if we compare this tax increase with the tax reduction on large incomes, we become aware that on the whole the result of these new taxes will be a tax reduction for the benefit of the wealthy. The tariff, our Conservative friends tell us, is the panacea to all ills. The foresight and infinite wisdom of all the speakers in the last election so advocated it. What happened? A decrease in both our imports and exports; a stagnation of our capital, a continuous increase of unemployment, poverty and if this state continues Canada will soon be in the grip of pauperism.
The high tariff policy was condemned by Mr. Ford, Mr. Atterbury, Mr. J. P. Morgan, by 1,028 professors and economists of American universities. It gives birth to colossal fortunes, it becomes a lever in the hands of trusts, as it happened in the United States after the enactment of the Dingley tariff, in 1897, it destroys all revenue, as they had the experience in the neighbouring republic when the tariff of 1890 was put into force.
The Conservative party was able to capture the vote of certain groups of workmen, at the last election, by putting forth protection as synonymous of high wages and steady work. Nothing is falser. High wages are always the outcome of the low cost of production and not of tariff. Work is better paid because it produces more owing to the intervention of His Majesty Machinery, the businesslike way in which industry is managed and the whole-hearted cooperation of workers when employed on the basis of unit [DOT] production.
Our friends on the right, sir, state that the tariff has the effect of bringing the cost of production on articles manufactured abroad to the level of those manufactured in Canada. Another fallacy which they endeavour to have the workers accept. Those who advocate high tariff in this house contend that the duty should be raised in direct ratio to the variation of the cost [DOT] of production on articles manufactured abroad and those manufactured in this country. Soon we shall have universal protection, and this is exactly the cause of

The Budget-Mr. St. Pere
the present crisis, and the day a partisan of high tariff takes the fancy of outdoing his own party this government will grant a protective tariff to those who wish to grow bananas in Alaska and oranges in the Ungava district. It has always been impossible to establish the exact cost of the production of similar articles manufactured in various countries. Mr. Walter Page, former president of the tariff board in the United States so stated, and that is an impossibility which politicians cannot make use of in the course of an election. During last May, sir, forty-eight nations sent delegates to a meeting of the International Chamber of Commerce. For the first time the causes of the crisis of which the whole world is suffering was discussed publicly, frankly and internationally. All admitted that a new era had begun and that the interdependence of nations was becoming more and more necessary. The discussion was of a general order. Without dwelling on the fatal results of one particular factor, all acknowledged the following causes were to be taken into account:
The war and its aftermath; armaments; speculation; the return to the gold standard; the depreciation of money; high taxation; grants to industry; trusts; over-production and under-consumption; the overdevelopment of agriculture and the restrictions put-and I lay stress on that word-on free exchange of manufactured products and raw material between the various countries in consequence of high tariffs.
Not withstanding the data supplied by these eminent men, the Minister of Finance still persists in carrying out his policy of high tariff and to find in it the only remedy. What does he care about the views of parliamentarians like Messrs. Theuris, Sir Arthur Salter, Parmentier, Melvin, A. Taylor, Sir Allan Anderson, H. L. Russell and others! The Minister of Finance still chasing that rainbow repeats to us: Let us protect ourselves against countries with tariffs, let us enclose ourselves in our ivory tower. Let us offer rebates to industry, let us create new industries of which we often spoke, and, mention is made of an increase of these establishments in the near future. Many times I have heard in the house, sir, that Canada is very highly industrialized, and those who attempted to stem the flow of immigration were criticized because this kindred industry, moreover our factories which already had started to produce in great quantities had need of a larger population to maintain them.
Will the Minister of Finance make a distinction, will he tolerate the establishment in Canada of industries manufacturing products similar to those we at present put out? If so,
chaos will reign. Competition will not come from outside but from our own factories, and this will afford a great opportunity to speculators, friends of trusts, and mergers to absorb these small industries which sometimes may be built up through the issuing of debentures which are held by people of small means. I state that too high a tariff will give rise to an increase of schemers and promoters always ready to make use of large circulation newspapers to float out some new industry.
The people were blamed for one thing in particular, and this seems to me extraordinary. The captains of finance to-day say: If we have suffered from overproduction, who is to blame? Is it not the people who have purchased on the instalment plan? Is it not the people that have joined a movement which has increased the industries in various countries? To remedy the present situation,- and by the way I am not a farmer-the Minister of Finance thought fit to grant a rebate of 5 cents per bushel on wheat shipped from Canadian shores to the British market. He promised to the working class, through the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a solution to their difficulties in the near future.
The Minister of Labour who has no seat in this house-I again state what I have previously said:	the Canadian workman
should be dealt with more equitably; they should have in this house one of their own, a minister responsible to the people-the Minister of Labour, I say, recently stated that he intended to travel extensively through Canada to make himself familiar with the present situation, in order to find a remedy to unemployment prevailing more than ever in our large industrial centres.
The right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) promises something to everybody, but to Quebec he has nothing more to promise, he considers that he has sufficiently (beurree) buttered it.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: More butter than bread.
Mr. ST-PERE:	There are, sir, various
kinds of unemployed. First, we find the one who has an aversion for work; the other who works halftime and moreover must accept a reduction in wages; then the one to whom the manager of large mills says: you are too old; again another who wants to work but has been replaced by modern machinery; finally the unemployed whom we find among the youths who have just left school, who to-day are in search of jobs, but owing to present depression find it impossible to satisfy their legitimate ambition.
The hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond), discussed the question of wages.
The Budget-Mr. St. Pere

In future, I shall not be the only one in the house to claim an increase in wages for the working classes, especially those in my constituency, who work in the large mills of the Dominion Textile Co. I was criticized at times, in my election campaign, because I especially pointed out the smallness of the wages paid by that industry, where people of my race and nationality work and who are entitled to receive more consideration. It is this same large company which the Conservative government favoured again in the changes made to the tariff at the last session. These workmen, I state, are among those to whom the "Misereor Super Turbam" never applied, and this industry bleeds to death the workmen who cross its threshold every morning. This large industry too highly protected obliges men, young women and especially children to work ten and twelve hours per day to earn insignificant wages, still it enjoys to-day a protection which is not deserved. With these shameful dividends- the hon. member for Beauharnois described them a few moments ago-this large corporation should consider somewhat the poor people it employs. It should not forget the precepts of justice and charity. Its shareholders should sacrifice some of their profits unfairly accumulated and think over what St. Augustin wrote one day: that the luxury of the rich is the necessity of the poor.
The hon. Senator John J. Davis, of the United States, recently stated at Gettysburg: "that to decrease wages under present conditions was a crime." If we wish for another opinion-it does not emanate from a workman-the following are the views of William Gibb McAdoo, former Secretary of the Treasury for the United States, who stated that the new formula in the conduct of human affairs is, that industry's first thought must be to help the people and not to concentrate its sole consideration on prospective profits.
I am now aware, sir, that the government's present task is a hard one.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: They
wanted it to be so.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	How numerous were, the pledges made by this government in order to obtain office! They delight in spreading among the people the ill founded truth of statistics. A great economist wrote that statistics were sometimes "errors printed in figures."


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Which
makes truth lie.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): With regard to unemployment statistics, one of our most

prominent officials of the Labour Department, as did the Labour Secretary of the United States, stated that it was impossible to gather exact figures as to unemployment. Allow me, sir, to tell you, where I find these statistics- and I am speaking not only from the viewpoint of the workman, but from the economic . viewpoint.
I gather them from the small shop-keeper, the small dealer, the barber, the mills of my constituency, and I draw my conclusion as to what is the real situation in our country. Economists again tell us that prosperity awaits us at the street corner. I have sought for it everywhere, at every corner in my constituency, and I regret to state, sir, as a true Canadian, that I cannot find it anywhere in the province of Quebec.
You now wish to know what would be the true remedy to unemployment. I do not find that remedy in last year's appropriation to relieve unemployment. No doubt that appropriation may have been of some assistance to our unemployed. However, what our unemployed ask, what they demand to-day from the large industrial establishments which, there is no denying it, has been the greatest agent and instigator of the present crisis. What our unemployed want to-day, is not the help of the government, it is not this material aid which Count de Mun described in the French parliament as charity grudgingly received by the unemployed. Private charity implies looking up to others. Our unemployed are not lazy and I wish to testify on behalf of those of my constituency-in fact on behalf of all those in Quebec who have nothing in common with communism-I testify as to their good character. These unemployed do not ask for help, they seek work, and I state with all the great economists, I state with Mr. Chadbourne who recently was able to promote an international understanding for the sale of sugar, I state that the settlement of the unemployment problem rests with our large industrial establishments which should grant higher wages. Many heads of large industries have advocated such methods in the United States.
One word, sir, on communism. Communism does not enter this country wrapped up in sable furs or hidden under the bark of a cord of pulpwood. Communism sprang up in Russia as a result of the exactions of czarism, as a result of the negligence shown by the Russian intelligentzia towards the masses. When the reaction took place under the leadership of Kerensky, Lenine and Trotzky, the walls of the Kremlin shook. The masses, siding with atheism or antiatheism decided, in that country of ideals, to eliminate religion from their

Peace River Outlet
social problem. As a liberal representative of the province of Quebec, I confess that the theories of a Lenine, Trotzky, Yiviani, Liebnecht and other famous socialists of the same stamp, I confess that their doctrines horrify me. I take this opportunity to state that the only remedy to the social problem lies, as I stated last year in the house, in re-ehristianising industry, in introducing justice and charity, and in the dealings of capital with labour.
In concluding my remarks, I wish to express the hope that the policy at present advocated by the government will succeed. All good Canadians express that hope. However, I am sorry to say that 1 cannot see in this doctrine of high protection a remedy to all the ills of which humanity at present suffers. Mr. Chadbourne, as I said a few moments ago, the promoter of the international entente for the sale of sugar, stated a few days ago that only (he removal of individualism and economic selfishness will solve these problems. Let Canada abandon her policy of high protection; let her appeal-we form part of the League of Nations-to all men of good will, to all those who believe in the mutual dependence of nations, and I feel certain that from that day on capital will expand, the return to high wages will be assured, finally peace will reign on earth, everybody will live more happy, prosperous and more in keeping with the greatest and the first of God's commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Love thy neighbour as thyself."
That covers the law and what the prophets wrote.
On motion of Mr. Gagnon the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Tuesday, June 16, 1931.