1931-06-10

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Matthews.

Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Ont.) moved:: That the fourth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills be referred back to the said committee for further consideration.


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I observe that the report as presented and tabled yesterday was not within the provisions of standing order 111, which defines the powers of committees to deal with private bills of which they do not approve.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That Messrs. Dorion, Fiset, Gardiner, Gordon, Jacobs, Jones, Lennox, Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), Stewart (Lethbridge), be a committee to investigate from its inception the Beauharnois project for the development of hydroelectric energy by the use of the waters of the St. Lawrence river so far as the matters referred to are within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing words in par-22110-1571
tieular to investigate the matters referred to in the speech made in the House of Gammons by Mr. Robert Gardiner, the bon. member for Acadia, on the 19th day of May, last, as reported on pages 1731-1740 of Hansard, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon; with power to send for persons, papers and records.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This should be received as a notice of motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, 1 have a right to make the reference now.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With the consent of the house.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the right hon. gentleman what is the authority that will determine whether the matters referred to are within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada? Will the committee decide as to the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has stated a question which is always a difficulty in a matter of this kind. I take it that the committee will have to decide that, but they will be assisted by counsel and no doubt eminent counsel will represent the parties. Therefore I think there will be no difficulty, but the hon. gentleman realizes that I was very anxious that we should not be trespassing upon other jurisdictions, hence these words:
Within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: Would the provinces be permitted to be represented on the committee if their jurisdiction came into conflict with that of this parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The provinces in the
first instance might have a watching brief, but if it were felt that there was a trenching upon the powers of the provinces, they would undoubtedly have a right to represent to the committee their views with respect to the matter. That is my personal opinion. It is for the committee to decide as to that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My remark, when the
resolution was read by the Prime Minister, that it should be received as a notice of motion, is based on standing order 45 which reads:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee-
And so on.
Ministers oj the Crown


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a matter of reference arising out of my speech the other day when I said that I would move it on motions at an early date. This is not the appointment of a committee; it is an order of reference.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Seeing that it
was the 19th May that the Prime Minister promised to grant this committee, I think we might give him the unanimous consent of the house so as to enable the committee to get to work at once.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There being no objection, I shall put the motion with the unanimous consent of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That Bill No. 35, an act to remove the necessity for the reelection of members of the House of Commons of Canada on acceptance of office, bg transferred from public bills and orders to government orders for consideration in committee of the whole at the next sitting of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the
Minister of Justice just what has occasioned this particular action on the part of the government?


Hugh Guthrie: The bill appeared to be
a very worthy one. It is true it was introduced by an hon. member opposite, and we on this side of the house thought it was a bill' that merited our support. It was a matter of great surprise when we noticed that the bill was dropped from the order paper, and the desire of the government is to restore it in order that the house may fully discuss it. I understand the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) no longer desires to sponsor it, and the government has no objection to sponsoring so worthy a measure.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: May I say to the Minister of Justice I know the child will be well taken care of by him? This is the second child that he has adopted, that belonged to me and of which I am glad to own to paternity. I only hope it will be as well taken care of as my first.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 82 to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, 1928.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. STEVENS:: Briefly the bill is purely
a formal and technical one, making certain corrections in the present act. It is very simple, and when it comes to the committee stage I shall give a full explanation of the details.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.	'



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: 1.	Did the government advance any money or pay for seed grain to the farmers of Canada for the harvest of 1931?
2.	If so, what amount for each province?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer would be
no to both questions in the form in which they appear, but there might be a contingent liability dependent upon completion of arrangements which have not yet been completed.


POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP INQUIRIES IN MAGDALEN ISLANDS
Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	Did Alphonse Garon, of Rimouski, hold inquiries into political partisanship at Magdalen islands?
2.	If so, on what date was he appointed inquiry commissioner?
3.	For wh-a.t department does he work?
4.	What salary does he receive?
5.	How many inquiries were held by him, and what are the names of those against whom inquiries were held?
6.	What were the items of expense submitted by Alphonse Garon to each department?
7.	Who recommended the appointment of the said Alphonse Garon?


Mr. CAHAN:: I ask that this question
stand as an order for a return, which I herewith table.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question passed as an
order for return.

Questions


KEMPT ROAD HILL POST OFFICE
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received a petition from the patrons of Kempt Road Hill post office, Bonaventure county, asking that Mr. Francois Ferland, the present postmaster, remain in charge of that office?
2.	Has the department ascertained whether all the natrons of that office had signed this petition?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.


DALHOUSIE-MIQUASHA FERRY BOAT ENGINEER
Mr. MARCIL:: Has the Department of Trade and Commerce ascertained if the engineer on the ferry boat between Dalhousie, New Brunswick, and Miguasha, Quebec, is provided with a proper diploma, and if not, will moans be taken so that the law be complied with?


Henry Herbert Stevens: When the "Hiawatha" was inspected by the Department of Marine on May 15th, 1931, she was carrying a properly certificated engineer as required by law.


GASCONS WEST LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER
Charles Marcil: Has Phil'ip Dea, lighthouse keeper, at Gascons West been dismissed for political partisanship, if so. who has been appointed in his stead, and on whose recommendation?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Yes. Mr. Onesime Anglehart has been appointed on recommendation of Dr. Eugene Paquet.


BONAVENTURE SIGNAL STATION KEEPER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has Valere Roy, keeper of the signal
station of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed for alleged political partisanship? _	_
2.	If so. who has been appointed in his place, and on whose recommendation?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	He has been dismissed for political partisanship,
2.	Joseph Cyr, on recommendation of Dr. Eugene Paquet.


FULL TIME HEALTH UNITS
Mr. SPENCER:: How many associations, national, provincial or local, have passed resolutions in favour of full time health units in each of the last five years and notified the Department of Health of their action in this regard?
Mr. MaeLAREN: 1926, none; 1927, none; 1928, none; 1929, one, passed at the national convention of Women's Institutes; 1930, one, passed by the Canadian Nurses' Association.


EX-SERVICE PENSIONERS IN CIVIL SERVICE
Mr. ROSS:: 1.	How many ex-service men are employed by the government of Canada at Ottawa who are in receipt of pensions of 100 per cent?
2.	How many are single men?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Fourteen,
2.	Two.


SHIGA WAKE POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has a postmaster been appointed at Shiga-wake post office, Quebec?
2.	If so. was the appointment made by the Civil Service Commission or by the department, and on whose recommendation?
3.	Who were the tenderers for the mail carrying contract between that office and the railway station, what was the amount of each tender and to whom has the contract been awarded?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	By the department, on the recommendation of E. A. D. Morgan and Honourable Dr. E. Paquet.
3.	James P. Robinson, $280 per annum; Leonard Sullivan, S287.96 per annum; Henry Sullivan, $297.50 per annum; Wesley Young, $300 per annum; Elton Earle Almond, $365 per annum. Contract was awarded to James P. Robinson.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	For what legal services are the lawyers or law firms of the city of Vancouver and the federal district of New Westminster retained by the federal government, what are the respective names of each lawyer or law firm so retained and for what work is each being retained?
2.	Have any accounts been rendered to the government by these lawyers or law firms since September of last year?
3.	What amounts of money have been paid by the Dominion government to each of these lawyers or law firms since September of last year and uip to the present time?
4.	Is the Dominion government still under any financial obligation to the said lawyers or law firms?
Unopposed Motions for Papers


MR. PETER BRENNAN
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Is one Peter Brennan employed by the Vancouver harbour commission?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	What are his qualifications and experience?


MR. GERARD SIMARD
Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	Did Gerard Simard, lawyer of Rimouski, hold inquiries into political partisanship at Magdalen islands?
2.	If so, on what date was he appointed inquiry commissioner?
3.	For what department does he work?
4.	What salary does he receive?
5.	How many inquiries were held by him, and what are the names of those against whom sa/id inquiries were held?
6.	What were the items of his expense for each department?
7.	Who recommended the appointment of the said Gerard Simard?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all documents in the possession of the Post Office Department at Ottawa and Quebec, in connection with the transportation of mail between Quebec and St. Joachim de Montmorency, including the various tenders received by the said department in this respect.



BONAVENTURE SIGNAL STATION

Charles Marcil: For a copy of the report of the investigation held by J. Ernest Sirois in the case of Valero Roy, keeper of the signal station of Bonaven-ture, Quebec, and also in the case of Philip Dea, of Gascons West, keeper of the light on the wharf of that place.



CHINESE ADMITTED INTO CANADA

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: For a return showing the number of Chinese admitted into Canada at the ports of Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia, from 1912 to 1930, inclusive.



ALLEGED POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP-BONAVENTURE

Charles Marcil: For a copy of reports made by J. Ernest Sirois appointed by the Department of Marine to investigate alleged political partisanship, in Bonaventure county, and w'hich have not already been brought down.


Charles Marcil: For a copy of the reports of Messrs. Simard and Gagnon, commissioners, who investigated charges of political partisanship of employees of the Post Office Department in the county of Bonaventure, which have as yet not been brought dowm.
IMr. Reid.]



WEST DIGBY FISHERIES INSPECTOR

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ILS'LEY:
For ia copy of all letters, reports, rating sheets, decisions, memoranda, telegrams, or other communications, and all documents and memoranda in the possession of the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Fisheries or any other department of the government, relating to the selection of Fred Worthylake os inspector of fisheries for West Digby, Nova Scotia, his rejection by the department, and the appointment of Mr. P. E. Filleul as such inspector.

Mr. ILSDEY:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, memoranda and other documents in the possession of any department of the government regarding the dismissal of Norman MacDonald of Piotou, Nova Scotia, from the preventive service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the date of his dismissal, I take it.


Mr.   LESLEY@: Since August 1st last.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the date of his dismissal?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Prior to the date of his dismissal-the complaint on which the dismissal took place, as well as the others.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From August last, then.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Pierre-François Casgrain: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents, report or reports made by the chief regional engineer of the Canadian National Railways, regarding certain improvement works to be done on the shores of Rivdere-du-Gouffre, at Bale St. Paul, in the county of Charlevo-ix, for the protection of bridge piers, the property of the Canadian National Railways.
He said: With respect to all the motions standing in my name on the order paper, numbered from 1 to 36 inclusive, the information I desire is as from January 1, 1927, to date, and I move to amend these motions accordingly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Pierre-François Casgrain: There should be no
competition in that case. I am simply asking for the production of papers with respect to certain necessary works impending in order to protect the property of the railway at the places mentioned in these motions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That makes it worse.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I do not think so. I
want to know just what has been done.
Motion, as amended, negatived on division.



DREDGING OPERATIONS AT RIVIERE PENTECOTE

Pierre-François 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 dredging operations to be done at Riviere Pentecote (Riviere Riverin), on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river.
He said: I wish to amend this motion and all the following ones in my name to No. 36 inclusive, by adding at the end of each motion the words "from January 1, 1927, to date."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would hardly be of any use in this case, in connection with dredging operations to be done on the north shore. That is exactly the form of return, if no action is taken and no estimate is made either by the railway company or the country itself, which should not be produced for reasons that are very obvious. The railway company would be placed in as impossible a position as the country itself.


Pierre-François Casgrain: This is not the railway
company. This has reference to departmental matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But no action was taken, and no estimate made, and to bring down papers that are confidential in that sense before action is taken is to destroy the usefulness of the engineers who make the reports, in my judgment. No private enterprise could carry on business in that way, and I do not see how a government can.


Pierre-François Casgrain: In all these motions
standing in my name I am asking for the correspondence or documents or reports regarding work which it was contemplated doing at these various places. I want to know just at what stage the matter stands in each case. That information is necessary, and as the member representing the county I think I have the right to ask for the production of these papers.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the
hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CARDIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CAYLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HALL:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Victoria (Ontario) (Mr. Stinson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. YOUNG:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McMILLAN (South Huron):: I was
paired with the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HOWARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Cassel-man): Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury).


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DESROCHERS:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


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

Motions jor Papers


Mr. DORION:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. PARENT:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HURTUBLSE:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cot-nam). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. SIMPSON (North Simcoe):: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MULLINS:: I -was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. AHEARN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Beaubier). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was paired with the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. WILSON:: I wa^ paired with the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion. '


Mr. BARBER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SPOTTON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I was paired with
the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. PECK:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Provencher (Mr. Reaubien). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McDADE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. WEESE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Athabaska (Mr. Buckley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LAFLECHE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.



MUTTON BAY, SAGUENAY, WHARF

Pierre-François 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 construction of the wharf at Mutton Bay, in the county of Saguenay, from January first, 1927, to date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if these
motions refer to works that are in process of construction, the orders will go without opposition. If however, as was the case with order No. 2, the operations are to be undertaken, there is an assumption of something that can be manifested only in a certain wajr, so far as the government is concerned, and we would have to oppose it. Motions Nos. 19, 20, 27 and 29 are in the same position referring to works to be done at Pointe-au-Boisvert, Petites Bergeronnes, Beaupre and Baie des Rochers respectively. If the hon. member will say the works are under construction or that estimates have been submitted to this house with respect to any of them, so far as we are concerned the motion will be passed by acclamation.


Pierre-François Casgrain: It would appear that
we have now a new Minister of Public Works, as the Prime Minister has taken upon himself the duties of that office.
Motions jor Payers


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was reminded the other day by the leader of the opposition that it is the duty of the leader of the house to attend to these matters.


Pierre-François Casgrain: As I have said before
these works are works which were in process of construction. Estimated costs had been figured in connection with the various works. I am fold by the engineers in the department at Quebec that plans and specifications were prepared and submitted to the department in Ottawa. Some of these works were contemplated to be done last year, or in the near future, and my purpose in asking for the production of these documents is to show to my people what progress has been made by the department at Quebec and at Ottawa with regard to these various works which are necessary, and in connection with which there are in the records of the department in Quebec and Ottawa petitions, requests and letters between the Department of Public Works here and people who are living in these different communities. There are such communications, whether they be from companies operating pulp and paper mills or from rural communities in the county which I have the honour to represent. I't may be that my right hon. friend the leader of the government takes exception to the word "estimates". If he would grant my motion and allow it to pass I would be willing, with the leave otf the house, to add the words "estimated cost" so that my motion would not be objectionable to the Prime Minister. I submit, Mr. Speaker, with due deference, that when certain works are contemplated to be undertaken by any department of the government, whether those works are under construction or not, we, as members of the House of Commons, have the right of access to the records in order that we may find out what progress has been made, and, if need be in some cases, to supplement the information that has been given and is on file, or even to point out if by intrigue or otherwise certain persons who object to our obtaining these works for the benefit of our people are obstructing the undertaking of such works. This is my purpose in making all these motions. I know objection has been taken-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Am I to understand the
hon. member is adopting the suggestion of the Prime Minister or not? There is no necessity for making a long speech; he either accepts the suggestion or he does not.


Pierre-François Casgrain: With respect to Your
Honour's remarks, there is one further point that I wish to make in answer to another question of a similar nature.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Wait a minute. A few days ago I asked for production of all the papers, correspondence, documents, plans and specifications in connection with the wharf to be erected at Baie St. Catherine, and they were handed to me, and-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That has nothing whatever to do with this resolution.


Pierre-François Casgrain: It has some bearing,
I submit, Mr. Speaker, because in that instance I asked for and received papers similar in character to those that I am asking for by this motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. I must confess
that I cannot decide whether the hon. member has adopted the suggestion of the Prime Minister or not. If he declines to accept it, the only course open to me is to put the motion.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, if any further motions are going to be put I should like, as a member of the house, to know what they are about, and if there are any objections to them by the government I should like to have them stated loud enough so that we in this section of the house may hear what they are.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am afraid the hon.
member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) is out of order.


William Irvine: The whole debate is out
of order.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Walter Allan Hall: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Stinson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: I was paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Edward James Young: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. WILLIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


George Hamilton Pettit: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). If I had voted I would have voted against the motion.
Motions jor Papers


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I was paired with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Cairine Reay Wilson: I was paired with the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Ernest Edward Perley: I was paired with the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Charles Murphy: I was paired with the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Harry James Barber: I was paired with the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


George Manning McDade: I was paired with the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


George Spotton: I was paired with the hon. member for	West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). Had
I	voted	I	would	have	voted	against	the
motion.


John Aaron Weese: I was paired with the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Buckley). Had I	voted	I	would	have	voted	against	the
motion.


Mr. BEAUBIER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Ahearn). Had I	voted	I	would	have	voted	against	the
motion.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Mr. Speaker, I was not in the chamber when the question was put, therefore I could not and did not vote.



MOISIE, SAGUENAY, PROTECTION WORKS

Pierre-François 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in order to facilitate the business of the house I would like to move an amendment to this motion to strike out the word "estimates".


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in order that there may be a definite understanding of the position which the government takes, I would like to make it clear that it is not regarded as being in the public interest that any departmental correspondence which takes place between the engineers at the capital and the divisional engineers at Quebec, Edmonton or Victoria with respect to the possible expenditure of public moneys, should be brought down until such intention has crystallized into action. Non constat no action may ever be taken. My hon. friend now suggests the deletion of the word "estimates" but this motion covers correspondence between officials of the department and the department and plans and specifications which may never result in anything being done, and to suggest that they should be brought down in this house is something which I think has not heretofore been done. The minute public moneys are voted, whether or not they are expended, the minute any action is taken which indicates a crystallization of the intention into action, the minute estimates are passed which indicate contemplated action, then any government would say that such documents should be brought down. My hon. friend has thirty-eight motions on the order paper, and I ask him: Will you say that work has begun within any locality mentioned in these motions, or that an appropriation appears in the estimates for this year or appeared in the estimates of last year with respect to them? If the hon. gentleman can answer that question in the affirmative, then we will pass the motion to bring down the papers at once. I think my hon. friend on reflection will realize that this is the practice which heretofore has been established and must be followed if the government is to be carried on at all with any degree of regard to business considerations.
Let me put this case' to my right hon. friend. A number of persons write letters to the Prime Minister with respect to public works, and these he forwards to the minister. The minister sends his engineer down to report upon the matter. Reports are made, of which the Prime Minister is not aware. In reality, the writing of the letters and securing the reports, et cetera, formed part of a general plan whereby it was hoped to secure the expenditure of public moneys for a particular project. A file is made. This is brought down in the house and hon. gentlemen promoting the project say:	"Behold! Look
what we have been doing all the time to promote the interests of our constituencies. There was never any likelihood of the government doing anything in the matter, it is

Motions for Papers
true, but look what we have done." Now, if the hon. gentleman will say, with respect to any one of these motions standing in his name, that any public money has been voted or an estimate submitted for the expenditure of public moneys, we will pass the motion at once. Otherwise, the whole basis on which business is to be transacted is gone.


Pierre-François Casgrain: In none of these cases,
I believe, were there any estimates or was an3' money appropriated either last year or the year before. The case is as I have stated it before. May I ask the leader of the government whether it would be possible for me to inspect all these various records myself. That would expedite matters and would cause the government no inconvenience. As the member representing the county, I submit that I am entitled to see these records.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe it has been the general practice of the House of Commons-to accord to members of the house an opportunity to see files in the department. That, I believe, has been the general rule and unless there is something on the files other than I should assume there would be-because it goes back to 1927-I shall leave the matter entirely in the hands of the minister in charge. May I say to my hon. friend, when he refers to there being a Minister of Public Works, that I was endeavouring, perhaps poorly, to discharge that duty which the leader of the opposition properly reminded me the other day rests always with the leader of the house with respect to matters of this kind.


Mr. POWER:: May I ask, on a question
of the privileges of parliament, that this decision be not taken as a precedent. Personally I am not quite convinced that the theory laid down by the Prime Minister is a correct one. I do believe that the parliament of Canada, and the people of the country, are as much entitled to obtain information with respect to the sins of omission of the government as they are to obtain such information regarding the government's sins of commission. I make this statement merely in order that in the future I may not be bound by any such decision as seems to have been arrived at this afternoon.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish briefly to associate myself with what the last speaker has said. The other day I made a motion similar to this, [DOT]with the idea of finding out why the government had not taken action. So far as I know, the government did not come to a
decision one way or the other, and certainly I felt that the people of my constituency were entitled to know what reports had been made and what the reasons were for the work not proceeding. The decision of the Prime Minister comes to me as a matter of great surprise, for I had always understood that we were entitled to see these reports, running sometimes over a long period of years. I should not like this decision to be taken as a precedent.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it suggested that the
motion be dropped?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Perhaps the motions
might be called and lost on division.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or, if the hon. gentleman so desires, I am content to have them stand.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I cannot see any
purpose in it. If the hon. member will see the minister and confer with him I do not doubt that the files mentioned can be seen.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the motions, including No. 35, stand?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Stand.



VACANCIES-BYELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W, L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition): Inasmuch as the government is evidently taking steps to avoid the necessity for byelections where ministers are concerned-
Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not get that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -may I ask whether the government has decided upon the date of the byelections in the two constituencies not at present represented in this house, namely, East Hamilton and Three Rivers-St. Maurice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is, no.



STAMP TAX ON CREAM CHEQUES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I would call the attention of the Prime Minister to a telegram I have received from Mr. G. W. Tovell, secretary of the Manitoba Cooperative Creameries. Mr. Tovell protests against the application of the stamp tax to cream cheques.
Convicted Stockbrokers

I assume that the tax does so apply. If the Prime Minister can give me an answer to the contrary I shall be only too pleased. However, I direct his attention to the fact that this protest has been made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall look into the hon. member's question as it appears in Hansard and answer it to-morrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
the Prime Minister that my understanding was that when we concluded the discussion on the Copyright Act, the debate on the budget would be resumed and continued until disposed of. I notice my right hon. friend has just asked that the motion in his name should stand. Unless that motion is passed to-day we shall not be able to continue the debate on the budget to-morrow because on Thursday the Speaker will automatically leave the chair.
Right- Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) : I want to mention two matters before I deal with that motion. A few days ago the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) referred to Bill No. 79, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931, and the resolution with respect to the guaranteeing of securities issued by the Canadian National Railways. Before we proceed with the debate this afternoon I am proposing to ask the house to permit me to advance the foregoing resolution which stands in my name and with respect to which I made a rather full explanation the other day, so that the bill founded thereon may be read the first and second times and sent to the select committee on railways and shipping in order that they may have the matter before them as well as Bill No. 79 standing for second reading in the name of the Minister of Railways. If that were done, I am then going to make the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right bon. friend wish to deal with those matters this afternoon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and then revert to the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all
right.



CONVICTED STOCKBROKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Guthrie: I promised yesterday, in response to
a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), to get some information as to the treatment of certain prisoners in the preferred class penitentiary near Kingston. The matter arises out of a somewhat lurid article which appeared in the Toronto Globe of the 8th day of June, referring to those prisoners. I have received the following information from the superintendent of penitentiaries and I shall give it to the house just as I have received it:
There are ten former Toronto brokers confined in the preferred class penitentiary. Superintendent has seen .all of these men at work at times. He has personally interviewed each one of them. He has seen them employed on cement mixers, digging ditches, assisting in installing an intake pipe for water system, building a stone wall, painting buildings, building two pump-houses, farming, gardening, unloading material at railway siding, cataloguing library books, .assisting .in the checking of stores, and storing of goods as received, several employed at carpenter work, washing and repairing inmates' clothing, assisting the accountant, the storekeeper, the engineer. One of the oldest inmates is steadily employed as a clerk in the deputy warden's office. They are treated in exactly similar manner to all the other inmates. One is employed part time in the hospital and part time at other work. In fact, they are employed wherever their abilities can be utilized.
There are 200 inmates at the preferred class institution. These men are all short-timers and selected because they are short-timers whose offences have not been brutal or vicious, and, whose employment under existing conditions is considered safe. There are no walls and only a wire fence around the dormitories where they sleep.
A philanthropic gentleman, no friend of the ex-brokers, presented the institution with a gramophone and a number of records. This has been the only music provided in the institution.
A nucleus of a library of carefully selected books has been secured. It is the intention that this will be added to another year.
This is all in conformity with the discussion which took place in the house when the vote for a preferred class penitentiary was being passed. This is not an ordinary penitentiary, but one for the purpose of giving men an opportunity to reform. It is for short-time men, the definition of that being a sentence up to four years, for first offenders

C.M.R.-Guarantee of Securities
and for men whose conduct in the penitentiary has justified their removal to the preferred class. There are now 200 in the preferred class penitentiary which has been constructed almost entirely by prison labour.


Samuel William Jacobs: I did not hear the minister very well. Did he say that they were employed on cement mixers or cement mergers?



PRIVILEGE-MR. SAUVE

Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege. In the speech of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset) delivered yesterday, I find at page 2442 of Hansard, the following:
If any one who champions the cause of the people, of those who are in distress could but see, for instance the smile which I perceive, at this moment, on the lips of the Postmaster General, he would rebuke the minister, under the present circumstances, for laughing at the distress of the people.


Sir EUGENE FISET (Translation):: It is a privilege to smile!


Arthur Sauvé: I regret to
be obliged to state that in no way was I laughing at the people's distress.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Order! order!


Charles Gavan Power: That is not a question of privilege.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, and
I know that I am entitled to this privilege. I was in no way laughing at the people's distress, but at the remarks made by a member-


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order-


Arthur Sauvé: I was in no
way laughing at the people's distress, but at remarks made by a member of this house on the tone and manner in which the hon. member for Gaspe presented his arguments. I also regret that the hon. member was not able to better follow my thoughts and realize his own position in this respect.


Maurice Brasset: In answer to the hon. Postmaster General, I wish to say that when I listened to him state that he had no intention of laughing at the distress of the people, I was ready to withdraw the words I used yesterday, but when he added that he
was laughing at my remarks-I was then speaking of unemployment and the distress which existed at present in this country-


Arthur Sauvé: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has no right to reply on a question of privilege.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. minister had
no right to speak. The hon. members were both out of order.


Arthur Sauvé: No. The rule is the same whether a member addresses the house in French or in English.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order! Order!


Maurice Brasset: It was precisely when I was speaking of the distress of the people that the hon. Postmaster General started to smile. I think it is regrettable to see a minister of the crown laugh at the remarks which are made when so serious a subject is discussed. I therefore have nothing to withdraw of what I said yesterday.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the governor in council may authorize the guarantee of securities of the Canadian National Railway Company to an aggregate principal amount at any one time outstanding of $68,1500,000, to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931 (where amounts available from net operating income or investments may be insufficient), by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railways or any company controlled by or any company comprised in the Canadian National Railways, or iin respect of Canadian government railways entrusted to the Canadian National Railway Company.
He said: I have just explained that the reason the government notice of motion standing in my name was not made was that on the calling of the orders of the day we might proceed with this resolution which provides merely for the guaranteeing of securities for the purposes of the Canadian National Railway Company to an aggregate amount of $68,500,000, subject to such revision as the committee may make and the report which they may ultimately present to the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
C.N.R.-Guarantee of Securities
Mr. POULIOT:: I do not wish to delay the house, but I intend to put on record certain orders for returns relating to the Canadian National Railways which were passed by the house some time ago. I do so because in the railways and shipping committee the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals said', at page 5 of the report of the proceedings of that committee, on June 5, "The answer will , be in the House of Commons." I do not wish to impose upon the government, but as I stated on June the 8th, most of the returns are very short and easy to answer, and the desired information in some cases comes not from the Department of Railways but from the privy council, as for example, the orders in council which are asked for.
I would refer the right hon. leader of the government to the orders for returns which were passed on May 27, and which are1 mentioned on page 2380 of Hansard' of June 8, 1931. In order to save time, I shall not read them again, but six orders for returns which have been passed by the house are given on that page, and I would ask the government to expedite the answers which are very short. Other orders which have been passed by the house and which have not been brought down appear in the votes and proceedings of May 28, 1931, at pages 259 and 260, as follows:
By Mr. Ponliot:-Order of the house for a return showing:-
1.	Total amount included last year in the budget of the Canadian National Railways for the building of a new station at Riviere du Loup: fa) for capital expenditure; (b) other expenditure.
2.	Whether a similar or any item is included this year in their budget for the same purpose.
3.	If so, for what amount.
Those questions are very short and easy to answer. The next one is:
By Mr. Ponliot:-Order of the house for a return showing:-[DOT]
1.	Whether provisions were made in the estimates of the Canadian National Railways, 1930-1931, for the construction of new stations.
2.	If so, how many stations.
3.	Where they were to be constructed.
4.	Total estimate, including capital account expenses or otherwise, prepared by the Canadian National Railways in their estimate, for each station.
5.	Whether the Canadian National Railways have called for tenders for all the said stations.
6.	If not, for what stations tenders were called.
7.	Number of stations the Department of Railways and Canals approved of the construction of in 1930-1931.
8.	Amount of the tender that was accepted in each case.
9.	Whether the Department of Railways and Canals refused to sanction the construction

of stations by the Canadian National Railways in 1930-1931.
10.	If so, what stations.
11.	Reason of refusal in each case.
That also could be answered in a few words. The next is:
By Mr. Pouliot:-Order of the house for a return showing:-
1.	Whether the Canadian National Railways were informed that the Department of Railways and Canals had refused to sanction the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup.
2.	If so, on what date and by whom.
3.	Upon whose instructions.
4.	If by telegram, at what time of the day.
That also is very short to answer, and I am surprised that the question was changed to an order for return. The next one is:
By Mr. Pouliot:-Order of the house for a return showing:-
1.	On the estimates accompanying the plans for the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup, whether the Canadian National Railways showed on what date the said building was to be completed.
2.	If so, the date.
That is a very short question also. Other orders which were passed on the same day and appear in the votes and proceedings at pages 269 and 260 are as follows:
By Mr. Pouliot:-Order of the house for a return showing:
1.	On whait date the tenders already received at Moncton, on or about August 26, 1930, for the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loiup, were afterwards submitted to the Department of Railways and Canals by the Canadian National Railways.
2.	Why these tenders were so submitted to the department.
3.	What were: (a) the name and address of each tenderer; (b) the amount of each tender.
4.	How long these tenders were under consideration.
5.	On what date the department made a decision in connection with said tenders.
6.	Did some one ask the department to delay its decision.
7.	If so, who. and on what date this request was made to the department.
By Mr. Pouliot:-Order of the house for a return showing:
1.	At the meetings held in the office of the Minister of Railways and Canals and later in the office of the Minister of Labour, both meetings having been referred to by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals on May 22, 1931 (Hansard, page 2062, first column, lines 31-33), were memoranda of agreements published as appendix "C" of the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief, dated March 16. 1931, submitted to both above mentioned ministers.
2.	If not, at what date it was submitted to each of them.
3.	When the meetings mentioned in the first paragraph took place.
By Mr. Pouliot:-Order of the house for a return showing at whose request each of the

C.N.R.-Guarantee of Securities
items amounting to between $8,000,000 and $9,000,000 in the Canadian National Railways budget, 1930-1931, was "postponed," as referred to by the hon. Minister of Railways on May 22, 1931 (Hansard, page 2064, second column, lines 37-38).
By Mr. Pouliot:-Order of the house for a return showing:
1.	To what particular items was the switching of between $S,000,000 and $9,000,000 in the Canadian National Railways estimates for 193031 applied.
2.	Amount of each item:	(a) before such
switch was made; (b) after such switch was made.
3.	Whether all those items were included in the Canadian National Railways budget for 1930-31.
By Mr. Pouliot:-Order of the house for a return showing:
1.	Out of the estimates, totalling between
$8,000,000 and $9,000,000, which were included in the Canadian National Railway estimates and which were voted by the House of Commons last year and which were transferred to other purposes:	(a) how many transfers of
more or less than $200,000 wrent to the government to be dealt with by order in council; (b) how many transfers were sanctioned by the deputy minister after consultation with the Minister of Railways of the day.
2.	Whether all of these transfers were submitted to the railway board for approval.
3.	If not all. how many such transfers were submitted to the railway board for approval.
4.	In how many cases the railway board approved of such transfers.
5.	How many times the railway board rescinded its previous orders in order to approve such transfers.
By Mr. Pouliot:-Order of the house for a return showing:-
1.	Amount of each section (a) , (b),	(c),
(d), (e). (f) of the Canadian National Railways estimates, 1930-31, totalling $51,600,000 in vote 323 of last year.
2.	At what date the total amount of each section was entirely spent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, do you think this is in order? I do not want to seem to be unfair, but it does seem to me that these orders for returns refer to the year antecedent to the year dealt with in this resolution.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think it is at least useless. What is the use of reading these orders which already appear on the record?


Jean-François Pouliot: In just a word, Mr. Chairman, my reason is this: These orders have no numbers, and I have read them to identify them so that the information may be brought down. If it is sufficient for me to mention the date ou which these orders standing in my name were passed, I am satisfied. It i3 no pleasure for me to read them to the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is not a joy for me. The resolution will be followed by a bill when everything can be discussed in detail.


Jean-François Pouliot: Shall I be in order in discussing them on the bill? I am almost through, and I am anxious to oblige the right hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman has overlooked one fact. These are returns over which the government as such has only a very limited control. They are returns that must be provided by the railway company, not by the government. The railway company, being communicated with, sends the information forward as soon as possible. That is the difficulty. The information for which my hon. friend has asked is not in the department. It is however in the custody of the railway company and as soon as it is supplied it will be brought down. The hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) is away to-day and I do not expect he will be back until the end of the week. I shall inquire however as to whether or not the railway company has furnished the information. There is a very nice question as to the extent to which the government is warranted in calling upon the railway company for information of the character involved in the questions asked by my hon. friend. If the railway company is to be regarded as an independent corporation the questions which are sought to be answered should not, in all particulars, have been asked. Certainly some of them should not have been asked. As was suggested the other day, however, the railway company must make the decision as to what questions they will answer. I may tell my hon. friend that when the railway company determines this point and sends the information to us, such information will be brought down immediately.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am willing to do anything to expedite the business of the house. The questions which were asked were based on statements made in the house by the Minister of Railways. Had the Minister of Railways not mentioned a switching involving a sum of approximately $9,000,000, I would not have asked many of these questions. As he told us something about the switching operations however I wanted to get all the information, and that accounts for the questions I have asked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I might state further that as the matter to which my hon. friend has referred originated last year it might be considered by the special committee. My hon. friend's associates attend before the committee in sufficient numbers, and if the chair-

C.N.R.-Guarantee of Securities
man of the committee would not accord to him the privilege of asking questions I am sure his friends might be accorded that privilege. However we cannot in this committee deal with these questions in their entirety.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid the Prime Minister is not aware of the fact that the chairman of the committee has already ruled that as these questions are on the order paper they cannot be discussed in committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is very interesting. I find myself in a most embarrassing situation, because when I go down to the committee to get some information I am told to come to the House of Commons and when I ask the questions in the house, I am sent back to the committee.


Eugène Fiset: Before the resolution carries may I say that the other day the Prime Minister informed us that he was going immediately to introduce a bill based on the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is so, and with the permission of the house I purpose to ask for the second reading of the bill merely as a formal matter, and that it be referred to the committee of which the hon. member is a part.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 83, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the. guarantee by His Majesty of securities to be issued under the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1031.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the house will be good enough to concur, I move that the bill be now read a second time and be referred to the select standing committee on railways and shipping.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Concurrence will be granted on that understanding.


Eugène Fiset: Will the bill be distributed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As it is printed it will be forthwith distributed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 79, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931.
He said: This bill has been distributed. I explained the other day that it indicates the expenditures which the railway company will be -called upon to make during the calendar year 1931. The bill itself is self-explanatory because the expenditures therein provided for are divided into certain classifications. The hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) suggested that possibly a more detailed classification might be desirable, and it is my intention therefore if the house agrees to second reading, at once to move that the bill be referred to the select standing committee on railways and shipping.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is read a second time and is sent to the committee may I ask the government -for some information. If there is no objection taken by hon. members I will read a few lines from returns which were passed on May 28. I might later refer to them by mentioning the pages in Hansard in which they appear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think perhaps my hon. friend will agree that on a second reading only the principle of the bill is discussed. When -in committee questions may be asked and answered. If my hon. friend persists at this time in asking his questions I will not be in a position to answer 'because I have already spoken. As a matter of observing the rules of the house my hon. friend will undoubtedly agree that he would -be well advised to defer his questions until a later time. I assure him we will have ample opportunity not only in the select committee but when the bill is brought back to the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I now move, with leave of the house, that the bill be referred to the select standing committee on railways and shipping.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before this motion is
carried-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion is not debatable.

Canadian National Railways


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the bill referred to the select standing committee on railways and shipping.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The picture will be of interest in the select committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: With the unanimous consent of hon. members I might send the photographs of Riviere du Loup station to the clerk.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that we now revert to government notices of motion.


Eugène Fiset: I wonder if the
Prime Minister is not forgetting the special Bill No. 25, dealing with the estimates of the eastern division of the Canadian National Railways which I think has been read only the first time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are in the estimates.


Eugène Fiset: But there is a bill attached.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A supply bill.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not on the order
paper.


Eugène Fiset: Will you simply
move, then, that the estimates be submitted to the committee? Because they were refused to us last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) is in error. The eastern lines expenditures, being under the original act chargeable against the consolidated revenue fund, are in the estimates themselves, because as a matter of logical procedure that is where they should be.


Eugène Fiset: I am sorry-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read from them the
other day.


Eugène Fiset: But they are on
a separate sheet.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This discussion is out of
order; there is no motion before the house.


Eugène Fiset: But, Mr. Speaker,
this is of general interest and I think by unanimous consent we should be allowed to proceed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order to meet the
difficulty to which the hon. member for Rimouski has referred, he apparently being of the opinion that the committee would not be seized of these estimates unless the reference were made-

15SJ


Ernest Lapointe: They would have to
be referred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. In order to obviate that difficulty, I move, seconded by Mr. Rhodes:
That the estimates with respect to the expenditures under the maritime freight rates, as indicated by the estimates submitted to this house on the 13th day of April last, be referred to the special committee on railways and shipping.
That meets your difficulty?


Eugène Fiset: Thank you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The clerk informs me
that these are part of the estimates referred to the committee of supply. I thought so, but in order to meet the suggestion of my hon. friend I was willing to do almost anything.


Eugène Fiset: But we are in an exceedingly awkward situation. I brought this matter up in committee at the last meeting. I was informed by the chairman that the estimates of the eastern division of the Canadian National Railways had not been referred to that committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They do not need to
be.


Ernest Lapointe: They are referred to
the committee of supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they can be considered by that committee.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The house will now
revert to government notices of motion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Richard Bedford Bennett: That the provisions of standing order 28 respecting the committee of ways and means be suspended until debate on the budget brought down on June 1st instant he concluded.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my
hon. friend if it is understood that when this motion is carried the debate on the budget will have precedence over all other government orders until it is concluded?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except by leave of the
house. The only reason I left it open, as I explained to my right hon. friend, was to get rid of the copyright bill and the matters we have dealt with to-day. We will now pursue the normal course with respect to budaet. debates and continue to the dreary
The Budget-Mr. McDade

end. I should like to thank my right hon. friend for expediting the business of the house this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 9, consideration of the motion of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do not now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston.
George Manning McDade: Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset congratulate most heartily the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) on his able review of the finances [DOT]of the country. No more comprehensive and masterly statement giving such elaborate and detailed information as to the national finances, our trade and commerce, the estimated receipts and estimated expenditures, and the ways and means of raising supply lias ever before been presented to this house. It is a budget in the truest sense and significance of the term.
We in the province of New Brunswick are naturally proud of the right hon. gentleman who now occupies the high and enviable position of Prime Minister of this fair dominion, and there are none who rejoice more over his success than those of us in the county of Northumberland, which constituency I have the honour to represent in this parliament. It was there the right hon. gentleman laid the foundations of his career, a career which has now culminated in his occupying the highest position in the gift of his fellow citizens, and it is only natural that those in the county of Northumberland should rejoice heartily at the success he has achieved.
This budget, Mr. Speaker, is of particular moment to those of us from the maritime provinces, because we realize that we have received the greatest concession for our coal industry that has been granted to us since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald. The increase in the tariff on anthracite coal to 40 cents and on bituminous coal to 75 cents enables the great coal industry of the maritime provinces, particularly that of Nova Scotia, to compete more successfully in the Canadian market. Tha-t industry has the added advantage of the subventions which this government has decided upon, and I say (Mr. Bennett.]
that the concessions which have been given to the coal industry, not only of Nova Scotia but of New Brunswick-because in the latter province we are interested, although to a smaller extent, in coal mining-reflect very creditably indeed upon this administration.
For a number of years, Mr. Speaker, practically a solid bloc from Nova Scotia supported hon. gentlemen opposite. What did the maritime provinces-the province of Nova Scotia and the province of New Brunswick- receive from my hon. friends opposite? What did they receive from the King government, in the way of encouraging the great coal industry employing in the neighbourhood of 13,000 men out of a total of some 30,000 men engaged in this great industry throughout the Dominion? I submit that the concessions already given are a step in the right direction, and I hope there will be further concessions when the time is opportune. This is one of our basic industries, and I respectfully submit it should be given as much consideration, say, as the automobile industry, for I am told that there are double the number of men employed in the coal industry in comparison with those engaged in the manufacture of automobiles and automobile parts.
Coming to the question of unemployment, we must admit that unemployment is a world-wide condition, but statistics go to show that in this respect we are immeasurably better off in the dominion than they are in the mother country or in the United States.


John Livingstone Brown: Is that what you said last July?


George Manning McDade: I may tell my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) that then it was alleged by hon. members opposite that there was no unemployment in the country.


John Livingstone Brown: We were better off than they were in the States.


George Manning McDade: The people of Canada, I may tell my right hon. friend, spoke the truth when they spoke last July. Unemployment started under the regime of my hon. friends opposite. We are not responsible for it in any way, but we are doing our best, morning, noon and night, to counteract it. With respect to the pledge of the Prime Minister and the Conservative party made to the people of Canada that a special session of parliament would be called to deal with this all-important and paramount question, that pledge was kept, were it not for the relief granted at the special session of 1930

The Budget-Mr. McDade
this dominion would be in a very poor plight indeed.
Prior to the special session there were no substantial expenditures made in the Mira-michi district, the popular name for the county of Northumberland. It is true there were a handful of men at work in the towns of Chatham, Douglastown, and also a few at Bay du Vin and Burnt Church, but as a result of the measures adopted at the last session, innumerable men have gone to work. A return covering the expenditures for unemployment relief in the county of Northumberland has been tabled in this house. The auditor's general report for the province of New Brunswick has been presented and shows that there was expended in the county of Northumberland alone during 1930 the sum of $600,000, including the amount contributed by the federal administration under the provisions of the Unemployment Relief Act. In addition, there were further public moneys expended to relieve unemployment.
Under the regime of my hon. friends opposite the Canadian National Railways last year issued a circular to the tie contractors in the province of New Brunswick to the effect that no tie contracts would be awarded in the province of New Brunswick during 1930. That state of affairs continued until after the elections but as a result of the good offices of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) the Canadian National Railways changed their attitude and tie contracts were awarded in the county to the extent of $150,000. In this county there has been expended a total of three-quarters of a million dollars in the relief of unemployment.
While conditions in the county of Northumberland are none too good, they are not alarming. Our basic industry is lumbering, and we all know and appreciate the decline which has occurred in this industry, not only in New Brunswick but elsewhere throughout Canada. I urge that further assistance be granted, and ask my good friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) to deal charitably with the constituency which I have the honour to represent in the event of supplementary estimates being presented to this house.
This government has given Canada a tariff which will protect Canadian industry and give employment to Canadian workmen. The policies adopted by this administration have resulted in the establishment in Canada of some 87 new industries. How my hon. friends opposite would blow the trumpet if in ten short months there had been established, as
a result of their administration, this number of new industries. The increase in the tariff will protect Canadian industries and give employment to Canadian workmen. There will be no increase in the cost of the commodities to the consumer. This was assured at the last special session, and further assurances have been given by the administration in the presentation of this budget. Provision is being made for the imposition of an excise tax in the event of the manufacturer taking undue advantage of the tariff in order to raise the price to the consumer. This is a new departure because under former adminis1-trations an increase in the tariff of necessity meant an increase in the price to the consumer. I am pleased to see that the present adminstration has protected the consumer.
Statistics reveal that during the last ten years Canada imported from the United States goods to the value of $6,754,000,000, ' as opposed to exports to the United States valued at $4,623,000,000, leaving an adverse trade balance for the period of 1921A930 inclusive against Canada and in favour of United States of $2,130,000,000. I submit that there is an urgent need for higher protection for our Canadian industries and our Canadian workmen. During the last ten years while this country has been under the regime of my hon. friends opposite we have lost the enormous amount of $2,130,000,000 which might have gone into the development of Canadian industry and provided additional employment for Canadian workmen. The regime of my hon. friends opposite was characterized by great activity in the wheat industry, but the administration of that day did not give sufficient attention to the study of the great needs of diversity in industry and the equalizing of the balance betwen agriculture and industry. The statistics show the following purchases of dutiable and free goods, the values being given in round figures:
Year	Amount
1921		 $856,000,000
1922		 515,000,000
1923		 540,000,000
1924		 601,000,000
1925		 509,000,000
1926		 608,000,000
1927		 687.000,000
1928		 718,000,000
1929		 868.000,000
1930		 847,000,000
The following figures show the value, in round numbers, of imports from the United States:
24S6
The Budget-Air. McDade

Year	Amount
1921		 $560,000,000
1922		 304,000,000
1923		 380,000,000
1924		 441,000,000
1925		 427,000,000
1920	 485,000,000
1927		 479,000,000
1928		 496,000,000
1929		 521,000,000
1930		 536,000,000
When we realize and appreciate the import of these striking figures, I submit that the only policy which this administration could follow was that policy which the Canadian people endorsed in July last, the Canada first policy enunciated by my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett).
I congratulate the administration of the day on the action taken to exclude the importation of Russian goods. This is a step calculated to assist our own industries, and the leadership demonstrated by the administration is something which other nations of the world might reasonably emulate. Conditions in Russia have been described by different speakers in this house, and I submit that we do not wish, as a Christian country, to associate in trade relations with a nation that has forgotten God and the principles of Christianity. Moreover, the bringing in of Russian goods, particularly coal, at this time would place this product in competition with our own coal and this would naturally have an injurious effect upon the 'industry of the country, so much so that the wages paid would be lower. And in any event we should not have anything to do with a country which, as I say, has forgotten God and the principles of Christianity, and which has taken advantage of the men., women and children of the country to advance the selfish ends of the Soviet.
With respect to immigration, I wish to congratulate the minister upon the attitude taken in excluding immigrants except under certain well-defined regulations, until conditions improve in this country. We know that the unemployment which has existed in Canada for some time originated under the regime of my hon. friends opposite; yet no steps were taken by that government to alleviate the situation. Immigrants were induced to come here, and I say it was unfair to them because misrepresentations were employed-not by the administration but by the railway systems. It was also unfair to our own labour, at a time when there was unemployment in the country, to bring in people to compete with our own people. We know what the results have been. Yet the administration of my hon. friends opposite went out of power without taking the one bold and 
logical course of cancelling the existing immigration laws. It remained for the government of my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) to take that one bold and logical step and adopt the policy that there should be no further emigration from any country whatever except under certain well known regulations. And we know that the regulations that have been adopted will be honoured in the observance and not in the breach, as was characteristic of the conduct of the department in the past in many instances. I have the fullest confidence in the ability and capacity of the hon. gentleman who has been called to the position of Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) and I know that he will see that the regulations are strictly adhered to. I believe it will be time enough to revise those regulations when Canada does offer to immigrants the opportunities which we should like her to extend.
As proof positive of the fact that the immigration regulations are being respected and adhered to, I would point out that the average general decrease in immigration in April, 1931, as compared with April, 1930, was 83 per cent. The decrease in European immigration was 97 per cent, and in the rest, apart from British or American, 95 per cent. British immigration fell off to 81 per cent and that from the United1 States to 44 per cent. Taking the whole calendar year 1930, there was an average decrease of 36 per cent, the figures being: January, 19 per cent; February, 14 per cent; March, 2 per cent; April, 34 per cent; May, 35 per cent; June, 40 per cent; July, 49 per cent; August, 41 per cent; September, 47 per cent; October, 50 per cent; November, 55 per cent; and December, 58 per cent. It will be noted that most of the more substantial decreases took place after the advent of the new administration and the enforcement of the new regulations.
Evidently the province of New Brunswick thought it was time for a change. The province I have the honour to come from voted almost solidly in support of the new administration. Even my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot), for whom I have the highest personal regard, had the fight of his life. Let me congratulate him most heartily upon having carried the great county of Gloucester by the smallest majority given any candidate in that county in the history of confederation. To use a race track expression, my hon. friend the ex-Postmaster General just got under the wire. Let me tell him, and again in all fairness to him, because we are the best of friends, that the handwriting is on the wall. The hon. gentleman did not make a tremendous success of himself at

The Budget-Mr. Euler
Ottawa. He was in a new environment, a new arena, and one too large indeed for the hon. gentleman. Let me tell him that there is a young man in the county of Gloucester awaiting the opportunity to meet him in the next political campaign, when-I say this to my hon. friend with all due deference-the ex-Postmaster General will be sunk into political oblivion.
My hon. friend the other evening had some reference to make, when the house was in committee of supply, on the estimates of the fisheries department, to the new regulations affecting the fishermen. I thank him for the interest he manifests in the fishermen of the country. But let me assure him that before he raised his voice in protest against the new regulations the members from New Brunswick had made representations to the minister and action was being taken to see that the regulations, in so far as they might impose hardships on the fishermen, would be amended.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Manning McDade: Hon. gentlemen laugh. Let me tell my hon. friend that although he was accorded an acclamation when he came to the house from Gloucester in 1926 to occupy the high position of Postmaster General, he did not make any great financial success of his administration of that department. In 1927 he made a deficit, in the conduct of his department, of $1,629,000. In 1928 .he was a little harder on the people of Canada, having gone behind $1,850,000. And in 1929 he went still further behind to the tune of $2,312,000. In 1930-an election being imminent-he did not loosen the purse strings to such an extent. Still he achieved in that year a deficit of $2,067,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about 1931?


George Manning McDade: I am coming to 1931. The hon. gentleman went into the air, because in 1931, while the actual figures are not available, the estimate deficit in the Post Office Department is between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000, as a result of the administration of my hon. friend the ex-Postmaster General-a consequence of the policies initiated by him. We all like my hon. friend, but, as regards what happened in the province of New Brunswick, the fact is that ten representatives of the great Liberal-Conservative party were returned by very substantial majorities-my hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Smith), by the largest majority given any
candidate there since confederation-while my hon. friend opposite, as I have said, just got in under the wire.
There are several other matters which I could discuss, but my time is limited, and I appreciate very much the indulgence of the house. In conclusion, I have the greatest confidence in Canada, with her wealth of natural resources, the products of the sea, the soil, the mines and the forest and our great industrial plants. I look toward the future with a spirit of optimism. I have the utmost confidence in the ability and capacity of the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and I believe Canada, guided by their leadership, will go forward to immeasurable prosperity. I believe the government will tackle our common problems with a grim determination to see them through in order to restore prosperity to Canada and happiness to the various elements that go to make up this country of ours.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McDade), who has just taken his seat, will not regard it as discourteous on my part if I do not follow him into the realm of the speech which he has just delivered to the house, except possibly in one particular to which I shall refer in due course. Indeed, my reason for injecting myself into the debate is largely, although not entirely, because of certain statements which were made by the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) and by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) with respect to the national railways. Frankly, I have some misgiving because of the fact that while the Prime Minister made a very exhaustive analysis of the financial situation of the country, including the position of the national railways, to my disappointment I could not read into his speech anything that betrayed any friendliness for the national railways. When he was followed by the hon. member for Stanstead in a speech in which that hon. member very definitely placed himself on record as being opposed not only to the practice which was followed in the conduct of the national railways, but also to the principle, that of public ownership, I felt that some of us who are the friends of public ownership as exemplified in the operation of the national railways, should take issue with him on that point and say to him that if he represents the opinion of the government and if what he said indicates that in any sense this is merely the preliminary of a propaganda against the national railways,
The Budget-Mr. Euler

they are playing with fire and will find they will receive the condemnation of the great majority of the Canadian people.
These attacks upon the national railways come periodically, the last one being, I think, some seven or eight years ago, shortly after the amalgamation of the various roads. We had then in the house and sometimes from both sides attacks made upon the national railways and the principle of public ownership. We had also in the papers what was known as the "whisper of death," which whisper itself died a natural death in the atmosphere of prosperity which came to this country. At that time the national railways were losing quite heavily. Some people even said-and I think the observation came from the party which is now on this side of the house but which was then on the other side -that we should sell the road to the Canadian Pacific for the sum of one dollar. As I say, the national railways had been losing a great deal of money, and I want to remind the house that the reason why the railways were taken over was that they had failed under private ownership. Then as now the enemies of public ownership and of the railways advanced that false syllogism, if I may use the term:	The national railways are
losing money; they are operated under public ownership; therefore public ownership must be a failure. Everyone knows the country took over a series of systems of disconnected railways: the old Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the National Transcontinental, the old Grand Trunk, to which was also joined as a matter of operation the old Intercolonial railway. Everyone knows that these railways-and I shall not include the Intercolonial-had failed absolutely under private ownership. When they were taken over, it became the duty of those who were placed in charge of them to combine and coordinate them into one great railway system. That, and their proper equipment, required the expenditure of enormous sums. I need not say it has been the opinion of the people of Canada and of people outside Canada that great success has been attained in the amalgamation and operation of that system.
Until a year or less than a year ago we heard no complaint with regard to the national railways. The record was one of consistent progress. I think I may say without contradiction that politics were eliminated from the management of those railways; that the service became excellent so that the people of Canada took a pride in the operation of their own system. The deficits were being reduced 
from year to year, so much so that our hon. friends opposite-and I do not know that I blame them particularly for doing so-began to speak of the success of the railways and to claim credit for it. I may mention the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) as one who commented on the success that had attended the operation of the national railways. Perhaps they feared, quite naturally, that the King government which was then in office might receive too much credit and make a little political capital out of the success of the system. Therefore they said that the former government should not receive credit for what had been accomplished but rather the Conservative party should have it because they were the ones responsible for initiating the amalgamation of the roads. I do not care which party takes credit for the success of the national railways. There were on both sides men who were ardent supporters of the principle o.f public ownership, just as there were on both sides men who were not so much enamoured of it. Now since the whole world, both railways of Canada and the railways of the United States have fallen upon evil days, the enemies of public ownership, who had remained silent while the road was making such undoubted progress, are out again in full cry. Have they forgotten that the national railways were taken over because private ownership was a failure? Do they not know that in the United States practically every railroad of any importance and many of no great importance had all at some time or another gone into the hands of receivers, and this all under private ownership?
The Prime Minister inferentially and the hon. member for Stanstead very definitely have charged extravagance in the matter of both capital expenditure and maintenance. I have no intention of defending extravagance on the part of anyone, and if it can be conclusively proven that the extravagance is gross, that it seriously impedes the national progress and the progress of the railway itself, I have no defence to make. I have not any doubt that in the operation of an enterprise so stupendous, so enormous as the Canadian National Railways, where they expend each year literally hundreds of millions of dollars, where they operate over 22,000 miles of road, some mistakes have been made. The management of the road is not superhuman; they will make some mistakes, but as far as I have been able to learn, those mistakes have not been of such a serious nature that they should wipe out the undoubted excellence of the management that has been displayed to date.

The Budget-Mr. Euler
One particular branch of the activities of the railway which has been mentioned as an extravagance has been the building of hotels, golf courses and things of that sort. The other day in the railways and shipping committee, Sir Henry Thornton, the president of the road, made an explanation of the moneys expended on those activities. He stated, which I think is true, that the tourist business of Canada is perhaps the second largest industry of the country, that it brings into this country something like $300,000,000 per annum. He made a comparison between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and he paid all sorts of fine tributes to the Canadian Pacific. He stated that the Canadian Pacific had expended in the last eight years no less a sum than $45,000,000 in building hotels and in the general promotion of the tourist business, as against something like $16,000,000 expended by the Canadian National Railways.
The hon. member for Stanstead made an observation the other day with regard to some $604,000,000 which had been advanced I think almost entirely before the Canadian National Railways as a public-owned system took charge of the various roads comprising the system. He said with reference to this $604,000,000, which is still carried on the books of the nation as an inactive asset and is apparently still recognized by the railway as a sum upon which interest should be charged, that he saw no reason why the interest on that $604,000,000 should not be added to the deficit. I take issue with my hon. friend on that point, for the simple reason that that sum is a legacy from private ownership, and is not chargeable to public ownership at all. I would ask him or anyone else who holds the same opinion, what would have happened if the roads now comprising the national railways had been allowed to go into bankruptcy and had been sold to private interests, at scrap value, no doubt. Does he believe that in that case this country would have had any chance whatsoever of receiving back the $664,000,000 that had been advanced to these roads, or of receiving any securities upon which we could have collected interest? I think that in justice to the principle of public ownership and in justice to ourselves the whole of that $604,000,000 ought to be wiped off the slate because we do not expect to get the money back at any time.


Mr. HACKETT:: Is the hon. member
aware that a large proportion of that sum, all of it I think with the exception of $157,-
000,000, was advanced after the bankruptcy of the roads but before consolidation?


William Daum Euler: I know this, that the money that was so advanced, possibly with the exception my hon. friend mentions, was advanced at that time because of the fact that the roads had failed under private ownership, and the reason I am making the statement that it should be written off the books is that when comparison is made, as it is constantly being made, between the Canadian Pacific Railway as a privately owned road-and I have no ill word to say of the Canadian Pacific Railway-and the Canadian National Railways, which' exemplifies the principle of public ownership, it is not fair constantly to charge the publicly owned road with what is really the result of private operation. If we disregard, then, as my hon. friend suggested the other day, the interest on the $604,000,000, which was lost in any case whether we took the roads over or did not take them over, we have I believe an average annual deficit for the last eight years of from $10,000,000 to $14,000,000. There is some difference of opinion as to the amount, but we will say that it is from $10,000,000 to $14,000,000. That is quite a large sum, Mr. Speaker, I admit, but I will say this without any fear of contradiction, that I believe it was well worth it if it was only because of the fact that the people of this country, both through the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways, had experienced great benefits because of the efficient operation and the service that is being given by these roads. I am not a communist or a socialist, Mr. Speaker, but I am, as I have almost always been, a believer in the principle of public ownership within reasonable limits. I believe in public ownership of those utilities and services upon which depends the prosperity of the mass of the Canadian people, and of services which cannot well be operated by the individual and which in so many cases lend themselves naturally to monopoly. Of such, I think, is the operation of railways. I fear that there are a great many people who condemn public ownership because they do not quite appreciate what the purpose of public ownership really is. To my mind public ownership implies, first of all, service, and service at cost. Private ownership necessarily implies, first, the making of profit, and if good service is given by a privately-owned company like the Canadian Pacific Railway it is primarily done for the purpose
The Budget-Mr. Euler

of securing profits. That is not making any reflection upon private ownership.
I have also heard it stated that we do not want a monopoly in railways. That may be true, but I say this, that the evils of monopoly do not appear in publicly owned utilities as they do in privately owned utilities because of the very fact I stated a moment ago, that the principle upon which private services are operated is the principle of profit. In public ownership monopoly would have no vicious results because the incentive to profit is not present under public ownership.
I have said that the people of this country are proud of the Canadian National Railways, and while the railway for the moment -we do not know how long it may last-has fallen upon evil days, and while we do not like to see a deficit of some $20,000,000 as there was last year, which the Canadian taxpayer to some exent, if not entirely, must pay, should we not remember that the same condition applies relatively to all other railways, and applies not only to railways but to every private business enterprise of almost any kind? And why should we now single out the railways for condemnation of the principle of public ownership because we have a general depression? The railways have had to cope with conditions that have not been faced by other enterprises. I speak now of the competition that is presented by the operation of trucks and automobiles which have cut tremendously into the revenues of the railways. Again, our railways, including the Canadian Pacific Railway, especially during the last year and the year before, have suffered a great diminution in their receipts because the wheat of western Canada was not moving as usual through the ordinary channels.
It is notorious, Mr. Speaker, that a great deal of waste occurs in the operation of the rival lines. I think there is no doubt about that. There is a great deal of duplication, and the inference by some who support private ownership is that the proper solution of the difficulty is the amalgamation of the two roads. I think it was about eight years ago that in this house I had the temerity to make a speech in which I drew attention to the fact that it was pretty well established by what I regarded as the highest authority in the country that as much as $100,000,000 could be saved if the railways of Canada could be merged into one system. I said then that the amalgamation of the two roads might very well be considered in order to eliminate the waste, but that if such a merging did take place it should be Under public ownership, and not under private
EMr. Euler.]
ownership. Some interest was taken in the matter at that time in the .press, but it was not very long before the country became very prosperous, and no more interest was taken in the subject. But I did feel then, as I feel now, that the logic of events and the necessities of the case may still some day force that amalgamation, and when it does come, if it does, I for one would say that it must be under public ownership and not under private ownership. So much for the national railways.
I would like to deal for a few moments with the budget, and I want my hon. friends opposite to believe me when I say that I have no intention of dealing with it from a partisan standpoint but strictly on its merits. The Prime Minister and his government to-day are facing heavier responsibilities than any other government of Canada has faced. They have imposed heavy taxation, I am very certain that even with the taxation that they have imposed there will be an increase in the national debt when the fiscal year has expired.
The government has put a tax of 40 cents a ton on hard coal, in spite of the fact that hard coal is still the fuel used by most of the people in Ontario. Of course, the tax imposed will result in an increase in the price of hard coal. On soft coal the duty has been increased from 50 to 75 cents per ton. Postage has been increased by 50 per cent. The stamp tax, or nuisance tax, which I had hoped would be entirely eliminated, an action which would have met with the approval of every business man in the country, has been amplified. Cheques under $10 because of the new legislation will have to carry the excise stamp. I am sorry the government saw fit to impose that tax. The tariff on automobiles has been increased, and a tariff has been placed on oranges. I may remind hon. members that oranges are no more produced in this country than is hard coal. Now we come to the sales tax. May I add at this time that I am not particularly criticizing all of these items; I admit that something has to be done. However the government has seen fit to increase the sales tax from one per cent to 4 per cent, a tax which falls most heavily upon those who are least able to pay it. Substantial increases have been made in many tariff items. The government may well feel its responsibilities all the more because of the fact-and I think I will not be contradicted by my hon. friends opposite-that they succeed a government which gave efficient administration without a trace of scandal, a government which consistently reduced taxation from year to year, which consistently reduced the national debt

The Budget-Mr. Euler
from year to year, which had a series of surpluses from year to year, which registered trade expansion in foreign countries consequent upon its policies of development of foreign trade, and promoted a prosperity in Canada such as had never before been known.
My hon. friends opposite have the responsibility of dealing with the present situation, which in itself is serious enough, and of carrying out the promises which they made during the election campaign. I have no intention of taking a great deal of time in dealing with the election promises to which reference has been made so often during the present and the last session, yet it is almost impossible fairly to represent the present situation without making some few comments in that regard.
Concerning the promises made I refer particularly to the matter of unemployment. The Prime Minister and his supporters most definitely promised throughout the campaign that they would end unemployment. I say that our friends opposite cannot get away with the excuse that they have not had sufficient time to fulfil their promises, and that they were not going to fulfil them immediately. I appreciate fully the fact that it was not possible for them to end unemployment immediately; they were faced with a world condition and nobody expected them to end it immediately. I say however that willingly or otherwise they allowed the impression to go abroad among the public during the election campaign that they were going to end unemployment at once and that almost immediately every man would have a job. Indeed it has been stated and also denied that some of my hon. friends opposite said unemployment would be ended in the short period of three days. I am not going to attribute that statement to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, because although it was ascribed to him he has denied the statement. Perhaps if the statement was made it carried the biblical meaning that a thousand years are but as a day. If we accept that meaning, then the government has three thousand years in which to end unemployment, and nobody will be able to say they did not fulfil their promises. I am not one of those who have talked blue ruin; I never have done so because I have a great deal of confidence that Canada will recover. Nevertheless unemployment is a great deal worse to-day than it was at the time of the election. I hope my hon. friends are in a position to do something to remedy unemployment, not merely to relieve those who unfortunately find themselves unemployed. The
820,000,000 which -was voted during the special session did nothing towards a proper solution of the difficulty; it merely brought temporary relief to those who were suffering. Certainly it did not go to the crux of the situation and bring about a condition whereby unemployment would be ended altogether. In connection with the promises made by my hon. friends opposite I make this criticism- and I think it is a fair one-that to the extent to which they owe office to the promises which, they did not or could not carry out, they are reaping where they did not sow. . Certainly however nobody envies them the harvest they are now gathering.
I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister prescribes the raising of the tariff as the cure-all of our economic troubles. I will admit immediately that the tariff presents a most difficult problem. My hon. friends on this side of the house know that I am not one of those who say that the tariff cannot be used for the promotion of industry. I have never been at any time, however, and I am not now, in favour of an extremely high tariff which extracts undue profits from the consumer, or a tariff which will lead to reprisals on the part of other nations with which we do business, and thus destroy our export business. To my mind the ideal condition, in the world would be one wherein we had no tariffs whatever. I suppose the ideal condition, if we could have it, would be an entire absence of international barriers, a condition under which industries would thrive in the places best adapted to their operation, as near as possible to their markets, to water power, population, and efficient and economic means of transporting the necessary raw materials. That condition, however, is not possible. The matter which troubles me particularly is that while theoretically every man must be a free trader, how are we going to be free traders in a protectionist world all the countries of which are from year to year raising higher customs barriers? We must all admit, however, that the principle applies that if we do not buy goods from other countries we cannot sell to them.
I should like to point out a rather peculiar condition which came to my notice the other day. We know there were some fairly drastic upward revisions of the tariff at the special session of parliament, particularly as applied to commodities coming from the United States. I find that while our entire imports decreased about 30 per cent since the last special session, the importations from the United States of dutiable goods decreased
The Budget-Mr. Euler

32-8 per cent and the importations of free goods decreased 34-4 per cent. I am not going to place any interpretation upon those figures, although the apparent conclusion would be that the trade depression had more to do with the reduction of importations to this country than the tariff which was passed at the last session.
During the presentation of his budget address the Prime Minister read a list of 87 industries which since the special session had begun operations in Canada. Among those mentioned was the Aero Corporation of Canada situated at Kitchener, Ontario. As that is the city from which I come I have tried to find the location of that factory. I am afraid however that the industry has been very well named-it is entirely up in the air. I can find no trace - of it-only rumour. I hope the other industries my hon. friend has mentioned are more substantial than the one mentioned as having been established in the city of Kitchener.
Hon. members know I have always believed in a reasonable or moderate degree of protection. In fact, I agree with the words of the Prime Minister himself when he described a tariff which would permit of competition. I would like hon. members to observe particularly the word "competition." Throughout the last election campaign the Prime Minister on many platforms in the country advocated a tariff which would admit of competition and equal opportunity for producers within our own country. I do not think any hon. member could find a great deal of fault with such a tariff. In fact I might go a little further and say I would be a little bit inclined to favour the Canadian producer over the foreign manufacturer.


Mr. GEARY:: Does the hon. member for Weyburn agree with my hon. friend?


Edward James Young: Sure he does.


William Daum Euler: I do not see how anybody could reasonably object to measures for the good of our own people which would guard them against lower standards of living in other countries, or the dumping of foreign goods. But I should like to call attention to the danger of an extremely high tariff. If you make your tariff extremely high you will attract industries from other countries that will put our own industries out of business, and that means the dumping of capital. I do not see any difference between the dumping of capital and the dumping of commodities.
I should like to have a statement from the Prime Minister as to exactly what is his

policy in regard to tariff protection. I have heard him say repeatedly that he is not a high protectionist. I have heard him say in this house that he does not want to erect a tariff wall around this country that will absolutely exclude foreign goods. I have heard him say that he is in favour of competition and equal opportunity for the producers of this country. Competition does not mean exclusion; equal opportunity does not mean exclusion. I think I am doing him justice when I say he does want absolutely to keep out of Canada all the goods that Canada can make-that he wants to sell to other countries the goods that they cannot produce themselves, and to allow into this country only goods that we cannot produce ourselves. That was his declaration this session.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What about
oranges?


William Daum Euler: I wonder what sort of goods we can take from New Zealand that we do not produce ourselves. I wonder what goods we can import from Great Britain that we do not produce ourselves? What Great Britain wants to sell to us are mostly the things that we manufacture ourselves. I wonder what he would sell to the United States that they do not produce themselves?


An hon. MEMBER:: Whisky.


William Daum Euler: He was even in favour of the prohibition of the sale of whisky to the United States. But is he willing to let our raw materials go to the United States? That is against his declared policy-about which we hear so little now-to ensure that our raw materials are all manufactured in this country. I am afraid if we take those four statements of his as to tariff policy they are inconsistent with one another and unworkable.
Besides, I would say that an extremely high tariff policy has had its day. I hope that we never have an extremely high tariff in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have got it now.


William Daum Euler: Well, I hope we will nevet have continued an extremely high tariff in this country. We have an object lesson right before our eyes in the United States, which to-day is one of the most highly protected countries in the world, but has 7,000,000 people unemployed.


Ernest Lapointe: And Australia.


William Daum Euler: Yes, and Australia. The
United States have found out that their export trade has diminished by one half, that

The Budget-Mr. Euler
forty-five other countries have shown them that they can play the same game and have erected almost prohibitory tariffs against the United States. And if the fact that Canada is putting up an extremely high tariff all along the line hammers home the lesson to our friends in the United States that it does not pay to erect an extremely high tariff wall against the rest of the world, then perhaps it will have done some good. I had the opportunity recently of conversing with a gentleman from Pittsburgh, a member of the Republican party, which is the traditional high tariff party in the United States. I said to him: "We are constantly reading in the newspapers that even the Republican party in ycur country, your bankers, your businessmen, your great industrialists, are beginning to feel that you have gone entirely too far in the matter of high tariff." He replied: "You are absolutely right, that feeling has developed very strongly in the United States."
I had intended to read some articles which I think bear out what I have said, but I am afraid I have not sufficient time at my disposal. But the point I do want to impress on my hon. friends opposite-although I do not suppose I have any great influence over them-is this: Let us be reasonable at least and not go to the extreme in high tariff policy, a policy which has proved so detrimental to those who have adopted it. Let us profit by the experience of others. I might, perhaps, quote Sir Robert Falconer, president of Toronto university-I do not know his politics -who, speaking at Kitchener last January, said:
We must not allow barriers to arise that will separate us from others, with the idea that we can live unto ourselves. Such barriers were one of the biggest evils of the present time. Nations and races have never before been so interdependent, yet they are trying more than ever to shut themselves off, under the delusion that in such a way, prosperity might come to them.
Canon Cody, a good Conservative, and a former member of a Conservative government in Ontario, made a somewhat similar speech, also in Kitchener, in which he described the reasons for the economic depression but never gave as one of those reasons that the tariff was too low. In the League of Nations as well-I had the honour two years ago of being a delegate-there is a very decided trend towards lower tariffs. In fact there is a movement looking to a combination of the nations of Europe on a policy of lowering tariffs, and, indeed, wiping them out altogether. In passing may I say that if we neglect any opportunity we may have of making some sort of
trade arrangement with Great Britain, we may ultimately find that Great Britain has joined that group of nations and that we ourselves are on the outside with the United States.
I believe the government has a mandate to readjust the tariff, but they have no mandate to put the tariff so extremely high as, for example, during the special session last September, when they put the tariff on glass so high that it would have been profitable for us to pension every possible employee of that imaginary glass factory in the city of Hamilton and still save the consumers of glass nearly a million dollars a yeaT.
Our manufacturers themselves have a direct interest in not putting the tariff too high-in order to preserve their foreign markets. The factory equipment of this country is designed for export trade. In my home city of Kitchener the manufacturers export some 20 per cent of their product, and right now we have an example of what a high tariff may do. This government imposed a tariff of 8 cents on New Zealand butter, with the result that the New Zealand government have cancelled their agreement with us and have put us on the same' basis as the United States. In consequence of this, two large concerns in Kitchener have lost their market in that country for automobile tires. My right hon. friend has spoken of "blasting" his way into the markets of the world. I may receive criticism from my own side of the house, but I have no great fault to find with bargaining, because after all that is a primary principle in trade. But human nature is much the same now as it always has been, and the salesman who does not at least have a courteous, considerate and friendly approach will find that he cannot sell goods, especially when he has to meet such strong competition as prevails to-day.
I intended to comment on a few details of the budget itself and to deal with the fuel policy as there declared, but I shall not have sufficient time to do so. I think the people of Ontario and of the other provinces are perfectly willing to make some sacrifices for the sake of the general good of the dominion, but I do not like to see them asked to make sacrifices which null not have the desired result. I refer now fo the fuel policy of the government. They have put up the tariff on hard coal, coal which is not produced in this country, and which simply makes the cost of hard coal greater to the people of Ontario. They have put a higher tariff on soft coal, designed I suppose to help the coal industry of the maritime provinces; they have raised the tariff to 75 cents a ton. Let me
The Budget-Mr. Euler

show how that operates against the industries of western Ontario. Our people can buy slack coal in the United States at as low a price as 60 cents a ton. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) has been given authority, and has applied it, to say that that coal is worth II a ton. This means if it is brought in at 60 cents a ton he applies a dumping duty of 40 cents; add 40 cents to the 75 cents a ton duty which this budget imposes, and you get an aggregate duty of $1.15 on a commodity worth 60 cents, or a duty of neaidy 200 per cent. Now, one might not object, if that actually were going to do some good to our friends in the maritime provinces, but I doubt whether it will bring a ton of maritime coal to western Ontario. We are told sometimes by my friends from the west that they are being sacrificed for the interests of the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec. I do not think that is a fair charge. The people of Ontario and Quebec have been generous. They made no complaint when the maritime provinces received a reduction of 20 per cent in their freight rates. They made no complaint when the western farmers were given a five cent reduction on the freight rate on export wheat. They made no complaint when the Hudson Bay railway was constructed, which involves a capital expenditure of $50,000,000 and which, I think, will mean annual deficits for years to come. They made no complaint about the Crowsnest pass rate, but I say that they should complain if they are asked to make sacrifices because of the duty placed on coal, which duty will in my opinion be of no benefit to anyone.
I am opposed to the Russian embargo. I think it is inconsistent, unbusinesslike and ineffective. It will hurt no one but ourselves. The government has put on the prohibited list such commodities as coal, lumber, furs, asbestos and pulp. We imported none of these commodities except coal, and the only coal we did import was hard coal which we do not produce ourselves and we import less than $2,000,000 worth of that. The only good we do by putting hard coal from Russia on the prohibited list is to throw business to our friends the United States, who never have done a great deal for us. I have tried honestly to ascertain a reason for this action, but the only argument advanced is that we do not want to have anything to do with Russia because she is an ungodly nation and because she has a system of government with which we do not agree. I think the hon. member for Laibelle (Mr. Bourassa) has given a complete answer to this argument, and I am not going to deal further with the, matter except 
to say that when we complain about Russia being an ungodly nation, let us first clean our own doorstep. Are we acting as a Christian nation when we declare economic war against another country?
I do not desire to be misunderstood. I hold no brief for Russia. She, has done a great deal that is wrong. She has oppressed her people-there are people in my own riding who have had to flee from that country. I have no sympathy with the method adopted, but I do not see, that we can accomplish anything by this action except harm to ourselves. We have the inconsistency-I almost said hypocrisy-or our high commissioner in Great Britain, who it has been pressed upon us by the Prime Minister represents the policies and wishes of this government, calling into conference delegates from Russia. Those delegates must have been laughing up their sleeves when we first said that we wanted to have nothing to do with them and then foy a side door procedure asked them to do something for us. That conference failed, as of course it would. I have examined this action from every point of view and I cannot but find that it is unbusinesslike, unethical, useless, injurious and provocative. Canada is the only nation to take such action. We should repeal it now, for we shall ultimately do so in any case.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like a few minutes in which to make a general statement with regard to conditions throughout Canada and the world in general. Any hon. member who has observed without prejudice the course of events surely must have acquired the opinion that our present economic system has to some extent outlived its usefulness and if not abandoned must at least be improved upon. As I said before, I am not a socialist, but I hope I am not afraid of new ideas because of their source.. Surely there must be something radically wrong with this country and with the world in general when we have these constantly recurring periods of inflation and depression. There is something wrong with a country which, although overflowing with everything the people need, is faced with misery and want indescribable. I hold no brief for Russia, but she is making a great experiment and we should not be prejudiced against that which is new even though it be Russian. Some good may come out of Russia, as it did out of the French revolution. There is no use in saying that a thing cannot be done. I have a conviction that Russia is working out something which if we do not accept-I have no thought whatever of accepting communism-may have some value, even if it only proves their theories wrong. Forty or fifty years ago we

The Budget-Mr. Baker
would have been shocked at some, of the things which we now accept as commonplace in this country, such as public ownership and the social legislation in our provincial and federal legislatures.
The Prime Minister has asked for the cooperation of all hon. members. He was chosen by the people of Canada, whether wisely or unwisely, and he has a right to ask for the cooperation of every conscientious member of this house. I feel sure. I can speak for all of them as quite willing to give of the ' best that is in them, and that includes myself. The proposals made by the Prime Minister must however commend themselves to our judgment, as being in the best interests of this country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. RICHARD L. BAKER (Toronto-
Northeast) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I
would like to have the honour of addressing the house on the subject matter of this debate. However, previous to doing so, sir, I wish to extend to you my congratulations on the exalted post which you occupy in this house, * and, I also wish to express to you my sincere admiration on the excellent manner in which you preside over the proceedings of the house in both official languages. I trust that you may live long and in the best of health, because, bear in mind, you will be called upon, for many years to come, to serve this house in the post which you at present so ably fill and with the same government on your right.
May I, sir, convey to you and to hon. members of the house, my compliments and those of my constituents; I trust that we, members of this house, shall always work together for the *welfare of the people of Canada and that we shall live here in harmony for many years to come, of course, with the present government in office and under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) a farsighted statesman.
It seems a long time since I last addressed this house, I am pleased to state that my surroundings are better than in 1926. I was then occupying a seat on your left, sir, with about a hundred Conservatives filled with enthusiasm, but to-day I am on your right, sir, with 135 Conservatives happy, satisfied and supporting the government. All the provinces are well represented in this government, and we are pleased to note that 24 members come from the province of Quebec.
Yes, 24 members who speak the French language; and I hope that after the next election we shall lay claim to 50 members from Quebec and still more members from the other provinces.
It is a pleasure for me to endeavour for a few moments to speak the French language out of courtesy for the hon. members who speak French and also in acknowledgment of the two official languages of this country.
The house is composed of 245 members. We are all Canadians. We have Canadian members who speak the French language and Canadian members who speak English; and no members designated as French or English. I approve the stand taken by the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) when he states that our country comprises two great and noble races, and the two are here to remain; therefore we must fraternise. Look at Switzerland, it is a happy and peaceful country although some of its inhabitants speak French and others speak German. It is an excellent example for us to follow in Canada. In my opinion if more people in Canada spoke the two official languages it would be an excellent thing for the country.
I should like very much to speak more at length in French, but I cannot do so to-day because my vocabulary is limited and I have but forty minutes at my disposal; you readily understand that I can be better understood in English. Therefore, sir, with your kind permission I shall continue my remarks in English.
Referring to the all important question of the day, the budget of 1931, I observe that the same old custom is in vogue which many members have followed in the past, that of giving from their viewpoint a name to the annual financial statement. This budget plus the tariff changes and the dumping clauses introduced at the special session last September I would name the Bennett budget- a business budget delivered by a business man in a business manner. This budget, as I view it, is the national policy as originally introduced by the famous Sir John A. Macdonald in 1879, brought up to date by the Right Hon. Richard B. Bennett. This is the first opportunity for many a year, unfortunately for Canada, that the Conservative party have been in a position to put in operation a fiscal policy of adequate protection which they have always adhered to as the correct policy for Canada-adequate protection for all industry: agriculture, manufacturing, mining, the fisheries, et cetera.
Personally, I regard the introduction of this budget as the beginning of a new era which will mean greater success and greater
The Budget-Mr. Baker

prosperity to our dominion. The fact of the matter is that Canada was sick and decided she would call in a new doctor. She has called in that doctor in the person of the present Prime Minister. He and his cabinet have diagnosed the case and are now starting to administer the necessary medicine. It is true that some of our friends opposite regard this medicine as severe, but it is the medicine which Canada needs. Usually a doctor does not ask the patient's opinion of the medicine he prescribes; he prescribes what he thinks is good for him. The patient will soon now begin to improve, and as is usually the case, when the condition of a patient is showing improvement the medicine can perhaps be modified.
I do not intend to attempt to go into all the items of the budget in detail; that will be done in committee of the whole. We have heard many points of view expressed with regard to the budget. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) gave his criticism as official spokesman for the opposition, and he did wonderfully well for what little complaint he had to work on. We also heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) reply to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, which he did in a magnificent manner. I think we will all agree that the minister certainly did not leave much ground for the opposition to stand on when he got through with his answer to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. There are a few important points, however, with respect to which I desire to make some observations.
It has been generally admitted, even by fair members of the opposition, that this budget is perhaps the most complete statement of the country's affairs that has ever been presented, and there is no doubt that its thoroughness and accuracy are appreciated and have been well received by the people throughout Canada. Of course a budget which increases taxation is rarely popular, but the Prime Minister, does not desire to consider popularity; he is simply dealing courageously with facts based on the necessities of the country under prevailing conditions. Had the same course been followed always it would have been appreciated by all Canadians, and we now have a precedent established for a correct basis for the laying down of future budgets.
For example, the last budget was not based on this principle. If it had been, it would not have been necessary to provide for so much increased taxation in the present budget. When the previous government were

making up their budget in 1930, a deficit was to their knowledge, being created. The revenues were declining and they should have been aware that thes'' were not budgeting in sufficiently large quantities of money to meet the requirements of 1930. This proved to be the result. Had they, as they should have done, anticipated the decline in revenues, they should not have removed the one per cent sales tax as they did. As a matter of fact they should added one per cent to the sales tax, and had they done so, there would have been $40,000,000 less to be raised in this budget in order to make up the deficit which occurred last year. That would have been fairer and better business. We all agree that the object of the budget was to raise sufficient money to carry on for the year ending March 31, 1932. This budgeting had to be done regardless of which party was in power. We have heard a great deal of criticism from the other side in connection with the raising of the sales tax to 4 per cent, but the previous government on one occasion, and quite correctly, increased the sales tax to 6 per cent in order to obtain the money required to carry on the business of the country. The Minister of Finance in this budget is not bidding for popularity; he is, as I say, figuring on the requirements for the year.
I desire to make a few observations in re- ' gard to the question of wheat. The assistance which the government has decided upon is no doubt appreciated by every hon. member.
It is certainly a good move; while wheat is low in price, assistance of this kind is a good policy. If the price advances, the assistance will not be necessary, and no doubt when that time comes the matter will be dealt with accordingly.
As regards the question of wheat production,
I stand exactly where I stood when I addressed the house on the budget in 1926. I then said that in my opinion this country was too much dependent on the export of wheat and that Russia would soon be a serious menace in our British market. Perhaps some hon. members who are present will remember that occasion.
I suggested that it would be advisable to turn as much land in the west as possible to mixed farming, and I think a policy of that sort is much more acceptable now than it was then. Had it been put into effect at that time, we would not be facing the dilemma on the wheat question that we are facing to-day. I would suggest that the farmers of the west take advantage as soon as possible of the arrangements made by the government; those whose land can be used for mixed farming

The Budget-Mr. Baker
should as promptly as possible devote less of their land to wheat growing and set aside a portion for mixed farming, particularly when we are importing hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of farm products annually. We did so in 1926 and we are doing it yet to a lesser degree, and even that should really not be necessary.
Many hon. members may ask:	What do
you know about farming? I do not presume to know about farming; I am simply applying business principles. For example, if we have in a factory 100 machines producing one line of goods and we find that the market is being glutted in this * line, we endeavour to take say fifty of these machines and turn them to producing another line of goods on which there is not as much competition. The same principle can be applied to the wheat fields of the west, and if this is done it will make us less dependent on the production of wheat there. Then, when wheat becomes low in price, it does not affect Canada so much. That is proved by the fact that in the provinces that are not so dependent upon wheat, they have not the same amount of distress as there is in the west.
Again, a manufacturer producing certain raw materials, for instance, yarn, sometimes finds that so many are in that line of business that he cannot make a profit. He then sets himself to figure what finished products he could put his yarns into and make a profit on the finished article. That is good business. I am simply suggesting that if we apply this principle to farming, there is no doubt that much of the different kinds of grain grown in the west could be used for feeding and a market found for the finished product. I think it has been generally admitted, for example, that 'the price of barley is so low that it cannot be profitably grown. Perhaps if this barley could be used in feeding swine a profit could be made from an export bacon business, and in that way the farmer might be able to work out a profit. I am simply suggesting this course as something which will assist materially in bringing about an improvement of conditions in the west.
I should like to say a few words regarding Russia, a subject which has been brought up many times in the house. I wish to put myself on record as endorsing and being absolutely in favour of the 'ban which was placed by the government on the importation of certain articles from Russia. It was a magnificent stand and an example to the rest of the world. The competition which Russia offers is very unfair; she is practically a commercial enemy of ours. As we all know she works her people
on a semi-slavery basis, which, for the sake of humanity, should not be encouraged. If for no other reason, we ought to refuse to have any commercial dealings with Russia. If we trade with her, we are giving her gold to establish herself and make herself more powerful commercially against us than she is at present. The ex-Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) when he was addressing the house this afternoon, said that we were taking the position of making an attack on an enemy. But Russia first attacked us by undermining our system and working her people on a scale of wages which we do not desire in this country. Canada and other countries for years have been endeavouring to raise the standard of living and the wages of the workingmen. Russia is a commercial as well [DOT]as a religious enemy, and personally I very strongly endorse the action the government have taken against Russia. What is more, I think it is time that Great Britain and the United States understand that the sooner they make a similar step the better. At the present time England is giving Russia for heT wheat millions of dollars which are helping Russia to increase her production against England's own colonies. She may have bought, and in fact did buy, Russian wheat cheaper than she could have bought Canadian wheat, because Russia quoted no definite price but accepted in every case a lower price than that asked by anyone else. That is unfair competition. England may think she has bought cheap wheat, but I fear that England before very long may come to the conclusion that it would have been better for her if she had paid 85 or 90 cents for Canadian wheat than bought Russian wheat at 65 cents a bushel. If the bolshevist does not succeed with his five year plan he will throw his country into revolution and upset Europe. Then the difference between the price which England paid Russia for her wheat as against the price at which she could have bought Canadian wheat will soon be absorbed in the amount of gold she will have to expend 'because she will be forced into the turmoil. She will also suffer the loss of many splendid men. On the other hand, the extra amount which she might have paid for Canadian wheat might have meant an increase of only a penny or half a penny on a loaf of bread.
The proposals suggested by the Prime Minister when he was at the Imperial conference will yet be listened to more attentively. They will yet be adopted, if not in all their details, at least in general principle. But the trouble is that under the present government in England we cannot hope for any results in that respect.

The Budget-Mr. Baker

I look upon Russia as an enemy, and here in our own country we have people trying to spread atheism and communism. The hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) stated in the house, and I have not seen his statement contradicted, that there were 121 schools in this country teaching atheism. That is a shameful state of affairs. A great mistake is often made in speaking of the policies of bolshevism, socialism and communism as opposed to capitalism. Boiled down, it is really a question of collectivism as against individualism. Will anybody here say that we want the system of collectivism to supplant our system of individualism in this country, which brings out the best in our citizens? What percentage of our people woidd like to see their grandchildren brought up under the system of collectivism? It is more or less generally assumed that it is the capitalist that is opposed to these principles which Russia is spreading. That is not the case. I say that the majority of the people of this country, the working people who own their modest little homes, are opposed to collectivism and want to see individualism prevail. That is the class that is against collectivism.
Speaking for myself only, I would have gone even further than the government has done. I claim that any man from this dominion who lends his services to the building up of Russia is working for the enemy, and I would cancel the citizenship of any man who left Canada 'to go and work for Russia. I would class him as a man who is assisting the enemy. Russia is an enemy of ours from the fact that she is tearing down the standard of living for the working man, while Canada and other countries have been for years and years trying to build up the standard of living for the workingman. Again, if Russia breaks out in revolution, we would be under the obligation of protecting our citizens, which there would be very little chance to do. Nevertheless we would be implicated in any upheaval which might occur in Russia. Let those who wish to help Russia go and live amongst those people Let them experiment there, and not here in Canada.
There is one thing that has impressed me during this session. I would like to see more cooperation and less partisanship in this house.
I do not think there has been a period in Canada's history since the war when the work of the government has been so difficult, and therefore is it not a good suggestion that partisanship should be softened as much as possible, at least for the present? There should be more cooperation from the opposition, instead of attempts to make the task of the 
government as difficult as possible. This remark does not apply to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and some other ex-ministers, as it does to some of the backbenchers on the other side of the house. I am also pleased to say that my suggestion does not apply to our friends of the United Farmers group. They have as a rule tried to assist, and have often spoken very kindly of our Prime Minister and his government. To cite only one example-there were others-I would refer to the speech of the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas), who made some very good suggestions and spoke very kindly indeed. I feel that it is the wish of the people of Canada during this difficult period that partisanship should be obliterated, that we should have more cooperation in this house, and that the opposition should do all in its power to assist the government in its difficult task. It is not the wish of the people of Canada that on nearly every occasion when the government attempts to go into supply and take up the estimates some backbencher of the opposition should move a motion equivalent to a vote of censure, and take up the time of the house for days, and finally the whole thing end in no benefit and no results. To give an example, one hon. member of the opposition said that he would not - help the Prime Minister, if he could. I cite that as an example of the attitude of some of the opposition members. I think it is very unfair, and certainly it is not what the country wants.
As I said before, I personally am very much pleased that the adjourned economic conference is not going to be held in Ottawa this year, because I do not think there would have been any results under present conditions. But I believe that the proposals made by the Prime Minister of this country to the Imperial conference were sound and would have been for the benefit of the British Empire. I believe that we shall yet see the day when they will be wholly or in part adopted by the British Empire. The seeds are planted, and they will produce good results.
In these difficult times it is necessary for us all to have courage and confidence, which should be backed with much hard work. Let us rally together and have faith in our country, and confidence in our Prime Minister and in our cabinet. Let us show our appreciation of the wonderful amount of hard work that our Prime Minister is doing, and try to assist him as much as we can. Uet us work hard and be as cheerful as possible

The Budget

Mr. McMillan (Huron)
while confronting the difficulties before us. Let us not be discouraged, and let us not become too exuberant when better times come, as undoubtedly they will. When times are good, everybody was flying high and not looking forward to more difficult days to come. Let us endeavour to plan better next time. We were all more or less equally to blame, but the people in the eastern provinces perhaps less than others, because they do not go up so high in the air or go as low down in the dumps as they do in other parts of the country, so there has been less difficulty in the east than in other parts of the country. Let us remember the kindly advice of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) the other night, to keep in equilibrium; or the advice of the old Greek theologian who, addressing a young student who had completed his studies and was going out into the world, said:
Be calm my Delius and serene,
However fortune change the scene.
In thy most dejected state,
Sink not underneath the weight:
Nor yet when the happy days begin,
And the full tide comes rolling in:
Let not the fierce unruly joy,
The settled quiet of thy mind destroy.
If we finish up the business in this house, get back to our work and carry on with the idea that this country is all right; if we all pull together and do our share of the work in a time like this and remain cheerful, the Prime Minister and his cabinet will guide the ship of state safely back to the harbour of prosperity. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about that. When the time arrives let us endeavour to remember the advice given by the old Greek theologian which I quoted in the house a few moments ago. The present government fully realizes the necessity of Canada being built up to a strong and prosperous country, and it is introducing the correct policies with which to achieve that purpose. We are the connecting link between the eastern and western sections of the British Empire. We realize that Canada's strength is essential to the strength of the British Empire, and that the continued strength of the British Empire is absolutely essential to the welfare of the world at large.


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon.
22U0-159J
friend from Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker) upon the admirable address he has given in the French language. In that respect I wish I could emulate his example. I am afraid however that from that point onward we will have to part company but, let me assure him, in the best of friendship.
I am sorry that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) are not in their seats to-night. I should be pleased indeed to see them there. We waited eagerly for the budget speech, the contents of which have now been revealed. If the provisions contained in that budget along with the tariff enactments imposed last fall are fully carried into effect, I tremble for the future of Canadian agriculture. Economically I believe Canada is in the most critical situation of her history. Conditions are such that this is no time for any hon. member of the house to rise and talk cheap party politics. Politics in the true sense of the term means the science of government, the government and regulation of a nation to ensure the principles of peace, security, progress and prosperity. All hon. members acknowledge that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada, and that the constant condition of agriculture is the barometer of trade. Without a dominant agriculture the whole national economic fabric would fall to pieces. Never has that fact been demonstrated in Canada as it is being demonstrated at the present time. For the last ten or twelve months business conditions have been practically paralyzed. That situation has been greatly intensified through the defeat of the tariff proposals of the last Liberal budget and the heavy tariff impositions of the present government. With trade falling off, revenues declining, transportation seriously restricted, the national debt piling up, expenditures growing, immigration reduced to a minimum, unemployment so rife that in the midst of bulging warehouses and overflowing elevators we have the lurid picture of thousands of destitute people living under conditions of semi-starvation, even in that section of the country known as the granary of the empire, we have an economic picture unpleasant to look upon.
The purchasing power of the great body of our people has been most seriously curtailed. Why? Because the farmer is unable to sell for the bare cost of production the product of his labour. As a consequence his purchasing power has greatly diminished and the whole national economic fabric is threatened. Under such circumstances consider the treatment this government has been handing
2500	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. McMillan (Huron)
out to Canadian agriculture. Talk about finding a market for Canadian farm produce in Great Britain, but with the Prime Minister's total disregard of the elementary laws of economics how can we expect to gain a market in Great Britain? True, he and his colleagues went over there to see what they could do in the matter, but having practically bolted the door in advance to the importation of a great many British goods, how could they expect to obtain a market for Canadian farm produce? Because of the tariff changes which were made in this house during the short session their mission was defeated before they ever set foot in England. In face of ti.at fact it is a thousand pities that the opposition in this house did not delay the government in its diabolical tariff program so that members of the government would not have been able to reach England for the opening exercises which set off at ouch a ridiculous pace. I have said before and I repeat that the prime reason for the abject failure of the conference lies in the fact that the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet apparently have become protectionist crazy and seemed to be convinced that Canada must not buy anything from abroad which could possibly be produced at home. The very thought of allowing industry to stand on its own feet in both home and foreign competition almost makes them shudder in their shoes. If they would for one moment listen to reason, to common sense, they would realize that a spirit of healthy emulation is best for any industry or for any individual in any condition of life-that is, if you want to bring out the best in either. When the Prime Minister went over to Great Britain to find a market for Canadian wheat it was the silliest course imaginable on his part to increase the tariff against British goods, to the detriment of British trade. I am sorry indeed that my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is not in his seat to-night, because I am sure he did not do himself justice when he was replying to the speech made by my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). I was amused indeed to hear his story of what the Prime Minister and his colleagues, more particularly, did to secure a further market in Britain and continental Europe for our wheat. Hon members will recall he told us that whereas there had only been 155,000,000 bushels of wheat shipped from Canada to Europe in the fall of 1930, as much as 188,000,000 bushels had been shipped this year. If the hon. gentleman had been true to 
himself and to his colleagues he would have stated the facts of the situation. It is common knowledge to most people that in the crop year 1929-30 the price of Canadian wheat was comparatively high, $1.25 a bushel, and the condition of millions of working men and women in Britain and continental Europe was such that they had to depend on the cheaper grains, such as barley and rye, and potatoes, to eke out a miserable existence. But in 1930-31, the Hawley-Smoot tariff having been passed by congress on May 29, 1929, no less than fourteen countries of Europe and Asia put a prohibitive duty on the importation of flour, more particularly from the United States. They did not want flour in their country that was not mixed with the products of their own farms. In consequence of that prohibitive duty, coupled with the fact that the price of wheat had fallen so low, our surplus wheat did not need to be sold,-it was being given away under the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite. They should be the last gentlemen in the world to tell the people of this country that they tried to sell our wheat at the ridiculously low price that they obtained for it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce took great credit to himself and to his colleagues for having appointed John McFarland to take charge of the Canadian wheat pool. Hon. members are aware that Mr. McFarland closed 27 wheat pool agencies in Britain and continental Europe. While I am speaking on this matter, I may well put on Hansard again the report sent to the Times-Joumal by its Paris correspondent under date of March 18:
Since the Canadian wheat pool closed its *offices in Paris, Canadian wheat is sold only through the grain trade. Millers know perfectly well that the traders are not doing business without a profit. They also know that in many cases the wheat which is offered to them has passed through middlemen who have increased the price a few cents, and this does not tend to please the buyer any more than it has added to the profit of the Canadian farmer.
The French people find it difficult to understand why the Paris office of the Canadian pool has been closed when millers willing to buy Canadian wheat without middlemen were buying dt under conditions which suited them.
Mark these words:
Prices were the same for every kind of buyer-miller, merchant or broker. It was good business without a preferential tariff, buyers knowing that the prices were those quoted daily by Winnipeg.
What about Portugal? I ask hon. members to listen to this:
Portugal has authorized recently the importation of foreign wheat for its own oonsump-

The Budget-Mr. McMillan (Huron)
tion. Repiresenta/toives from the Soviet, the Danubian countries and the Argentine have been on the spot to bid closely for the quantity allowed. This has resulted in an order for 45,000 tons being given to the Argentine. If Canada bad had her representatives there at the time, the chances are that she would have obtained the order or .at least a part of it.
I see my hon. friend from West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) talking. He was so full of merriment last night that when my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) was addressing the house he told him to talk the English language. Let me tell my hon. friend opposite that the day has long since gone by when Scotchmen in this country or in an)' other country in the world need be ashamed either of their character or of their language. What about Italy? Let hon. members listen to this:
It is known that through reciprocal arrangement she is buying this year Soviet wheat in exchange for manufactured goods.
The Canadian agents of the wheat pool were not there because of the action taken by this government through Mr. McFarland.
Why is it that the great English cooperative societies that purchase $550,000,000 worth of goods per annum have not been buying wheat and other commodities more largely in the Canadian market? Simply because other countries with whom they are dealing are willing to accept British goods in exchange, while Canada under this government is not ready to do so. Those other countries realize that the full measure of trade is to be found in the interchange of products, and if business is to flow in any volume at all, this is the manner in which it must be brought about. What of Argentina? During the fall of 1929 she was able to dispose of her whole crop before the 1930 crop was ready. Why? Because the people and government of Argentina are willing to accept the goods of Great Britain and other countries in exchange for their wheat-something which Canada under this government is not ready to do.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why didn't you sell our wheat? You had the chance.


Thomas McMillan: I would remind my hon. friend that I did not interrupt him nor any other member on his side of the house. I am pleased indeed that my hon. friends on this side gave the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Baker) a most attentive hearing, and I shall be pleased to accept in return the same courtesy from hon. gentlemen opposite.


An hon. MEMBER:: Now will the hon. member be good.


Thomas McMillan: Upon this government rests the responsibility of enlarging
the overseas market for Canadian products. It should not hesitate to make trade and low tariff agreements with that object in view, that is if the Prime Minister was sincere in his pledge to try to put the whole weight and power of the Dominion of Canada behind agriculture to aid and support that industry. The fact is that up to the present time he and his government have put the whole weight of the Dominion of Canada on top of agriculture to try to crush out its remaining life blood. This government is losing and will continue to lose opportunities to help agriculture and thus relieve the present depression if it does not soon make a radical change in its present fiscal policy. It could not do better than begin at once to rescind those diabolical measures which were placed on the statute books last fall. Those measures should have never been put upon the statute books and were allowed only on the distinct understanding that they were to be thoroughly reviewed and reconsidered during the present session.
Rather than giving, any relief, the present budget has saddled the farmers of this country with a much heavier burden. Let us deal with the sales and income taxes at one time. This is not a poor man's budget. I received the following telegram from Mr. Coyle, of the Carnation Milk Company, at Aylmer:
Sales tax from which we w'ere formerly exempted will mean approximately an annual loss of $100,000 to farmers of Alymer district.
Representations against this tax have been filed already at Ottawa by a number of the thirty plants manufacturing these milk products in Canada. The loss to Canadian farmers will be about three million dollars per annum. It is most unfair to tax condensed and evaporated milk when butter and cheese and other milk products are free. Harvest tools, spades, shovels, axe handles, shears, milk cans and the like are under a heavy tariff already, but the government adds a sales tax of four per cent. I would like to know upon what principle this present budget is based. The bi-weekly milk and cream cheques which the farmers receive for the milk which they send to the cheese factories and creameries will have to be stamped, and that charge must be paid by the struggling poor. In many instances they could probably get more money if they would paste a stamp on their notes and renew them. The rich sign cheques for thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars; why not tax them in proportion? But no, they are obliged to pay the same amount of tax. The rich travel in parlour and sleeping cars, they send telegrams and cables, but
2502	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. McMillan (Huron)
they get off scot free. Where is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) ? I thought he would remain, in his seat. Where was he when this budget was being prepared? He was here two years ago when the budget provisions of that year were being discussed. When this budget was being prepared I would have thought he would have stood over the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) with a cudgel to tell him that he must look after the interests of the struggling masses of this country. He has forgotten all the protests he made at that time.
The poor man's tea is taxed while the wines and beverages of the rich go free. Oranges, pineapples, prunes, figs and other fruits essential to the poor man's table are taxed with this four per cent sales tax, but what happens to a man with an income of $50,000 per year? Under the old income tax he had to pay $10,530 more, and according to the 1929 return there were over 523 in this country who were in receipt of an income this large or larger. If these men were taxed as they were taxed previously it would increase the revenue of the public treasury by over five and one-half million dollars. But these men are allowed to go free while the struggling masses are taxed.
This government is striking a death blow at the purity of the political life of this country. Parliament will soon become a sink of corruption. Hon. members will come here not to represent the national interests but rather to support the special interests of particular industries. Never were truer words spoken than those of the British chancellor of the exchequer who said: Once begin a policy of protection and you are on a slippery slope which leads to a bottomless pit.
Then we come to the tax on coal. Since I first came to this house six years ago I have heard more trash talked on the floor of parliament regarding a national fuel policy than would fill many volumes.


An hon. MEMBER:: You said it.


Thomas McMillan: A national fuel policy is written across the North American continent just as clear as the nose on one's face. We might apply to this national fuel policy the words of the poet who said of the gentleman :
Old nature stamps him in her mint
And trains him in her schools,
And laughs at all the counterfeits
We make by squares and rules.
The government should allow nature to take her course and then the coal mines of the maritime provinces would be supplying eastfMr. McMillan.]
ern Canada, and the Atlantic portion of the United States. Pennsylvania and Virginia would supply Ontario with their anthracite and bituminous coal requirements. Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Vancouver Island would supply western Canada, west of Winnipeg and the western states of the American republic. That is the only true coal policy for the Dominion of Canada. In replying to any criticism of such a policy we may well cite the historic words of the highland clergyman, "You can whistle until you are black in the face but I will not take one more inch off those foxes' tails."
We have no time to deal with the separate tariff items, but they will be dealt with fully in committee. However, let me mention a few of them. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) dealt with the butter situation, and anyone who will look at the matter from the standpoint of common sense must realize that the action of this government has demoralized the butter market of Canada. We have lost the trade of New Zealand; we have been cut out of her British preferential relations.
Let us take Indian com. After one of the most strenuous fights in history, in the eighties and nineties of the last century, the cattle feeders of Ontario were able to get United States com free of duty. It was a godsend to the cattle feeders of this country. There is no other single grain which, mixed with others, will give such satisfactory returns. We will discuss this matter carefully and minutely in committee, but at the moment I would exhort hon. gentlemen opposite to realize that this is a raw material for the live stock farmer, and to allow him the privilege of bringing it in free of duty. Give him credit for sufficient common sense, and take it for granted that if he thinks it will not pay him to import it he will not do so. Millions of bushels are brought into my province, every winter for feeding purposes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Thomas McMillan: I shall have to ask the hon. gentleman to wait until some other time. My time is nearly up now. Mr. Speaker, we shall have an opportunity later on to discuss these items, and there are many other things which we shall have to look into. Take, for example, gasoline : I cannot sit down without saying a word in this regard. I was surprised that the Prime Minister the other day, after the regulations which this government has put into

The Budget-Mr. Stanley
effect, when he was asked a question with respect to the duty on gasoline, was so ready to hide behind provincial jurisdiction. Owing to these duties there have been established in this country plants for the refining of gasoline, employing 4,978 persons, to whom they pay $8,153,000 per annum. But to get that industry under the present duty and regulations which are now in existence necessitates a tax on those who use gasoline in Canada to the extent of over $20,000,000 per annum. Obviously, therefore, we could pension these workmen to the full extent of the wages they receive, allow them to go idle all year, and then we should have over $10,000,000 in our pockets. That is the fault I find with many of these schedules. Take the margin which the tariff enables the manufacturers to put into their pockets, extracting large sums from the consumers of Canada in the line of cotton and woollen goods and footwear. With the extra margin which the tariff compels our people to pay in regard to these three articles we could pension all the workmen and salaried employees whom these industries engage, to the full extent of the wages and salaries they receive, let them go idle all year, and then there would be a comfortable margin left in our pockets.
I am not here preaching free trade. But when the Prime Minister asks the question, "Can Canada in a protected world be other than a protected country", I say to the right hon. gentleman that this country would advance, and it would relieve the burden which bears upon the great mass of the people, the men who form the base of the prosperity of Canada, if we reduced the tariff so decisively and emphatically as to leave the Canadian industries under a reasonable revenue tariff such as would give us double the revenue we derive to-day. It would give the industries of Canada an opportunity to progress. In my opinion they would do well to rely upon their ingenuity and their own resources instead of looking to the government for favours. The effect of the tariff which we have in this country is simply to say to the manufacturers and industrial men of Canada, "Come ye, all and sundry, and we will show you, through acts of parliament, how you can make money and become rich by trading on the necessities of the people."
The manufacturers and industrial men of Canada can hide behind these high tariffs and do what they please. You have only to examine the tariff schedules, and more particularly the preliminary resolutions, to realize the truth of what I am saying; for these resolutions are of such a nature as to leave the Minister of National Revenue free to do almost anything he likes. He has the full power to raise the valuations for duty purposes as high as he pleases or to put them as low as he sees fit. He may change them at pleasure. If that is not an exhibition of high protection gone crazy, against the most solemn protests of Liberals in this parliament, 1 should like to know what you would call it.
There are many other things I might say with respect to these tariff resolutions, but just now let me say this. The members of this cabinet, in raising the duties, have times without number hidden behind the little word dumping. This little word dumping has been the scapegoat for more diabolical legislation enacted in this parliament than any other one word in the language. For -whom are the members of this cabinet working? If they are working in the interests of the great majority of the people of the country rather than in the interests of particular industries, why do they talk so much about dumping? If they are not working for these special interests, they are working for the great body of the people of the country. And the great body of the Canadian people stand in the same position as I do-indeed, in the same position that every other gentleman in this house takes. Do we not all want our requirements at a reasonable cost? I should like to see one man in this house stand up and tell me he does not want his requirements at a reasonable cost. Why, even the Minister of National Revenue told us in September that it was often pleasant to get the benefit of stolen goods at low prices. And surely he ought to know. Yet the cabinet sit over there, seemingly with the united support of all hon. gentlemen behind them, ready to back them up at any moment in their attitude, and are prepared to pass through this house enactments which have the effect of draining the life blood from the masses of the people. Go through the tariff from beginning to end and you will see it. I wish I had time to demonstrate this, but if my health and strength serve me, before we get through these items I shall have more to say in this regard.


Mr. G. D STANLEY (East Calgary):: I
wish to congratulate the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) upon his growing spirit of moderation, which since I have been a member of the house has become more manifest, I think the hon. member is mellowing to such an extent that before long we may look forward to the day when he will be ready to cooperate with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker).
The Budget-Mr. Stanley


Thomas McMillan: That is what they are passing the new act for.


George Douglass Stanley: been doing in western Canada? I do not know that that is the exact way of putting it. Perhaps I should say, what has Canada been arranging for western Canada to do in regard to wheat? Wherever the responsibility rests, the fact of the matter is that western Canada, and I include the province of Alberta, has been concentrating on the growing of wheat, and we have been doing that to the neglect of the other branches of the agricultural industry. The whole financial structure of western Canada, I think I am safe in saying, is built up on wheat. Loans are granted upon it; our banking system is closely related to it, and for years past the farmer has been encouraged on every hand to grow wheat and still more wheat. So with our transportation systems, and government policy in connection with immigration and colonization looks to the raising of wheat and extension of the wheat growing industry. The trade treaties which have been made provide markets for our wheat. So much has wheat been brought to the front that we have been encouraged to grow wheat and to discourage the development of the live stock industry. As a matter of fact we have been depending on our wheat industry, we have been going after the wheat dollar, which is by no means certain and to a very large extent have been ignoring the more certain penny of mixed farming. The farmer alone has not brought about this condition, but the whole structure of Canadian financial and transportation policies has forced him into a position whereby he must concentrate upon the production of wheat. Thus it is that during the four years from 1021 to 1024 inclusive, the wheat exports of Canada were valued at $305,000,000. In a later four year period, from 1025 to 1028 inclusive, the value of wheat exports increased to $465,000,000. That increase was made in spite of the fact that the visible wheat supply of the world increased from a value of $266,000,000 in 1026 to $563,000,000 in 1029. When the depression came, due to the fact that the prosperity of western Canada depended upon the production of wheat, the bubble burst. The collapse occurred and the purchasing power of the people in the western provinces went down to the extent of about $300,000,000. During the time the concentration on wheat was taking place the exports of beef fell off in a period of six years from 35,000,000 pounds to
26,000,000 pounds; the exports of pork fell off from 138,000,000 pounds to 18,500,000 pounds; of mutton from an export of 1,300,-(Mr. Stanley.]
000 pounds to an import of 4,000,000 pounds. The imports of canned meats increased from
2,000,000 pounds to 8,000,000 pounds, or a poundage equal to 10,000 head of cattle. The imports of chilled beef were 5,000,000 pounds, an amount equal to 5,000 head of cattle. Butter changed from an export of 27,000,000 pounds to an import of 50,000,000 pounds; cheese exports decreased from 140,000,000 pounds to 90,000,000 pounds; woollen imports ranged from 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 pounds yearly. Strangely enough, I learned a few days ago that the province of Alberta imported last year 97 carloads of condensed milk.
To summarize the whole situation, during the past ten years the grain exports increased from a value of $220,000,000 to a value of $476,000,000. The value of animal products exported decreased from $156,000,000 to $55,000,000. If we take these statistics and try to find out where the slump came last year we will find, when we compare the agricultural values of 1020 with those of 1030 that the decrease in all Canada amounted to about $390,000,000. The gross decrease in Alberta was valued at $72,000,000, and of that decrease 85 per cent was due to field crops. In Saskatchewan there was a decrease of $124,000,000, 03 per cent of which was due to a decrease in field crops. In Manitoba there was a gross decrease valued at $30,500,000, 90 per cent of which was due to field crops. Taking the whole of Canada 95 per cent of the decrease was due to field crops, mostly wheat.
That was the situation in western Canada while we were building up and concentrating on one crop, decreasing our general agricultural products on every hand and ignoring the fact that there was an open market here for agricultural products to an extent of $75,000,000 that we were allowing to come in from outside. Exports were coming in from other countries that our own farmers could very well have provided. At the same time we ignored the bacon market in the old country. Great Britain's import of that commodity in 1921 amounted to 636,000,000 pounds and in 1929 it had increased to 1,000,000,000 pounds, representing an increase of 55 per cent. Canada's share of Great Britain's bacon import decreased from 14 per cent to 2 per cent while at the same time the amount shipped by Denmark increased from 12 per cent to 60 per cent.
In this connection there are at least two or three other facts which might be appropriately mentioned. In the first place, while

The Budget-Mr. Stanley
in Canada we have sufficient flour mills to grind into flour 42 per cent of our total crop, only 20 per cent of our average wheat crop is milled. Most of our wheat was ground into flour in the old country. Why? Because in that country it can be milled much cheaper. Why? Because there is not a great enough market for by-products such as bran and shorts. Why is there not a market? Because we have been allowing our live stock to decrease and corn to come in from the United States. My hon. friend from Huron (Mr. McMillan) referred to the fact that we had placed a duty on corn. May I say to him and to all hon. members that we in western Canada, either by choice or by force *-and hon. members may choose as they wish *-have concentrated upon the production of wheat. We provide a very substantial market for the industrial sections of Canada. The industrial cities of Canada in Ontario and Quebec have their home market because to a large extent we in western Canada supply the market for their products. We take the very logical statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler) we have the right to sell our products where we buy. If the people of western Canada buy manufactured products from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec we have a right to say to the farmers of Ontario who have their home markets in these cities and towns, " You should buy some of our western agricultural products."
Allow me to proceed one step farther. While we in the west have been concentrating on the production of wheat, what has been happening in the eastern provinces? Naturally there has been concentration on industrial activities so that to-day in those provinces we find industrial centres, and we find also that the agricultural products of western Canada are isolated from these markets. That condition has come about as the logical result of the policies which have been followed. I am not going to discuss at this time the respective policies of the two chief political parties, but the fact is that in the east there has been a centralization in one respect and in the west in another respect. The question naturally presents itself to me as a resident of Alberta:	How can
we extend the markets for her agricultural and her fuel products?
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, for a moment to give a summary of our geographical position, particularly in regard to these two natural products. We are at least 2,000 miles from our home market. If our products go overseas we must add several thousand miles to the haul. There is only a very limited market for our products westward. So if Alberta is to progress-and I am looking to the future -it is obvious that she must find wider markets for her agricultural and her fuel products.
Let me pass hurriedly in review of what is happening to our agricultural industry. The agricultural exports, of 'Canada have been increasing at a very rapid rate, having gone up from $51,000,000 worth in 1891 to $815,000,000 worth in 1929. Between 1921 and 1926 the number of farms in western Canada decreased by 7,500 and in eastern Canada during that period the decrease was 20,000, or a total decrease for the whole dominion of 27,500 farms. In 1901 we had throughout the dominion 511,000 farms representing a crop acreage of 20,000,000. During the next 20 years with a 40 per cent increase in the number of farms the crop acreage had increased to 50,000.000 or about 250 per cent. In 1881, 48-1 per cent of our population were engaged in agriculture; in 1921 less than 33 per cent; in 1931 I think the census will disclose only from 25 to 30 per cent so engaged. The number of those engaged in agriculture has been decreasing right along, due to the ability of farm operators to produce much faster to-day than they could years ago. As a matter of fact, five years ago in Alberta wheat production required 15 hours per acre, whereas last year it required only 7 hours. It is common knowledge that the world markets for our agricultural products are decreasing-as the standard of living rises the demand for food products does not increase-whereas the demand for manufactured products is increasing all the time, and is limited only by the ability of the people to buy. The logical question presents itself: Why should Alberta, endowed with the cheapest power and the greatest supply of fuel anywhere in the world, confine her energies to the production of agricultural products for which there is a decreasing demand and leave to others the production of commodities for which there is an increasing demand? Undoubtedly we have the ability to engage in manufacturing industry if we can secure the necessary capital. The Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin the other day made this prophecy:
Canada will be an international home for manufacturers. Capital will pour into it. Let us all stick to our own race and to the flag which is the foundation and basis of our whole Imperial policy.
Then Mr. John A. Farrell, president of the United States Steel Corporation, made a statement which was quoted in this house recently, showing the attitude of American investors towards the possibilities of manufacturing in this country.
The Budget-Mr. Stanley

The other basic industry of Alberta is coal. In this connection allow me to quote a statement which I read in the papers a week or two ago made by Mr. W. R. Campbell, president of the Ford Motor Company of Canada. True, he was referring to Nova Scotia coal, but his opinion applies also to Alberta coal. He said:
Any producing field can serve only a certain district. Beyond the limits of that area, it is impracticable to ship coal, due to haulage charges. The western product is profitable only f,or a shont distance east of Winnipeg. The Nova Scotia product cannot economically be brought nearly as far west as here.
I submit that the same argument applies to our agricultural products. Then what is the solution, looking to the future? If it is impossible for us economically to take our agricultural and our fuel products to existing markets, then our policy should foe steadily to move to Alberta some of the industries of the eastern provinces which now require our fuel. At present Ontario and Quebec have 60 per cent of the population of the dominion and 80 per cent of our manufacturing capital; the four western provinces have 28 per cent and 14 per cent respectively; while ALberta and Saskatchewan have only 15 per cent and 3 per cent respectively. If Alberta was able to use its extensive home market and could develop its natural and fuel resources, it would be much better off than it is to-day. Let me give four economic statements.
First. It is an economic necessity that Alberta must market her products.
Second. It is an economic determination that Alberta will do so.
Third. It is economically logical that if Alberta cannot take her products to industry, then industry must foe brought to the products.
Fourth. It is an economic opportunity which presents itself to industrial Canada.
British and American investors are on the field at the present time. We hope that the industries of eastern Canada will see the opportunity that presents itself of establishing branch industries in Alberta and thereby assisting us to provide home markets for our agricultural and fuel products.
Mr. CHARLES B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the right hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) on the amount of information contained in his 1931 budget, but I wish to state also that in my opinion this budget is a real blow (to democracy.
A basic truth is that no individual industry or industrial group can prosper by itself or solely by means of its own efforts. Other industries must prosper in order that each may

sell its products. The industries and groups are mutually supporting. It is impossible to sell goods to people who have no products or services of their own for sale, or to sell them in excess of the purchasing power which they derive from their own sales. All together these constitute a system for supplying each other's wants.
This budget makes no provision for unemployment, nor does it give any aid to eastern agriculture. There is no help provided for the lumber, mining and fishing industries, and in relieving the rich it taxes further the poor. It is, in short, exactly opposite to the recognized principle of sound economics. The Minister of Finance is supposed to be friendly to the manufacturers and not one page of the fifty pages of Hansard taken up by this speech is used to state that these concessions are given on condition that the employees of these firms will receive a decent living wage or be given employment.
I regret very much the lateness of the presentation of this budget. Business men throughout Canada wait for this presentation before starting their spring business. If parliament in the future is to be called as late as it was this year, there should appear on the statute books of the country a law stating that in no case should parliament meet later than January 15.
I should like to quote a few newspaper articles which show how this budget has been received throughout Canada. Every hon. member knows that the Sherbrooke Daily Record supported the Prime Minister one hundred per cent during the last election, but on the evening after the presentation of the budget the following article appeared surrounded by a white border, the meaning of which every newspaper man knows. It reads as follows:



THE NEW TARIFF AND THE HEAVIER TAXATION

[Stage Direction]
That taxes shall be gathered in the money marts of the country and that the ultimate consumer must bear the burden are the two axioms in direct taxation. But that taxes shall become retroactive is a dangerous policy, and would tend to demoralize the financial stability of the country's industries.
The weakness of the Prime Minister's budget as presented to the house yesterday is his confession that he has not yet finished the most important measure of tariff adjustment, a delay which has been injurious to that stability and confidence necessary to inspire the investors who may be considering ^constructive advances.
That it has been an herculean task for the chief executive can be readily granted, but the country looks to the premier to overcome his task by securing competent help and expert advisers. No one man can handle the multifarious problems of finance, no matter how talented he may be.

The Budget-Mr. Howard
I do not think any hon. member has any doubt as to which side of politics the Ottawa Journal is on. The day after the budget was presented it stated in headlines: "Bennett budget increases taxes. Puts duty on hard coal and one cent tax on letters." I think it is generally conceded that throughout the length and breadth of this country even the subsidized press of my hon. friends opposite has not been enthusiastic about this budget.
Considerable credit has been given to the Minister of Finance for the wonderful success of the conversion loan. May I state that I marvel not that the conversion loan was oversubscribed but that it was not subscribed for to the extent of one billion dollars within three days after the announcement. I believe what success this loan attained has been due to the publicity carried on in the newspapers. Does the house realize the psychological state of the citizens of Canada just previous to the launching of this loan? Every hon. member knows that the monthly letters usually issued by stockbrokers always state that things are going to be better, but on June 1 the investment firm of Craig, Luther and Irvine issued a letter containing the following:
Industrial production and general business have as yet shown no sign of definite improvement. Foreign trade returns for April were at the lowest point for that month in any year since 1922, output of iron and steel, after making some recovery earlier in the year, is again tending downward. Weakness of commodity prices persists, and the conduct of world trade already hampered by tariff barriers is restricted still further by depreciation of many foreign exchanges.
The report continues:
Over-capitalization is not confined to the newsprint companies-
And again:
There is a danger, too, that the wage scale controversy, already looming large in the public mind, may cause acute unsettlement before the final phase of the depression is reached.
For the last two months stock market prices have been falling from five to ten points per day. Bank stock prices are fallingj and bond prices have been at their lowest point for years in Canada. There had been created in the minds of the people of Canada a feeling where even the small investor was on the verge of going to the savings bank to with- . draw his deposits and bring them back home to bury in the cellar. The people had got to the stage where they did not know what was going to happen and the only thing in which they had confidence was the future of Canada, and therefore they felt the only thing they could do was to renew their notes. Far
from being a success, the mental attitude of the people being what it is, I believe the conversion loan has been a failure.
I do not wish to repeat the prices and statistics which I gave in a previous debate this year, but I hold in my hand a copy of La Tribune of Sherbrooke under date of June 6, in which some figures are given to which I wish to refer. This is most important, because only twice since confederation has the population of Sherbrooke, which has been constantly increasing, decreased. These two occasions were in 1919 and this last year. The census was completed on Saturday, June 6, which was last Saturday, and we find that in spite of the fact that there were in Sherbrooke during the past year 432 births, there was a shrinkage of population from 28,757 to 28,698. I cite these figures just to show what is going on.
Two months ago in this house I quoted prices and we mavelled at the low prices of dairy products, including butter, which I quoted at that time at 28 and 30 cents. Since then the price has dropped to 19 and 20 cents. This last week the creameries paid the farmers 21 cents a pound on butter fat which, on a 3i per cent basis, means 731 cents per 100 pounds for their milk.
I do not want anyone to think for one moment that I am a socialist, nor that I have communistic tendencies. I believe that the Canadian capitalistic system is the best of any so far. I do say, however, that in periods of extraordinary depression, such as we are going through now, the rich people should be made to pay and not the poor. When times improve and the common people are in a better position to pay taxes, then I shall be perfectly satisfied and I shall be one of the first to give consideration to capital and also to wealth. But at the present time I submit that the Prime Minister had no right to increase taxation on people who cannot afford to pay it. Right Hon. Philip Snowden presented his budget in England juat a few days ago and one of the outstanding clauses in it was this: "No increase in taxation." I am sure that no one will argue that Canada is as badly off as England; yet Mr. Snowden has declared at this time that there shall be no increase in taxation in the old country.
The city of Sherbrooke, in their small way, decided this year that they would not have revenue enough to balance their budget without increasing the tax rate at least 2 mills on the dollar, and when they considered the proposition this is the conclusion they arrived at:	After examining the accounts of the
The Budget-Mr. Howard
[Stage Direction]
proprietors, and knowing the amount of arrears in taxation and the condition of the people, who could not afford to pay more taxes, they decided to allow the deficit to accumulate during this year and possibly next year, and when things are more rosy they will put on taxes to meet their budget.
The other day a man seventy-two years of age left the town of Magog at three o'clock in the morning and walked to a certain construction job twelve miles distant. He arrived before work had begun and was ordered on a new job which was starting. He started at seven o'clock with pick and shovel and worked until one o'clock without a single mouthful of food, for the simple reason that he was so anxious to secure a chance of earning something after having been so long out of work. He came from the county of my hon. friend from Stanstead.
I was out the other day on the site of a job where certain construction work was being carried on, and there I saw twenty-two men standing on either side of the roadway, watching for an opportunity, in the event of anything happening to one of the fellows working there, in order that they might jump in and take his place so as to get a few days work.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the country should be run exactly like a private corporation. Is there a single man in this house who, if he had been in business eight years and had had a surplus every year for seven years of that period, when he came to an off year with a deficit, would lock the store, close up the whole thing and quit business? Would he do that, or would he draw on the surpluses he had accumulated in the prosperous years and carry on for the period of depression? While the Liberal government was in power, from 1922 to 1930, they paid off the debt of the country to the extent of $270,000,000; and I claim that, under present conditions, what this government should have done, if they had the interests of the people at heart, was to carry on this year and next year without increasing taxation.
Possibly one should not criticize, but I think it is proper to criticize in this instance. On page 2162 of Hansard the Minister of Finance is reported:
New Industries Established in Canada
Since August, 1930, there has been a marked influx of new concerns from outside countries into the dominion.
I want hon. members to note that. Mind you, this is the Minister of Finance of Canada standing on the floor of the House of 
Commons, knowing that everyone in Canada is paying attention, to his words, and saying that there has been a marked influx
of new industries into Canada. He mentions a lot of these industries. I am not going to go into very many of them, but I will cite five or six examples and leave it to the country to judge whether the right hon. gentleman's observation is a statement even fairly true to fact. As regards Granby, Quebec, the Minister of Finance referred to the Steadfast Rubber Company, Esmond Mills, Limited, of Canada, and the A.B.C. Washer Company. These are all beginnings of good industries. But every one of them had decided to come to Canada before it was ever dreamed that there would be a change of administration. The right hon. gentleman also referred to Henry Hamer & Sons Limited, St, George de Beauce, Quebec: a wonderful thing that this company had come to Canada! Mind you, the right hon. gentleman declares that there has been a marked influx of new industries. Do you know what happened in that case? The company was founded five years ago by an hon. gentleman sitting in this house, who put $250,000 into it. And then an English concern came over, because it had got to such a stage that the company could hardly keep things going. They were employing 200 hands, and that English concern saw a chance of taking over the concern at below cost. But it was in operation, and had been there five years. Mr. Edouard Lacroix, M.P., is still president.
The Minister of Finance also referred to, Wooden ware and Toys Limited in Coaticook, in Stanstead county. Now, Mr. Speaker, when I was a member of the industrial committee of the Sherbrooke board of trade, we invited the company to come to Sherbrooke and we entertained them. As a matter of fact, we could not find a kind of building suitable to them and the result was that they delayed and delayed until finally they found exactly the sort of building they wanted and purchased it. But they had decided two years before to come. Then as to Sherbrooke. The Minister of Finance looking across the floor of the house at my desk, and shaking his finger, referred to the Teaberry Chewing Gum Company as one of the new industries. The contract was signed on the 15th day of April 1930, and I can assure the house that this industry is not an American concern, as has been suggested. Its establishment is due entirely to the initiative of two energetic young men, Mr. Leopold Chevalier and Georges Henri Denault, who got $30,000 subscribed amongst their friends and started the

The Budget-Mr. Howard
business. And when they began they did not dream that the government would change.
I could go further, taking example after example to prove the inaccuracy of the list. The right hon. member intimated that there were some eighty-seven industries established within the ten months of this administration. Allowing the same ratio for the next two months, this would mean that there have come into Canada, under this administration, in its first twelve months of office, one hundred and four new industries. He did not make any discount for failures and people who had gone out of business during the period. Let us give them credit for the whole 104, and we are told that this was a "marked influx of new industries." But do hon. members know how many industries came to Canada in 1930 and how many in 1929, during the administration of the present leader of the opposition? Mind you, 104 under the present administration meant "a marked influx," but in 1930 there came into Canada 652 industries and in 1929 there came into Canada 759 industries.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Give the names.


Charles Benjamin Howard: on grain grown in western Canada than does the man in Denmark, Germany or England, who is feeding bacon hogs; moreover, he can take his bacon across the channel in a small boat whereas our product has to be shipped in high-priced vessels, at high freights. On top of that comes this duty of 25 cents a bushel against corn. I am not going to criticize that duty if it is properly administered; but if you read the tariff schedules carefully you will find in them the most extraordinary thing that I have ever seen since I have examined Canadian budgets. If a farmer uses Argentine or any American corn to feed hogs or cows for fattening purposes in connection with the dairy industry of Canada, he pays 25 cents a bushel on it, but if he happens to be one of the millionaire cereal manufacturers, making 200 per cent profit even in this time of depression, he does not pay one cent of duty on his corn.
On top of that, there is the, four per cent sales tax. Let me give an instance to show how this will be applied. A returned soldier and his wife were living in Foster, in the constituency of my hon. friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel). This man had made arrangements with the soldier settlement board, to whom he was a debtor, under which during these hard times he would pay over one-half of his earnings each month to them and the other half to his grocer. In the first half of the month of April his earnings were $4.70. He gave $2.35 to the SoldieT Settlement Board, and $2.35 to his grocer. During the last half of April you might say that things were looking up for him for he got $9.50 for his services, and he gave $4.75 to the Soldier Settlement Board and $4.75 to his grocer. Now the government want him to pay 4 per cent sales tax in addition, while at the same time they say to the man whose income is over $1,000,000 a year, and there are twenty-five of them in Canada: We are going to refund you $117,000 annually and stick this other poor fellow for the 4 per cent sales tax.
Everybody in Canada had expected that this budget would do away with the dumping legislation that was passed at the last session, and that after the government had had time to study the matter it would bring down a real Canadian budget. But there is no sign of that cancellation in this budget. Let me give another illustration. Last week a boy employed in a garage in Lennoxville, working ten hours a day amongst the grease and oil for $2.50, decided that the only way in which he could get advancement was by getting a better education. He could not go to school, and there did not happen to be any night 
school in Lennoxville, even though the provincial government is pretty good to us, so he subscribed to a course in aeroplane engine mechanics with the International Correspondence School, costing $75. He was going to put in his spare time studying. Everybody is familiar with the examination papers and books that that school sends out. This boy working in a garage had ambition enough to want to improve his mind in order to 'better his position in life, and what do you think the collector of customs in Sherbrooke charged him for duty when his first books arrived? They asked him to pay $28 in duty. He could not afford it, so he had to forego the chance of a better education.
Once before this session I have put on Hansard the case of a man who imported fruit trees. I expected to see in this budget a provision for the removal of the famous dump duty on fruit trees. This man came to Ottawa, and finally after borrowing money from his friends and securing endorsements he paid the duty so that he could release the trees. In order to get his trees, instead of paying a duty of $644.28, he had to pay $3,472.18. That was absolutely unfair. There is not a single Canadian who will say that it was fair, and I say to this government that unless that is rectified and justice is done to this man, they will not get a single seat in the next election in the eastern townships.
Then there is the three cents postage, and the tax on tea, and the coal taxes. Poor old Quebec has not any coal mines, and our people have to buy coal. Our neighbour across the line has coal to sell. Personally I burn 200 tons of Sydney slack coal per year, but that has nothing to do with the question. Anthracite coal is used by the small householder in our province for heating purposes, and it must be used.


Mr. QUINN:: Oh, no.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Anthracite has to be used by the small householder for heating purposes, and the average householder during the winter season will have to burn six to eight tons of hard coal. This forty cents a ton duty will mean that the dealer will raise the price at least one dollar per ton, which means that the average householder will have to pay from six to eight dollars more for his coal during the winter, or -from $1.50 to $2 a month more. That is a tax that is put on the poor people, while at the same time the government relieves the rich man with an income of $1,000,000 from paying $117,000, although he can well afford to pay it.

The Budget-Mr. Howard
I come to the insurance tax. The government is going to tax insurance premiums. Evidently the Minister of Finance was not very well posted on that legislation. Does he know one of the reasons why insurance rates are higher in Canada than they should 'be? It is because American companies, capitalized at fifty or a hundred million dollars, come into our small towns and if they cannot get one good risk they walk out, but if they can get one or two or three or five dandy risks, they take them at practically no rate at all, and in order to get even the Canadian companies have to charge higher rates because the best risks are gone. What does this proposal mean, to put a 15 per cent tax on insurance premiums of companies not licensed to do business in Canada? It will not help Canadian insurance companies one five cent piece. It will simply mean that the Canadian who is getting a little better rate will have to pay that extra tax out of his own pocket.
Now I come to one of the most extraordinary examples of budget taxation that I have ever heard of. I refer to the magazine tax. I shall not quote the exact words of the Minister of Finance, but hon. gentlemen all remember how in making his budget speech he said that he went to a newsstand and there saw 350 magazines, and most of them were not fit for Canadians to read. With that I agree, but why not do what the late Hon. George Boivin did when he was Minister of Customs, bar them entirely? Putting a tax on these magazines will not keep them out, and it will not be the American publishers that will pay the tax, but the boy right here at home will have to pay it because he is one of those fellows who is trying to improve his mind.


An hon. MEMBER:: On Snappy Stories?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am a subscriber to the
Canadian Geographic Magazine, and only yesterday I received my form for renewal, and on it was printed that the subscription in Canada was S3, S3.50 in the United States and 84 for all other countries. I leave it to the house to judge who is going to pay the tax. The same applies to American magazines coming into Canada. The man who reads the magazine is going to pay the tax. This magazine tax will not make a particle of difference in the matter of keeping out literature that you do not want Canadians to read.
Then there is the new automobile tax. If there is one industry in Canada which for years has taken the last dollar out of the Canadian people, it is the automobile industry, and I say that the automobile tax brought down in this budget is one of the
most criminal pieces of legislation. The finance minister stood on the floor of this house and said that the tax on the cheap cars was not changed. That was calculated to give the impression to the Canadian people that the finance minister was helping the common people of this country, but everybody knows that since the famous short .session last September the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rj'ckman) has applied the dumping legislation to automobiles.
Then there is the corporation tax. In case the government would not get the money in quick enough, after the companies had made their returns, filed their incomes and paid their taxes, the government say: We want seven or eight million dollars quickly, and so we will make that legislation retroactive. That means that the corporations will have to pay the tax after they have paid out their dividends to the shareholders. That is absolutely terrible legislation, and there is no question that the country will say so.
Then there is the excise tax of one per cent. That is not added to the sales tax but is imposed on every single thing that comes into Canada no matter what it is, and even if it is on the free list. The cotton manufacturers, for instance, will have to pay one per cent on their raw material coming into Canada, and the silk manufacturers in Canada will have to pay that tax on their raw material coming in from Japan, although that Canadian industry employs the second highest paid labour in the world, and some of their product is even being sold in countries adjacent to where they got the raw silk. Yet one per cent excise tax is imposed on their raw material-and as well there is the four per cent sales tax, the stamp tax, the tea tax, and all the rest of them. I do not know just in what position the common people are going to find themselves.
I come to the question of old age pensions. Many people say: Well, at least the Prime Minister has fulfilled part of his promise. Let me say that if the Prime Minister of Canada had consulted the finance minister of Canada, and told him of the promises he had made to the people and that Quebec had swallowed the bait that the federal government was going to bear 100 per cent of the cost of old age pensions-had he done that, the old people in the province of Quebec would have received their pensions. But because the government is going to bear only 75 per cent of the cost, do you know how that will work out, Mr. Speaker? The people of the province of Quebec at the present time,

The Budget-Mr. Howard

through their institutions, both Roman Catholic and English Protestant-and I believe they are the finest and best in any part of Canada-are at present putting their hand in one of their pockets and taking care of their own poor. Under this legislation they put their hand in the other pocket and hand their money to the federal treasury to take care of the poor in the other fellow's province.
I wish to say a few words about the tariff board. It is scarcely necessary to say anything on that subject, because I think nearly all the people in Canada will admit that when the Prime Minister disbanded the tariff advisory board, he made the greatest mistake of his political career. Now he proposes to put on the statute books of Canada legislation to provide that the members of a proposed new board will be appointed for ten years. With the knowledge that the present government will go out of office in three years at the outside, the Prime Minister is trying to have formed a tariff board which will dictate the policies when the Liberal government assumes office. I do not think the people of Canada will stand for such legislation and I hope it will be withdrawn.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Charles Benjamin Howard: In closing may I say that I have decided that the present Minister of Finance has lost touch with the common people.


Mr. D. B. PLUNKETT (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it has been indeed refreshing and illuminating to hear the speech by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). I cannot say that his remarks have been particularly convincing. He has disclosed some new facts, however, for which we should probably be thankful. For one thing, he told us that the savings banks of Canada are in such a precarious condition that people are considering the withdrawal of their funds. To be honest, I have not heard of such a condition. He also told us that books which were coming into Canada and which could be used for the technical education of young men in his district are being taxed. I should suggest to him that he have a close conversation with his right hon. leader and try to convince the right hon. gentleman to change his attitude toward technical education. The young men to whom the hon. member for Sherbrooke referred would then be able to work through the day and study at night. Up to the present time the right hon. leader of

the opposition has been consistent only in opposing further advances for technical education.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke made further statements regarding firms beginning operations in Canada, but I think when he gave the number he should have given the names. My hon, friend has been guilty, as have many other hon. members in the house, of making statements which although supposed to be founded on facts were not properly proven. In these days when people read newspapers they accept as true the information contained therein. If these firms had begun operations in Canada would not the Liberal party have used that fact for campaign propaganda? Last summer they were searching for anything they could lay their hands on to save themselves before the electors of Canada. It was an open secret in the minds of Canadians that from the day the campaign opened the late Prime Minister of this dominion was on the defensive. At no time during the campaign did he change his position to that of the offensive, and his record was reflected in his defeat. In the history of Canada has there ever been a party so disappointed in defeat, and a party so completely unable to hide that fact from the public. I knew the right hon. leader of the opposition when he was Prime Minister of Canada; I had hoped that as leader of the opposition he would be equally as efficient. The manner in which the official opposition has been operating in this house during the present session, however, is not a credit to Canada. While the Prime Minister is responsible for the conduct of the house he is not responsible for the conduct of the followers of the leader of the opposition. As I go through the speeches of my right hon. friend and those of his followers I find that at least to the extent of two-thirds they are made up of newspaper clippings. Thank God there are newspapers published in Canada or the Liberal party would be wanting in campaign speeches and also speeches by Liberal members in the House of Commons.
At least on fourteen different occasions the right hon. leader of the opposition in his speech referred to the method of approach of the Prime Minister of Canada. The right hon. leader of the opposition does not yet realize that he had nine years to demonstrate his method of approach and that the people of Canada decided on July 28 last that his method of approach was no longer required. The right hon. leader of the opposition, speaking of spiritual things, said that the method of approach adopted by the present Prime

The Budget-Mr. Plunkett
Minister was not correct and the tendency created was one of dissension. May I remind the right hon. gentleman that he had nine years to demonstrate the right spirit and the proper method of approaching all the problems of Canada. What did that nine years cost the citizens of Canada? It compelled the population of 10,000,000 people in Canada in the years 1928 and 1929 to buy from the United States goods valued at $1,719,237,031. In the same period a population of 120,000,000 people bought from us goods valued at $1,014,644,064 leaving a trade balance in favour of our good neighbours to the south of $704,592,967. Those figures demonstrate what the method of approach adopted by the present leader of the opposition cost the people of Canada in the two years I have mentioned. It further cost them a loss in population of 132,619 persons. "Method of approach"-does the leader of the opposition consider his is the only method in the world, that he sets the whj's and wherefores of good procedure simply because he has written a book entitled "Industry and Humanity"?
Now let us see what is the opinion of two of the leading American newspapers in regard to the tariff proposals of this government. It was said by the right hon. leader of the opposition when he was Prime Minister that under no consideration must we do anything to provoke the United States. He really meant that we must not do anything to hurt their feelings. Here is the comment of the Washington Post on the budget.
Premier Bennett does not intend to let Canadians remain idle while they are supplied with the necessities of Life from other countries, if he can avoid it.
The objective is to reserve the home market for domestic producers, letting foreigners contribute what Canada cannot well produce for herself.
The New York Times says:
Here is a friendly nation, our neighbour across the street, our best customer. We have shut the door in his face. Now he is going to do a little door-shutting himself. Such is the sinful nature of man. When there are door-openers enough in Washington, there will be plenty of them in Ottawa.
I am thankful, Mr. Speaker, that the present government is determined to uphold the dignity of this country and to maintain the self-respect of our people.
The late Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stated recently in this house:
The government is the by-produot of financial depression. My hon. friends opposite are its offspring.
Now, who are responsible for this depression? Who caused this "offspring" to be born? The history of Canada shows that when in trouble her people have always turned to the Conservative party. In their extremity last year they were compelled to use this "by-product," and put their trust in the Conservative party-a party which has never failed the country in times of crisis. The late Minister of Justice concluded his remarks in these words:
I will finish that speech somewhere, sometime.
Just an exhibition of the bitterness of disappointment. He could not realize that he was on the opposition benches. If the hon. member will come to Victoria I shall be happy to welcome him and he will be at liberty to speak as long as he wishes. The right hon. leader of the opposition was out there last year and spoke for three hours. The people listened attentively and then voted against his candidate. I assure him that he will have a warm welcome should he come again. The former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in the course of a speech delivered recently in this house said:
We are being asked what we would do. I do not think that is a fair question, but I intend to accept it as one. In the past no opposition leader or opposition that I know of has ever produced a policy for the gsvernmemt, nor should they be expected to.
When Mr. Mackenzie was in power in 1877, the Conservative opposition under the right hon. Sir John A. Macdonald brought forward their policy of protection-the national policy -and in the ensuing election they were swept into office and remained there for several years. When eventually the Liberal party secured power they lived off that fiscal policy and never created a new one. What was the history of that party while in opposition to Sir John A. Macdonald's government? They put forward several fiscal policies under various names, such as "commercial union," "unrestricted reciprocity," "free trade." They were beaten on every one of them, and at last in 1911 under their famous leader, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, they presented to the country their policy of reciprocity with the United States, but the electorate most decisively refused to accept it. What happened on July 28 last? Countervailing duties were advocated by my hon. friends opposite and introduced by the Hon. Charles Dunning, but we have never heard of that policy since. Where has the Prince of Saskatchewan gone? Has he been replaced by the Prince of Nova Scotia as the financial critic of the govern-
2516
The Budget-Mr. Plunkett

ment? The Prince of Saskatchewan was the author of the countervailing duties.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is reported at page 362 of Hansard as follows:
The tariff policies of this government last September had built ramparts of ruin around the dominion, and exhausted all the consuming and purchasing powers of the Canadian workmen.
Perhaps he had read one of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen's speeches; I do not know. The absurdity of such a statement is demonstrated by the success of the conversion loan last week, when subscriptions of $639,000,000 were received from the people of Canada. Does that look like the "ramparts of ruin"? Another conclusive answer to such idle talk is to be found in the establishment of 87 new factories and the steadily increasing number of men who are returning to work. It would appear to me that some of the statements made in this house are due to lack of thought. At the conclusion of his address in criticism of the budget the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) moved an amendment the concluding clauses of which are:
That the existing economic depression can only be overcome by policies which are of a character,
(a)	to relieve unemployment-
Now, Mr. Speaker, since the legislation passed at the special session last September there has been spent on unemployment $69,690,948, which resulted in 248,000 people being relieved. The hon. gentleman did not tell us what he would do under the circumstances. The policies of his party are always up in the clouds; they are always stated so indefinitely as to allow an opening for retreat if party exigencies render retreat desirable.
(b)	to restore to a condition of parity the relation between the purchasing powers of all classes-
No hon. member seems to want to have anything to say about that statement, and I am sure I do not. It might be well to ask the right hon. leader of the opposition to elucidate this somewhat ambiguous
IMr. Plunkett.]
language; he may be able to disclose its true meaning.
(c) to bring about more equitable distribution of the burdens of taxation-
A great deal has been said about this being a rich man's budget. Let us see if that is so. First of all there is the increased contribution to old age pensions. As a result of that action by the government I would not be surprised if the provinces in the east now enacted legislation to take advantage of the greater federal assistance, and perhaps the government of Quebec will also take the same course. Surely that tends to equalize the burden of taxation all over the dominion, because, for instance, so far the Quebec government has not seen fit to give its people the benefit of old age pensions. Is increasing the taxation from 8 to 10 per cent on corporations and joint stock companies a poor man's budget? Surely the increase of one cent on letters except those for local delivery tends to equalize the distribution of taxation. How many letters does a poor man write as compared with the extensive correspondence of business men and corporations?
In my opinion the finest feature of this budget is the addition to the postal rates. That gives a fair distribution of taxation. The people are receiving good service and I hope the government will protect the post office by not 'being too far-reaching in its endeavours to establish air service. The present method for the transportation of mail provides much employment; an aeroplane employs only one man where there may be ten employed by the present method.
The stamp tax on cheques is equitable. How many cheques does the poor man make out compared with the rich man? It is not necessary to labour this point, I need only to mention it.
I think the increase in the sales tax from one to four per cent is very equitable, and in this regard we have the precedent set up by the old government who raised it to six per cent. If it was good for them to raise it to six per cent, surely it is good for this government to raise it to four per cent.
Hon. members have been criticizing the banks of this country. I know of no banking system in the world equal to the Canadian. Banks are continually failing in the United States, and yet the other day an attack on our banking system was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Only this evening the hon.

Questions
member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) stated that the people of this country were considering taking their savings out of the banks which they had begun to distrust.
I hope that at the next session of parliament the order paper will not be filled with the useless questions we have been faced with this year. By that time the opposition should be satisfied with their position. They will have realized that they will be in opposition for some years and that they can give as good if not better service in that position than they gave when occupying the benches on this side of the house.
On motion of Mr. Neill the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.55 pan.
Thursday, June 11, 1931.