1932-04-14

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that in compliance with section 6 of the House of Commons Act I have issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the constituency of Royal, in the province of New Brunswick, for the election of a new member in place of Hon. George Burpee Jones, who has resigned.



PETITION

Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River) moved:: That the petition of Arthur Cyril Boyce and others of Ottawa, Ontario, praying to be incorporated under the name of Lake of the Woods International Bridge Company, which was presented to the house on the 13th instant, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Woodsworth.l
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Toronto-Scarborough) presented the second report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, as follows:
The select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines have the honour to submit the following as their second report:
Your committee have had under consideration Bill No. 29, an act to amend the Railway Act, and having heard representations from the railway employees concerned, from the counsel of the railways, and the view's of counsel representing the Board of Railway Commissioners, your committee are of the opinion that it is not in the best interests of the country, particularly at this period in the railway situation, to pass the proposed legislation. Your committee therefore, on division, have agreed to report that the preamble of Bill No. 29 has not been proven to the satisfaction of your committee and that said bill should not be passed.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
J. H. Harris,
Chairman.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I observe from the proceedings that last evening, by common consent, we were to proceed to-day with the debate now before the house rather than avail ourselves of the provisions of standing order 28. In accordance with that arrangement I therefore move:
That the provisions of standing order 28 be suspended this day.
In other words the Speaker will not leave the chair unless a vote is taken which is not probable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Have any orders in council been passed by the federal government with respect to the Beauharnois power project since August 3, 1931'!

Eastern Bank oj Canada
2.	If so, what are the dates and numbers of such orders in council?
3.	Have any moneys been advanced to the Beauharnods Power Corporation or associate company by the federal government since August, 1930?
4.	Have any advances made by any chartered bank of Canada to such corporation been guaranteed by the federal government, since August 7, 1930?
5.	If so, by which banks were such amounts advanced, and what were the amounts?
6.	What was the nature of the guarantee given?
7.	What was the authority for such guarantee?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: May I
respectfully direct the attention of the Prime Minister to this question, which has been on the order paper for several weeks. It does not in any way request a declaration of government policy in regard to the future; it only asks for some information as to the guarantees given the Beauharnois corporation in the past. I respectfully submit that this question should be answered before the budget debate terminates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the intention of the government to devote its entire attention to this matter on Saturday. It has been impossible, in the time at our disposal, to gather together what information we have for the purpose of making a proper statement to this house with respect to the whole matter since the default of the power corporation-not the light heat and power corporation-in the payment of interest on its debentures, which were second mortgage securities, which occurred on April 1. If we can complete our labours in this regard on Saturday it is my intention to make a statement to the house on Monday.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands.


CARLETON POINT, QUE.-LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Civil Service Commission recommended an appointment for the position of lighthouse keeper at Carleton Point, Quebec?
2.	If so, who was recommended?
3.	What is delaying the acceptance of this recommendation by the marine department?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Leo Labrecque.
3.	The recommendation of the Civil Service Commission was rejected under section 24 of the Civil Service Act.


JOLIETTE, QUE.-POSTMASTER DISMISSAL
Mr. FERLAND:: Was Mr. Jules Breton dismissed as postmaster without any inquiry being held?


Mr. DURANLEAU (for Mr. Sauve):: Mr. Jules Breton, Postmaster at Joliette, P.Q,. was dismissed for incompetency and mismanagement following an investigation.



MORSE, SASK.-MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. BOTHWELL:: 1.	Has the contract been let for the carrying of mail between Morse, Saskatchewan, and Log Valley, Saskatchewan, via Glen Kerr post office?
2.	If so, who was the successful tenderer and at what figure was the contract let?
3.	How many tendered for the contract, what are their names and addresses and what were the amounts of their respective tenders?


Mr. DURANLEAU (for Mr. Sauve):: 1.	Yes.
2.	John K. Robson, at S230 per annum.
3.	Thirteen tenders were reecived as follows: John K. Robson, Glen Kerr, $230 per annum; John T. Glover, Glen Kerr, $240 per annum; C. C. Rayner, Glen Kerr, $275 per annum; Thos. C. Kerr, Glen Kerr, $275 per annum; John H. Hamm, Morse, $285 per annum; W. K. Rooker, Leg Valley, $300 per annum; Benhard J. Penner, Morse, $25 per month or $300 per annum; Arthur Bourne, Log Valley, $340 per annum; Hector McLean, Morse, $34320 per annum; Isaac H. Wiens, Box 156, Morse, $350 per annum; Charles E. Potts, Log Valley, $360 per annum; Otis Rayner, Log Valley, $7 per trip or $364 per annum; Ernest Toews, Morse, $600 per annum.



ST. PACOME, QUE.-POSTMASTER DISMISSAL

Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Was Mr. Alfred Michaud, postmaster of St. Pacome, county of Kamouraska, dismissed in 1924?
2.	If so, why was he dismissed?
3.	Was an inquiry held?


Alfred Duranleau: 1 and 2. Francois Michaud was postmaster but a change was effected when the post office was moved to a more central site.
3.	Yes.	.



EASTERN BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay to the executors of the estate of the late Angus McLean, of Bathurst, New Brunswick, the sum of $5,000, being the amount of the bank circulation redemption fund at the
[Stage Direction]
Winnipeg Postal Staff
[Stage Direction]
credit of the Eastern Bank of Canada, which was incorporated by chapter 28 of the statutes of 1028, but did not commence business.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting, to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the governor in council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of the Interior may authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of any sums of money received in connection with the administration of the natural resources prior to the transfer thereof to the western provinces, which His Majesty is under any legal or equitable obligation to refund, and that an annual statement be laid before parliament of all moneys refunded hereunder.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: The Postmaster General
(Mr. Sauve) is not in his place, but perhaps the question I am about to ask might be directed to his attention so that he could reply to-morrow. I have received the following communication from Winnipeg:
Mass meeting of Winnipeg postal group, Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, strongly protest circular P.S.B. 196, which proposes increased hours of labour, reduction of staff, elimination of all overtime pay, especially statutory holidays, extension of hours worked at night and Sundays, all owing to drastic cuts made in post office estimates. . This circular is direct violation of past agreements made between department and staff side representations, and will undoubtedly aggravate unemployment. Passed unanimously.
That is signed by the secretary of the local council of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, I should like to ask whether the Postmaster General will not reconsider this whole matter, as it seems to me an extension

of the hours of labour would be a direct violation of the agreements which have been outstanding for some time between the members of the postal service and the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter to which the hon.
gentleman has referred will be drawn to the attention of the Postmaster General, who to-day is absent from the house on account of illness. I received a telegram in similar terms, and I have asked for a report on the matter. I assure the hon. gentleman that the Postmaster General will deal with the question when he is in his place.



THE PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I desire to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister based upon a news item appearing in this morning's Citizen. I will not read the whole article but will direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the last paragraph:
The deduction bill has not been finally passed by the house because Premier Bennett is getting information from exempted classes, judges, R.C.M.P. staff, military and air force men, etc., to see if they are prepared to volunteer to take the same cut.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if this statement is founded on fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot think it was ever intended that a newspaper report such as this should become the basis of any declaration of government policy with respect to any matter.
I think the hon. gentleman must be fully aware of that fact.



APPLICATION OF REOTJCTION TO POSTMASTERS PAID BY COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: The day before yesterday I asked a question which had reference to the Post Office Department, and the Minister of Finance said he would give an answer yesterday. I fail to see the answer in Hansard.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: I was prepared to answer the question yesterday, but did not do so because the hon. gentleman was not in the house. If my hon. friend will look at section 2, subsection (a) of the bill now before the house, he will observe that the postmaster in question comes within the provisions of that bill.

The Budget-Mr. Dickie



CONVERSION LOAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) is not in his seat, but I believe this matter to be of such importance that I should refer to it at the first opportunity, so I would ask the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), who is leading the opposition at the moment, to be good enough to direct what I have to say to the attention of the hon. member.
It has been brought to my notice, sir, that during the course of his remarks in the budget debate the hon. member Ijpr Sherbrooke referred to the conversion loan, and stated that he had advised the people of his district to convert their bonds. Then, at page 1994 of Hansard, he went on to say:
I told these men, "If the government want you to convert your bonds I think you should do so." They converted their bonds. What happened? Insiders of this government did not convert their bonds; the people of Sherbrooke and the eastern townships did.
With respect to that statement I have to observe that the hon. member said either too much or too little, and I must ask him either to withdraw 'his remarks or to substantiate the facts.



SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Marine in connection with the Gibb report. WTould it not be possible to have that report printed? I have had several applications for 'copies and I understand other members also have. I am sure all hon. members would be glad if printed copies were made available.


Alfred Duranleau: As I informed the house the other day, the question of printing that report is at the present time under consideration by the standing committee on printing. As a matter of fact, requests for copies of the printed report, have been pouring into my department and I hope the committee will come to the conclusion that the report is to be printed.
41761-126J



TARIFF BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: In view of the impending Imperial economic conference I would ask the Minister of Finance whether it is the intention of ithe government to appoint a tariff board for the creation of which legislation was passed last year, or whether the government has changed its mind as to the usefulness of that body.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Quebec East is too old a parliamentarian to ask a question of that character because he knows full well the government has always taken the position its intention would be made manifest only in the usual form and at the proper time.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 13, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. N. Rhodes (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gardiner.
Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I associate myself with previous speakers in congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) on his admirable presentation of one of the best budgets to which I have been privileged to listen in the House of Commons. It was comprehensive and so lucid that the man on the street could understand it. Anyone reading or hearing it would realize that drastic remedies were necessary were Canada to meet her obligations and to hold her present high position among the nations of the earth, and he suggested the necessary remedies.
Before proceeding further with the budget debate I wish, without too great a trespass on the patience of the house, to take up a matter with relation to British Columbia. As is known, strong comments were made with respect to the provincial government regarding the disbursement of unemployment relief funds in that province. Before I came to the defence of my friends "of many days and in many ways," I waited the findings of a commission that was sitting in British Columbia. Doctor Tolmie, as hon. members know, is premier of that province. We thrust him into
The Budget-Mr. Dickie

that position against his wishes. The electorate there were sick and tired to death of Liberal rule and we cast around to find some man popular enough to unite our two factions. Doctor Tolmie, because of his splendid personality and reputation we knew could do the trick, we gave him the third degree and absolutely forced him to accept the premiership of British Columbia. This he did, and he has been doing his best ever since. In his position, as premier, he has a great deal to do with unemployment matters. The minister in charge of unemployment relief funds in British Columbia is the Hon. Ralf Bruhn, a man who has played hard games with the forests of that province, a practical man. No one has ever done anything to impeach his honesty, and only honourable motives have been attributed to him. Mistakes were made, as would doubtless be the case in enterprises of this kind; it was a rush order; but I could point out mistakes that have been made by private and public companies in that province that would dwarf into insignificance the mistakes made by the provincial government. A parliamentary commission was appointed to inquire into the accusations made against the local government. This commission was composed of a number of Liberals as well as Conservatives, the latter of course, being in the majority. It has concluded its investigation and I am going to ask the house kindly to bear with me while I read its findings, as follows:
Charges of extravagance and irregularities preferred by members of the House of Commons and others were also investigated. The following are typical examples:
(a) "That camps were equipped with radios." Your committee finds that no radios were purchased or rented. A carload of camp food and supplies, packed by ,the shipper in cases onoe used for radios, probably led to this belief.
_ (b) "That camps were also equipped with pianos." Your committee finds that none were purchased or rented.
(c)	"That edge-grained fir floor lumber, at a cost of $74 per thousand, was used in making tables for camps." Your committee finds that the total expended on edge-grained fir floor lumber was $2.24.
(d)	"That a Vancouver firm quoted the purchasing agent a price on 10,000 blankets and that these blankets were later purchased through someone else for the government at a figure considerably in advance of that sum." Your committee finds that a total of 7,700 pair of blankets was purchased from the West Coast Woollen Mills, Limited, Vancouver, and an emergency purchase of 450 pair of blankets was made from Turner-Beaton, Victoria. All of those blankets were seven-pound blankets, purchased for the sum of 66 cents per pound. This figure was considerably less than that quoted for blankets similar in quality, by the Vancouver firm in question.
(Mr. Dickie.1
It is worthy of note that the West Coast Woollen Mills, Limited, is a concern financed by the provincial Department of Industries and that the purchase of these blankets meant not only assistance to an undertaking in which the province was financially interested but meant also that these blankets were made entirely of B.C. wool and by B.C. workmen.
The suggestion made by Mr. Thos. Reid, member of the House of Commons for New Westminster (at page 1180 of Hansard, 1932), that one manufacturer had "sold 50,000 blankets and it took him out of the red," is without any foundation in fact.
(e)	The Dominion representative in his evidence stated: "That 104 carpenters were on the pay-rolls for the camp at Deroehe on October 16 or 17, 1931, and four only working as such."
The original time-books and pay-rolls for the months of September and October were produced to your committee, and on the dates in question 47 and 37 carpenters respectively were shown in the time-books and carried on the pay-rolls, for a total of seven camps. The maximum number shown for any single day in the month of October was 79. The evidence further indicated that all worked as carpenters throughout their period of employment as such.
(f)	Mr. A. W. Neill, member of the House of Commons for Alberni, on February the 10th, 1932 (on page 90 of Hansard, 1932), made the following statement referring to oamps:

"One might say they were equipped almost luxuriously with hot and cold water shower baths, electric lighting plants, and I am informed even radios have been provided in some eases. The tools were furnished on a scale never known before in connection with road work. Every man had enough tools to suffice for ten; every man had a wheelbarrow; every man had a ten-foot saw. which was entirely unnecessary, and everything was done on a lavish scale. The material, Mr. Speaker, was all bought at the right place, you may depend. We have instances of blankets being bought at gift stores. I take it, sir, that you know what a gift store is, but if by chance you do not know may I explain it is a place where the word gift is terminated with an "e," and -where one may buy trinkets for bridge parties, and things of that nature. Blankets were bought at such places for road camps." Your committee finds that the camps were built and equipped in accordance with the regulations of the Health Act of British Columbia, and regulations for the sanitary control of lumber, mining and other camps, sawmills and other industries, and were similar, both as to cost and equipment, to oamps used by contractors and lumber men for similar numbers, purposes and periods. The showers referred to are required by the regulations aforesaid and were installed at the rate of one to 20 or 25 men, at a cost of $7 per shower; the construction consisted of tar-papered partitions with slats on the floor and wooden drains. Twenty-three "Delco" lighting plants were installed; a number of these were purchased second-hand and have a high salvage value. The cost of lighting by electric light was carefully estimated and it was found that, in large permanent camps, electric light was the most economical of all available systems and also greatly reduced the fire hazard.
The charges regarding radios and blankets have already been dealt with.

The Budget-Mr. Dickie
The evidence indicated that there was a wheelbarrow for every tenth man and a crosscut saw for every seventeenth man.
Your committee finds that the purchase of tools was on a reasonable basis and sufficient only for the number which the province reasonably expected to employ under the unemployment relief program.
Your committee finds that materials of all classes were bought from citizens of this prov-vince without regard to political leanings; instances were brought before the committee of large purchases from prominent Liberals in this province.
It should be noted that there were individual camps which contained large quantities of supplies; these were, however, used as depots, and tools were distributed therefrom as and when required by other camps in the particular neighbourhood.
(g)	Mr. Thomas Reid (at page 1283 of Hansard 1932), stated:
"I counted in one camp 450 steel wheelbarrows. They had so many that a man was to be appointed to regulate their use." The evidence before your committee indicated that there might be 450 steel wheelbarrows in one camp but it would be in the nature of a depot or warehouse camp for a group of camps, and that the man referred to would be for the purpose of distributing wheelbarrows and other tools and supplies among the various camps requiring them.	.
Mr. Reid further stated: "I have no comment to make regarding the construction camps except to criticize the loose way in which they were run." The evidence before your committee indicated that the camps were conducted in an efficient and economical manner.
That is all I have to say on that matter, Mr. Speaker, I wished to put this on Hansard for the instruction of those people who listened to charges against the British Columbia government in the debate now long passed.
With respect to the budget speech, it was an admirable presentation. For three weeks we had been listening to another very tiring eruption of words, and we listened in vain for some suggestion that would assist the government in the very difficult task with which it is now faced in the matter of unemployment, but no sound suggestion was made. The suggestion was made by the Minister of Labour in the late government, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) that a fund of $90,000,000 be created for unemployment insurance, the federal government contributing $30,000,000, the employers $30,000,000, and the balance of $30,000,000 being contributed by the working men of this country. I would ask any manufacturer, any man who is engaged in the lumber business, for instance, I would ask the two good, practical men I know on the other side of the house, the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) , what they would think of the manufacturers and industrialists of this country being asked at the present time to raise $30,000,000 for that purpose. We all realize the hardships that exist with respect to unemployment, and there may come a time, when this government gets the ship back on an even keel, when we may be able to do something along that line, or at all events do something more for labour than we are doing at the present time, but just now it is absolutely silly to talk of creating a fund of $90,000,000 to guarantee wages to men who are unemployed. The unemployment question is undoubtedly a very serious one, and a little later, if I have time,
I shall deal with it more fully.
We also had that old man of the sea, free trade, again thrust upon us during the three weeks' debate to which I have referred. It is needless to spend any time combating free trade arguments for practically every nation in the world has gone off the free trade list. Even Great Britain has abandoned free trade. What would Canada do, with a population of ten million people, living alongside a highly protected nation of one hundred and twenty million people if we did not have a protectionist policy? We would go down and out. Had we not raised our tariff barriers during the severe times of the past year and a half, our country would have been flooded with manufactured articles from the United States and we would have had more idle working men in this country than we have at the present time. By raising our tariffs we are now buying something like one hundred million dollars' worth less of goods from the United States. That means that that one hundred million dollars is kept in this country for the benefit of Canadian working men. We hope that the government will continue to act along the same lines and protect this country. Whether theoretically protection is right or not, protection is necessary in the present state of affairs throughout the world.
Then a back-to-the-land movement was suggested. It has been advocated that owing to the tremendous number of unemployed people we have in this country we should institute a policy of getting them back on the land. We have tried that policy in a small way in British Columbia. We have been trying to do our utmost for the benefit of those men who had gone overseas and done so much for us, but this back-to-the-land movement I regret to say has not been a success in British Columbia. The back-to-the-land movement may later on prove to be a success throughout Canada if people become more inclined to go back to the simple life, but at the present time we could not place a sufficient number of men back on the land to
The Budget-Mr. Dickie

relieve the unemployment problem throughout Canada to any great extent. But we want them back there. They are better there than they would be thronging the cities, and the time may come when we can induce more of them to go back to the land. It would be a wonderful thing if we could get them out of the cities into the God-given air of the country, where their lungs would have a chance to expand and they would have different ideals than they have in the city. We have become unmoralized, if I may use the word, Mr. Speaker, by salacious literature and by rotten Hollywood films. Our people have been demoralized by bright lights and rubber tires, and the sooner we can get them away out of the cities into the pure atmosphere of the country the better. It is a big problem and I hope that we shall be able to succeed in solving it. It is a long, far cry, but the gap must be bridged between lipsticks and lips kissed with the morning dew. Get them out into the country, into the pure air and doubtless our race will be benefited thereby. In the present age we require some Virgil to teach the dignity of life in the country, someone to teach our people to get out in the God-given air, among good, pure surroundings. Nothing in this world will do as much for our population as the simple country life. We have all read of the expression of little Pippa "God's in his heaven and all's well with the world" when for the first time she went out into the country.
Mr. Speaker, I am becoming somewhat confused and I am afraid I shall have to branch off on another argument.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Do not be alarmed; that is often the case.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Not many will admit it.


Charles Herbert Dickie: We have very grave problems with respect to unemployment. Due to the advance of science there are many thousands of men without work. In the great nation to the south of us I understand there are 8,000,000 workless people; I do not know how they are going to be employed. There was a time when the markets of the world were open to that great country; they went full speed ahead; tremendous industrial enterprises were undertaken. At the present time each nation is protecting itself against the inroads of manufactured articles from the United States. In that country there are, as I have said, from 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 people which constitutes a grave problem. We in Canada, I am told, have about 500,000 unemployed. Although our country has a smaller population than has the United States we 
have greater undeveloped resources. The time will come no doubt when all our men will be given work. At the present time it is very difficult to see how such a condition may be brought about. I do not know, however, how the United States will ever find employment for their idle population. There may come a time when the arguments advanced by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) may have to be adopted throughout the American continent and the world. Due to the advent of labour saving machinery, the use of steam, and the use of engines capable of drawing as many care as, in the early days, three locomotives would have drawn, one man does the work of ten. It is unfortunate that the man getting along in years should be penalized through the use of labour saving machinery. The fact is, however, that there are too many labourers in the world at the present time. What must he done to remedy the situation is a matter agitating the minds of some of our greatest thinkers. I believe the day will come when two shifts of working men will do what one shift is doing to-day. I do not see any other way of putting our unemployed to work.
It is pitiful to read of the distress prevalent throughout the various cities in the United States and Canada. We are doing our best for them; measures are being enacted to give temporary relief. We want, however, to give relief which will enable them to look forward to the proper rearing of their families; we want to make those people good citizens. The leader of our party, and doubtless that of the party opposite, are agitated, trying, striving to reach a solution of our unemployment problem. Those men must have work if we are to prevent mischievous doctrines from permeating their minds. None of us would like to see in operation the doctrine proclaimed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North 'Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). We want Canada to be a country where a man may prosper according to his integrity and ability. We do not want to place people in one class as is done in Russia to-day, to do away with initiative, and to do away with all that builds good citizenship. If mankind is to improve it must have some object for which to strive.
I can remember a time when the Indians in British Columbia were almost a truly socialistic people. I remember one Indian who for some unforeseen reason, or by some piece of luck, had accumulated a little more than his fellows. As a result he gave what was known as a potlatch, and gave away everything he had. He reduced his means to a point as low or lower than those

The Royal Assent
of the rest of the band. He was called a chief, or something of that nature, and was well pleased at the return given him for his sacrifice. After he had given away his means he wrapped his blanket around him, sat in the sunshine beside his rancherie, to wait for the next run of dog salmon so that he might get enough to eat. There are some very beautiful ideals connected with socialism. We cannot however do away with initiative, or we will go down, down the line until we finally reach the primordial ooze from which we came in the first instance. We must progress, and must have some reward in view. We do not necessarily need to attack the principles of our fellow man, but must do something for our country and ourselves, if we are to survive. We want no fallacious argument of socialism to permeate this good land of ours. Ideal as a socialistic condition may seem, it does away with initiative. In Russia to-day there are millions who have nothing to look forward to. There are men without smiles going about their business, half clad and half fed. True, some few have gained notoriety as there would be if we in this country adopted a similar system. Thank God however for good Anglo Saxon common sense which permeates the minds of our people.
As hon. members are aware, an economic conference is to be held in Ottawa in July of this year. We know not what the outcome may be, but we do know that earnest men are coming from all parts of the empire to confer and reason one with the other as to what can best be done for the country and the empire as a whole.
It is too early to predict what may happen, but we know they are meeting here with the very best of intentions. There will have to be a little give and take on the part of all the various units of the British Empire, but doubtless good will result, and if we achieve one-half of what we expect we shall do away with the unemployment problem in the empire. Let us deal within the British Empire as much as possible; let us buy goods from our sister dominions and sell to them what we can manufacture to better advantage than they, and we shall soon do away with unemployment. If not, we must adopt some other measures. I know of no other government in the world that is giving more attention to this problem than the present government. The government are looking for suggestions from the other side rather than destructive criticism, they are striving to do something for the workingmen of this country. I think the most piteous feature of unemployment is the man, hollow-eyed, looking for

work and unable to get it. We do not want the minds of our people permeated with the mischievous doctrines advanced by the member for Winnipeg North Centre; we want them to be upstanding citizens, not relying on the efforts of others, but climbing up unaided to improve their position and at the same time improve this great country.
Under the wise guidance of our leader, I feel sure that he and his colleagues will solve our major problems. We stand solidly behind him, and we hope he may be spared to put Canada back in that condition of prosperity which we have every reason to expect because of the wonderful potentialities of our great natural resources. We are going to make of Canada a country worth while to live in, and I am confident we shall emerge from the present depression perhaps quicker than any other country under the sun, due to the virilitj' of our people and our great natural endowments. Then let us be careful not to drift under the influence of the indulgent gales so far from the shores of economic sanity as we did during the past, let us conserve our resources, let us go a little slower, and we shall make this one of the greatest countries in the world.
I think no other statesman of to-day has the adaptability and the qualifications so necessary for extricating Canada from the economic morass in which it is now engulfed as has our admirable leader, that right hon. gentleman:
Whose slow, wise smile,
Half within and half without
Seems filled with knowledge of the world.
He will bring us out of the impasse, and under his wise guidance we shall emerge from this depression quicker than any other country in the world. I think the economic conference next July will have an important bearing on the future of this country. If our right hon. leader extricates Canada from the tremendous burden under which we are struggling, I might say in the words of Horace, he will have:
-builded a monument Stronger than brass and of vast extent, Higher than Egypt's chief pyramid,
That monument to kingly pride;
Whose top as heaven is high,
At base as earth is wide.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
The Budget-Mr. Rheaume
[Stage Direction]
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Boards of Trade Act.
An Act to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
An Act to amend the Judges Act.
An Act 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, No. 2.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1933.
Mr. MARTIAL RHEAUME (St. Johns-Iberville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of this opportunity offered to me, of expressing my views on the budget brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). First, I wish to congratulate him on his appointment to this high office. I further desire to congratulate the hon. member for St. Anne's (Mr. Sullivan) on his maiden speech in this house.
He highly praises this budget, and adds that all the prominent financiers of this country have approved of it and stated that it was a genuine budget. I do not share the views of the hon. member for St. Anne's. He represents a constituency comprising in the major part workmen earning small wages; were he to call from door to door so as to ascertain the opinion of his electors on the budget, I think his views would soon change.
I wish, incidentally, to point out the figures quoted a few days ago by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). He stated that the government had made an outlay of 140,000,000 to relieve unemployment and had undertaken to make a further outlay of $16,000,000 this year. I am amazed that they are disbursing such large amounts for unemployment relief; not that I am opposed to this expenditure-on the contrary, I approve of it-because I contend that the government do not practise what they advocate. The appropriations for the Department of Public Works amounted to $20,480,550, in 1931-32, and they have been cut to $13,187,000 for 1932-33, which means a reduction of more than $7,000,000. If the government were in earnest they would increase the appropriation for public works. It would be an excellent way to alleviate unemployment. After requesting the municipalities to do their utmost in helping the unemployed,
I think the government is showing a poor 
example in cutting down by $7,000,000 the estimates of the Public Works department.
The other day while glancing over a pamphlet distributed by the Minister of Labour, I discovered that in the county of Chambly-Vereheres-which is adjacent to my own and for the most part a farming county -there was expended to relieve unemployment an amount of $129,172; however, the total expenditure for the province of Quebec only amounted to $415,606. I therefore state that 'Chambly-Vereheres was more favoured than the other counties of Quebec. I do not know if it is because the constituency is represented by the Minister of Marine, who must have a great deal of influence with his colleagues, however, that county received more than 30 per cent of the amount allotted to Quebec.
The county of St. John's-Iberville, which I have the honour of representing in the House, received slightly more than $16,000. An amount of $1,210 was granted to the town of Iberville, and only $282.70 were expended, to date, for a population of more than 3,000. An expenditure of $16,195 was made in the city of St. John's which comprises more than 12,000 people and has over 900 unemployed. I contend, sir, that there has been undoubted evidence of favouritism in connection with the distribution of the unemployment funds. When I note that in the county of Chambly-Vereheres, in villages comprising between 150 and 200 people, over $6,000 were expended; in Chambly more than $19,000; in Longueuil the population of which is much less than St. John's, almost $20,000 were expended and at St. Lambert more than $69,000, I must protest on behalf of St. John's-Iberville, and state that my county like many others in Quebec, has not been given an amount of relief proportionate to the county of Chambly-Ver-cheres.
I am pleased, sir, to see the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) in his seat; as I am aware that he understands the beautiful French language, I wish to point out to him that in the budget of his department, this year, there is an appropriation of $10,973,548, that is, more than $8,500,000 is set apart exclusively for military purposes and almost $2,500,000 for the navy.
In a country like Canada where the national debt increases by hundreds of millions of dollars, I contend that it is more than time to cut out military expenditure. The budget of that department is equivalent to one dollar per capita of the population. More than $260,000 are expended on the League of Nations so as to foster disarmament, while, on the other

The Budget-Mr. Rheaume
hand, millions of dollars are expended for military purposes. The administration of this department alone amounts to $320,000, the cadet service $100,000, contingencies $35,000, engineering service $327,500, general stores $063,500, non-permanent active militia $1,837,-400-namely $168,600 less than last year.
I am, sir, fairly well informed on this nonpermanent active militia. In the appropriation pertaining to this matter are included the following items, service, maintenance, pay and allowances with reference to the administration, the training of the militia in camps, staffs, in schools of instruction, target practice, grants to associations, etc. I state that there is no greater waste of money in this country than that which is expended on military training camps. I know of what I am talking about as we have almost every year such camps in the town of St. John's and this has been so for a great number of years past. The town is invaded by regiments of 600, 700, 800 men more or less, who have no knowledge whatsoever of military training, they cannot handle a rifle or understand a word of English. They are fitted up indifferently and come over to this training camp for two weeks, at the country's expense. Millions of dollars are wasted in giving officers the opportunity of taking holidays, at the state's expense. In a poor country like ours, during a crisis, when people are starving, I state that these millions of dollars should be applied to help the unemployed and the needy.
In the item of $4,844,000 appropriated to permanent troops, there is a decrease of $206,000. I have already expressed my views as regards military schools and permanent troops. There exists such a military school in the town of St. John's. I do not wish to express an opinion whether it is better or worse than the others. I am certain that the officers and men of this school follow the same regulations as others established in this country. A few hours per day are devoted to training so as to raise an appetite, and all this at the government's expense. .The country meanwhile is millions of dollars in debt. I contend that it is more than time to forego such waste of money. I note that the Royal Military College will cost this year $360,500, namely, a decrease of $25,500. If I be not mistaken, in order to enter this college, one must be well off. If the government wished to put into practice what they advocate, they should first replace these military colleges by agricultural schools.
The government has asked this house for a blank signature so as to dispose of unlimited amounts for unemployment and farm relief.
Let them do away with military schools and replace them by agricultural schools and thus make of our sons good farmers and citizens.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) stated this week that the future of Canada depended on farming. I have in hand the budget of agriculture for 1932-33. As I stated just now the population of Canada reaches 10,000,000 and the expenditure per capita for farming is sixty cents, while it amounts to more than one dollar for the militia. In 1931-1932, the estimates of agriculture amounted to $9,929,000; this year they are only $6,671,000, a decrease of $3,258,000. I wonder why our friends opposite, who represent rural counties, and especially those from the west who represent essentially farming constituencies, tolerate a cut of $3,000,000 in the agricultural estimates, while only a cut of $1,302,000 for the National Defence and $1,606,000 for the naval service, is made. I state, sir, that it has no sense. My views are that the militia budget should be cut by 75 per cent and that of Agriculture increased proportionately.
The experimental farms' appropriations are decreased this year by $833,000, while those of the Royal Military College at Kingston are only reduced $25,500, a difference of $808,000. And the government is bold enough to state that it is to relieve the farmers that a blank signature is requested! I trust that the people of this country will open their eyes and see which of the two parties is the champion of the farmers. I note that the grants for agricultural exhibitions are cut down S300,000, that for dairy industry $63,700, for the health of cattle and inspection of meat $896,000, almost a million. What care are they taking of the health of the citizens of this country?
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: After
slaughtering cattle infected with tuberculosis, the amount appropriated for that purpose is reduced by $896,000, while the estimates affected to the non-permanent troops is only cut down $168,600. One must keep within reasonable limits. It is quite proper to support a political party, however one must preserve some common sense. One must not forget that members represent the electorate of their constituency. I spy the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette), the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche) who represent two beautiful farming counties as fine as mine-*
Mr. BARRETTE (Translation); Finer.
The Budget-Mr. Rheaume


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Perhaps so. When we are aware of decreases such, for instance as that of $376,700 in the appropriation for the administration of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act, while a cut of only $206,000 is made on the permanent militia, I state that one must keep within reasonable limits-I see that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins), is in his seat, he is the champion of live stock. I am aware that he has the rank of a colonel; perhaps, military matters are of a greater concern to him than agriculture or live stock. I wonder what he thinks of the $150,000 cut in the live stock appropriation.
The estimates intended for publications which the government distribute throughout the country to help the farmers-and which deal with the work carried on at the various experimental farms-are reduced by $30,500, while militia contingencies are larger than that amount.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: Will the hon. member allow me to put a question?
Mr. RHEAUME	(Translation):	With
pleasure.
Mr. BARRETTE	(Translation): What
were, in 1930, the amounts voted for Agriculture and National Defence?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: My answer to the hon. member is that when the budget of 1930 was brought down, I had not the privilege of representing the county of St. John's-Iberville; I am discussing the present budget. I am not expected to assume [DOT] the responsibility for the acts of my predecessors,
I am simply commenting on the present budget.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I notice in the budget that an expenditure of $20,000,000 was made in the western provinces. In no way do I feel envious, far be it from my thoughts; I am aware that the west is in dire circumstances; we have there compatriots and we must help them out. I regret that the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) is not in his seat, because I should have given him a message for the Prime Minister of his province. I shall ask his good Conservative friends who represent farming constituencies to endeavour to obtain a two cents per pound bonus on butter.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: That was Mr. Houde's policy which you cried down in the last Quebec provincial election.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: All are aware that the price of butter has come down to 18 cents per pound within the last few days, to-morrow it may perhaps reach 16 cents.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Is that your wish?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: No, sir, we want the government to give a bonus on butter just as they did on western wheat.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: There will be one.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: The hon. Postmaster General promised one at the last provincial election.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: We shall see that he keeps his pledge!


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I want to give you some idea of the prices of farm products. If I request a rebate, a direct aid for the eastern provinces, it is because of their precarious financial situation. Many of them have failed within the last few months and if business does not improve within the next six months, I think that there will be thousands of farmers who will fail in the eastern provinces. Wholesale butter, last week, sold at IS cents; eggs retailed at IS cents a dozen; potatoes 40 cents per bag; pork $6.50 per cwt., beef 5 cents per pound, veal 4 cents per pound; cow hides, 2, 3 and 4 cents, calf hides, 4 and 5 cents, country hides, 35 cents a piece.
I listened to our friends opposite state that from 1921 to 1930, we had had a. bad regime which had ruined the country. I would ask them to compare the prices of to-day with those of 1921 to 1930.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: What do you designate country hides?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Country hides, sir, are the hides of calves which the farmers slaughter themselves and sell in the village or to a leather dealer; it is what we call "a farmer's hide" and is not supposed to be worth as much as a hide which comes from the Montreal slaughter-houses or city butchers.
Now, sir, I wish to make a few comments on the luxury tax. I regret that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) is not in his seat, however, I trust that his good friend, the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland), will draw his attention to my remarks or that he will read them in Hansard. This luxury tax was discontinued, I do not know by whom, however, if an error was

The Budget-Mr. Rheaume
committed, it is when this luxury tax was abolished, and this to the detriment of the people. The following are a few comparisons: a golf suit costs $25; this is about the same price as a workman's Sunday suit, and the tax is the same in both instances; dress suits and tuxedos, etc., are taxed the same amount as for an ordinary man's winter coat. As for ladies' evening dresses, well, I have a wife and daughters, so I know what they cost. I am not opposed to wealth, on the contrary; however, one must draw a line between necessities and luxury. One purchases an evening dress for $40, $50, $60 and $75 and yet you pay the same tax as when you purchase a decent or comfortable coat for your wife. If a man has the means to purchase an evening dress for $60 or $75, so that his wife may attend a ball or an evening party, this gentleman can certainly afford to pay 10 per cent of a luxury tax and hand over $6 or S7 to the state which certainly needs the revenue.
I shall now, sir, draw your attention to a few articles pertaining to sport, not that I disapprove of sports. Perhaps one will say that I am not a golf player, it is true; however, I am a member of a golf club and of many other clubs, and I like sports. Even this morning, I noticed in a store window on Rideau street, golf shoes selling at $2.50, $4, $5, $6 and even $9. When a person can purchase a pair of shoes for $2.50 and he prefers to purchase a pair for $9, surely there must be an average price that might serve as a^ basis. A person who can afford $5, $6 or $7 more for a pair of shoes, can certainly pay a luxury tax of 50 or 60 cents. I saw some quite nice golf stick bags for $3 50-there were others for $12.50; these articles sold at five different prices. An average price could be fixed. One who purchases a $12.50 article for a golf stick bag when he can purchase one for S3.50, should pay a luxury tax on the difference. I also noticed that golf sticks were on sale at prices ranging from $2.50 to $6. The sales tax on a golf stick is the same as on a pick or shovel. Tennis rackets were marked $2, $4, $6, $8, $10, up to $18. I am in favour of encouraging sports, however, I contend that when a person can purchase a tennis racket for $2, $4, $5 or $6, and that person pays $18, he can afford paying 10 per cent more to help his country.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: You will not be looked upon as a sport.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The same tax is levied on automobiles "de luxe" as that
which is paid by a poor person who purchases a motor truck to earn a livelihood or a salesman who needs a car to earn his living.
There is an article of first necessity which has somewhat drawn my attention, namely matches. They are sold three boxes for 25 cents. There is a sales tax of i a cent and an excise tax of 3 cents per box. If you purchase twelve boxes worth $1, you pay 6 cents according to the new sales tax and 36 cents of excise tax, which means 52 cents tax on $1. Now if you purchase a box of chocolates of $1, there is no apparent tax. Would it not be fairer to levy this luxury or excise tax on the box of chocolates than on an article of first necessity as are matches? When you pay $1 for a box of chocolates, so as to satisfy your greediness, I state that this is a luxury. I wonder, sir, if the famous budget so much praised yesterday really meets with the approval of the people?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, heart


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Hear,
hear!


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I shall now refer to what is known as a grandfather's clock. I had the occasion, together with a group of friends, of purchasing one so as to make a present. The prices ranged from $150 to $600.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: That was a ''de luxe" present!


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I state that a person who purchases a grandfather's clock for $600 when one can be purchased for $150 or $200, can afford paying a luxury tax of 10 per cent.
I now come to dining-room sets. Last week, I saw in a large Montreal store a dining-room set priced at $1,200.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Hear,
hear!


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I understand that quite a heavy duty is levied on furniture. A nice dining-room set can be purchased, to-day, for 8200 or $300, however if a person pays $1,200, to satisfy a whim or to boast of the finest dining-room set in the town or village, that person can certainly afford to contribute something to the exchequer.
I further wish to refer to articles considered a luxury such as diamonds, rings, etc. I am not opposed to jewels. Whether a person buys, in Montreal, Ottawa or anywhere, jewels to please some lady, no objection can be
The Budget-Mr. Rheaume

taken. Last week, I saw at Birks, in Montreal, a diamond worth $2,500. I contend that if a person can afford purchasing a diamond ring, either for himself or as a gift to his wife or his girl. . .


Joseph Arthur Barrette: She must be very pretty 1


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: It matters little; however; I state that such a person can afford paying a tax on articles considered a luxury especially, when a tax of 42 per cent is levied on matches. The hon. Minister of Finance is in his seat. I trust that in his next budget-unless he wishes to amend this one-he will consider levying a tax on luxuries.
I shall not add anything further, as I know that a number of my colleagues wish to take part in this debate. The country made a mistake two years ago, it knows it now, and awaits its opportunity.
The Liberal party brought prosperity to this country from 1896 to 1911. From 1911 to 1914 prosperity left u&. I do not think that the Conservative party can blame it on their ill luck, but rather on their bad administration. I inquired from a number of old politicians and none remembered that the Conservative party had ever had a surplus in any year. I shall not refer to the period between 1914 and 1918, it was during the war, neither to the years between 1918 and 1921. The Liberal party assumed power in 1921. During two years it had to put up with deficits, however, after balancing the budget, from 1923 to 1930, there were surpluses every year, the national debt was decreased and the country entered an era of prosperity.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Of bankruptcy.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: You are in error.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You are responsible for this bankruptcy.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: From 1923 to 1930, we were blessed with surpluses. Look at the trade we carried on with other countries. I notice the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge is all ears, I wish to thank him, I am aware that he is well-read, clear-headed and I hope in days to come, will be appointed to the Senate.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Incidentally, I state that if his party appoint him, it will be as a tribute for his services to the party.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Many
thanks!


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: As I mentioned a few moments ago, from 1921 to 1930, Canada was prosperous. We traded with foreign countries. It is by doing a good business that a person amasses wealth; however, from 1930 to this day, we have been losing ground. I realize that the Conservative party will reply: the world is undergoing a crisis. In 1930, we also stated that unemployment in Canada was not due to a poor administration but rather to a world wide crisis. My opponent in the election stated: place the Conservative party in power and we pledge ourselves to bring back prosperity in this country within two months.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to add anything further, however, I feel certain that at the next general election, the people will choose the party which has always given protection to the farmer and workmen, because if the people were prosperous and happy, it was certainly under the Liberal regime from 1921 to
1930.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything
the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) said with regard to the effect on the morale of our people of lipsticks, rubber tires and salacious literature. I am sorry I was unable to follow the remarks of the hon. member who just took his seat, buit the French language is very beautiful, and if, when it has been translated, the speech of the hon. gentleman reads as it sounded to me, I am sure it will be very fine indeed. I understand that the Acting Speaker (Mr. Sullivan) himself speaks very beautiful French, and my neighbour intimated to me that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat took advantage of the temporary position of the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan) to mention something he said yesterday in a speech which was equally effective. I greatly appreciated the humorous, inoffensive and clever manner in which the Acting Speaker was cornered.
The question has often been asked as to what extent the present crisis is due to the world situation and to what extent it has been caused by the lack of an internal policy. I hope the Minister of Finance will excuse me

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich
if I do not deal specifically with the budget; my purpose to-day is to discuss the problem from a universal and particularly an European standpoint, and I hope at some other opportune time to deal with the internal aspect of this subject.
One of the most profound impressions an observant traveller in Europe must bring back with him is a realization of the interdependence of the nations and the absolute necessity for greater cooperation among all the countries of the world if we are to enjoy some semblance of the prosperity of the past two decades, and in order to obtain this cooperation the obstacles that stand in the way first must be removed.
The world is clamouring for peace, but there is no peace; it wants a return of prosperity, but there is no prosperity, for we cannot attain the latter without a propagation and realization of the former. We cannot eat our cake and at the same time have it. Briefly, it is the old story of the futility of trying to make an omelette without breaking an egg, the folly of attempting to maintain peace without an application of the essential contributory conditions, and the impossibility of a return of prosperity without the cultivation of the necessary peaceful arts and pursuits incidental thereto. At no time has the truth of the situation been brought home with greater force than during the past few years of financial stringency and economic chaos. More and more clearly are people beginning to realize the uniform character of the world and the utter impossibility, in this great age of industrial development, of any country living unto itself. Thus such phrases as "self-contained nation," "splendid isolation," are rapidly becoming obsolete and devoid of meaning, and even the famous admonition of George Washington against any foreign entanglements seems likely to be discarded as an outworn political anachronism; for the United States is just as involved in world affairs as any other nation and her future is just as dependent upon a successful solution of universal economic problems as that of any other country. In other words, she can no longer live apart from the rest of the world and retain her relative position therein, but she must unite with the other nations to restore the proper balance and stability essential to a return to prosperity.
As regards Canada and the United States our troubles can be traced directly back to Europe where present conditions have for the most part originated. It seems strange that the richest country in the world, with all her
vaunted wealth and great hoards of gold should, notwithstanding, have one of the largest armies of unemployment in the world. But such being the case, it can be attributed to no other cause than that the economic unity of the universe has in some manner been disturbed. For immediate causes one must refer to the lack of purchasing power on the part of people overseas. If Europe cannot buy, America cannot sell. For many decades the European market has absorbed the surplus products of this continent, such as wheat, meat, cotton, oil and many highly finished manufactures, but of late years the accumulating bankruptcy consequent upon the great war has left Europe so weak and impoverished as to make impossible of maintenance anything like the trade European countries used to call for in pre-war days. Matters have reached such a pass that our neighbour's troubles merge with our own difficulties on this and the other side of the ocean and that ours cannot be solved without a simultaneous solution of theirs.
My travels led me through some of the northern and central parts of the European continent, comprising a long, continuously changing panorama of formerly bustling urban activity, majestic mountain grandeur and exquisite pastoral beauty and simplicity, and during the entire extent of the journey the sun had shone down on all this beautiful scenery in a veritable blaze of glory, creating in one a momentary impression that all was right with the world and that this glorious sunshine and the products drawn by its power out of the rich European soil were ever at the undisturbed disposal of the inhabitants and possessors thereof. It was not until I had spoken to the peoples in the different countries I had visited and had been shown various ruins and wrecks, many evidences of which could be seen all over Europe, that the other side of the picture began to unfold itself. These ruins and the consequent industrial stagnation of the war broke every delusion I had about that continent in spite of its great culture, history, traditions and scenic appeal. I had thought that the devastating character of the last great war would forevermore become an object lesson to the belligerent countries, but their hatred and suspicion of each other have increased rather than decreased since the world war. I believe the fault lies in the system under which Europeans have been brought up rather than in the people themselves who, in my opinion, have become merely the victims of a vicious war

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich
psychology or propaganda. Propaganda may have had a very doubtful value during the throes of war, but in time of peace it is inconceivable how hate, blindness and error are allowed to stifle the natural impulse of man to seek the truth and live in harmony with his fellows.
Before my departure as the Canadian delegate to the Interparliamentary Union at Bucharest, I had entertained a somewhat hazy attitude toward the question of disarmament; but when, during the course of my journey I found out how alike are all the- peoples of the world, how similar their cares, joys, longings, lives and ambitions, and when I realized how universal are the decency, honesty and worthiness of the common man, I frankly admit I felt no pangs of conscience in voting against a proposed resolution to set up an armed force for the League of Nations as well as against other motions that I thought might perpetuate the damnable war spirit that had separated Europe into so many factions and that has prevented her from regaining her strength and taking her proper position in the world. I could not help contemplating the part that Canada should and must play in the ever-changing scheme of world affairs, for ever since I was a young man playing baseball on the sand lots of my little coal-mining birthplace with .contemporaries of a multitude of racial origin, my mind has been deeply agitated over the great common heritage given to us on this side of the ocean by a Supreme Being to .perpetuate the old and yet new doctrine of peace, good-will and the brotherhood of man. Notwithstanding the vicissitudes, exigencies and antipathies resulting from a peculiar psychology of racial warfare, I nevertheless still retain the hope and optimism bom of the democracy of youthful experiences, that Canada will some day become, as it were, a beacon light, to the rest of the world, tom by bitter strife and racial animosities to show the way to a more complete and mutual understanding amongst the various constituent elements thereof. In order to get a good picture of Europe hon. members should visualize a continent much smaller in size than Canada but with about forty times our papulation, and composed of some thirty sovereign states, each with its own army, its central government, its frontiers and the usual customs barriers, differing in race and religion, and with all the smouldering feuds and antagonisms of by-gone centuries. This seething, restless conglomeration of races-where did they all originate? Where did they come from; what were their sorrows, their joys and their ambitions? Those were questions, Mr. Speaker, which I put to

myself and found exceedingly fascinating. Taking them individually I found some very charming, cultured and progressive individuals, but judging them as nations I had seen and heard only too much of the mutual hatred and distrust which has persisted in Europe so bitterly all down through the ages. When I had finally completed my journey and found myself on board ship again quietly contemplating the whole situation, I could not help but draw a parallel with our own' miniature Europe in Canada, and note the difference in attitude on the part of our polyglot and cosmopolitan races which are making their contribution to the building up of this great nation-difference in attitude not only towards each other tout also towards the country of their adoption; and I thought, Mr. Speaker, that if something of the tolerance and good will, something of the spirit of friendship and mutual cooperation which characterize our various peoples in this country in meeting their problems could only be infused into their kinsmen on the other side of the Atlantic ocean there would not have been any occasion for the huge burdens of debts and for the nervous piling up of armaments which slowly but surely must bring about the collapse and ruin of every country in Europe.
It is true that we on this side of the ocean have a crisis also, but I think that that is largely due to the breakdown of our foreign markets. Europe has always absorbed our exportable surplus of wheat and other grains, and therefore I think it is the resurrection of that market that will bring about a revival of trade and the return of prosperity in this country. This, of course, does not ignore the existence of our vast internal problems which call for immediate solution, or the necessity of setting our own house in order so that we may adjust ourselves more effectively to world conditions.
In stressing the European situation, Mr. Speaker, I am seeking no alibi for our lack of a policy in this country. My purpose is merely to call attention to the basic unity of the world in which no country can live unto itself, and where each is dependent on the other to the extent of its own deficiencies as well as the others' ability to supply and our own ability to pay. Someone in this country has said that all trade is essentially barter and that commodities can only be paid for in goods. I was very much surprised to learn while over in England that out of the 175 million bushels of wheat which they annually import into that country, 105 million bushels come from foreign sources, while only

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich
70 million bushels come from Canada and Australia. Just how much this disproportion is due to Canada's unwillingness to buy more British goods I am at the moment unable to say, but I feel confident that if our volume of imports from the British Isles was increased it would react most favourably on our export trade in wheat and other food products, for it is hard to understand how Canada and the mother country can trade other than on a reciprocal basis. Only the other day the Right Hon. Mr. Thomas in England made this statement:
Canada may say, we are interested mainly in wheat, and from the standpoint of Great Britain the most important and indeed the only factor is what they will do in regard to our manufactures.
In plain English that means: If you want us to buy more of your wheat, you must buy more of our manufactures. When Mr. Thomas specifically referred to wheat in regard to Canada's trade with Great Britain he evidently must have been aware of the predominance of wheat as our staple export. Indeed so extensive has our grain trade become that from a country trading originally in only fish, fur and lumber, the sale of our grain in foreign markets has within the past three decades taken precedence over all other products in Canada. In 1932 nearly forty per cent of our total exports, valued at nearly half a billion dollars, was grain products. Indeed, it is through the grain trade that Canada reached the peak of her prosperity, and it is through that trade that she must regain it; for our foreign trade is the lifestream and foundation of our economic structure, and any restriction or curtailment thereof must strike directly and most powerfully upon the primary producers of this country, whose very existence depends upon a profitable sale of their products in markets abroad. Under the circumstances farmers cannot continue indefinitely to sell their products under the cost of production and at the same time maintain a fair and decent standard of living and meet all their various obligations. This condition has its limitations, and unless some methods of enlarging our markets and improving the system of distribution of our products to those markets are evolved, agriculture in the west is likely to sink into hopeless insolvency from which it may never recover, and when a basic industry like farming fails it is bound to affect adversely every other industry in Canada.
I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words aibout the tariff, but the tariff as one of the disturbing factors in trade recovery has been so thoroughly discussed that I think it
would ibe superfluous for me to rehash the old stereotyped arguments here this afternoon. It may, however, serve some useful purpose to point out the utter futility of economic tariff warfare not only in solving our internal problems in Canada but also in stabilizing world conditions. Tariff revision is a world problem, and as such must be solved by the world at large. I do not think it can be accomplished by unilateral agreement ; it must be accomplished by the mutual consent and cooperation of all the countries simultaneously, to do any real or genuine good.
During my visit to Europe I could not help but feel that the continent was too top heavy to last very long without collapsing, and that only an economic union of all the states thereof could save it from ultimate ruin. An American editor has said:
The way to understand Europe's economic tangle is to picture Canada as if it were [DOT] hacked and divided by customs and military barriers, so that goods, from Vancouver to Montreal would be inspected and charged duty at every few miles.
Such duplication of governmental, military and administrative machinery would be far more than Canada could bear, and it is certainly a load which Europe cannot carry either at the present or any time in the future. Among other obstacles to a return of world prosperity are disarmament, a settlement of the problems of international indebtedness, and the question of minorities. The Versailles treaty was supposed to set the European house in order, but it seems rather to have left a couple of ghosts which appear at frequent intervals to haunt the makers of the treaty and destroy their peace of mind. Senator Borah, chairman of the United States foreign affairs committee, wants to revise the treaty, and so do many others. He comes out flat-footed on the debt question and asks that war reparations and war debts be cancelled. On top of all this, sir, the minorities in Europe are clamouring in ever-accumulating zeal for autonomous freedom within their own ethnographical boundaries or else complete absorption within their own racial groups. On the other hand, so intent are the newly set up states in Europe in hammering together the various constituent elements thereof into one homogeneous whole, foy riding roughshod over their minorities, that little heed is paid to the cry of self-determination or to the minority treaties which have been placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations, and by which most of the post-war countries in Europe are bound.
2016	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich
I never saw so many soldiers in all my life as I did on my trip across the European continent. All along the railway lines one could see numerous sentries on guard. Here and there regiments of new recruits were being drilled, and in the restaurants, theatres and railway trains it seemed as if the well-groomed officers were the only patrons. It was not until one encountered the abject poverty of the cities, towns and rural districts that the sight of these well-fed officers became extremely ominous and significant. Time after time the picture of Canada with her 4,000 miles of unpatrolled boundary line, and her very meagre force of men under arms, came to my mind, and I could not help but feel a little homesick for the country where armaments were almost negligible and where war occupied the smallest place in our thoughts. The horrible vision of beautiful glorious Europe poverty stricken on the one hand and soldier infested on the other will always remain an object lesson to me of the folly of maintaining militarism and at the same time hoping for a return of prosperity. Such a futile hope, Mr. Speaker, can only end in despair; for much as the nations would like to disarm, they dare not because of fear of their neighbours, which has grown, rather than diminished, since the last great war. After thirteen years of peace there are now more men under arms than in 1914. Little wonder, therefore, is it that the nations hover so dangerously on the verge of bankruptcy and complete collapse.
In addition to the costs of armaments Europe is shackled by huge war and other debts. I do not think it worth while to mention the amount of those debts, because hon. members are familiar with the figures. British opinion is in favour of wiping out completely all war debts, and is sincere in its desire for a greater industrial prosperity in Germany. But the revival of a strong, industrially prosperous Germany relieved of crushing war debts will hardly be accepted in a friendly spirit by France, whose whole policy in regard to Germany has been based on overwhelming fear, and the consequent determination to keep this neighbouring country down; but how long Germany can be kept down, or how long the German nation can be suppressed without pulling the rest of Europe down, including France, remains to be seen. So far as I am concerned nations of the world cannot get together too soon to eradicate the evils which brought about and continue to sustain the present depression. I have always been puzzled to know why the minorities question has been so ignored, 
and yet it is one of the main factors of the present chaos and dissension in Europe. Nations cannot be dismembered without leaving behind a lot of ill feeling and a sense of injustice. From what I saw of the rankling bitterness caused by the revision of the map of Europe I cannot help but feel that a little revision here and there would do much towards restoring a better and more harmonious balance. Love of one's country and one's race is a powerful source of many virtues and acts of heroism when it is based on and controlled by ethical laws. When it degenerates, however, into immoderate nationalism it soon becomes a source of countless acts of injustice and wrong. Look at the situation in Europe to-day. Forty million people have been cut off from their ethnical and racial groups by the Versailles treaty. They are being subjected to unspeakable outrages in the name of chauvinistic nationalism. So intent are these new post-war countries upon obliterating all traces of the diversity of the races within their borders that little attention is paid to the stipulations and provisions by which these countries are bound in respect of the minorities. When one therefore realizes that all these atrocities are committed in spite of the fact that minority rights are guaranteed by the League of Nations, and that most of these minorities live in close contiguity to strong kindred nations, the remark made by a certain writer, that Europe is sitting on a volcano which might at any moment erupt and light a flame throughout the world, is based as much on the minorities question as it is on any other of the problems that are harassing the world to-day.
In regard to the race question in Europe, one must take into account the fact that we are dealing with conditions and not theories, concrete situations and not abstract unrealities; for much as one might wish to warp existent realities to suit preconceived ideas of what should or should not be done, one cannot afford to ignore the human element, the peculiar innate characteristic pride, aspirations and ambitions that so stubbornly persist in all races and make people and conditions just what they are. Nothing keeps extreme nationalism alive like the forcible suppression of nationalism. If hon. members could only visualize the hopeless despair of suppressed desire, the cruel pain of thwarted effort, and the spiritual hell resultant therefrom, it would enable them to realize more clearly not only the tragedy but also the great injustice of the situation. Each race feels it is just as good as the other, and it is extremely galling to their self-respect to live in continual physical and

The Budget-Mr. Picket
spiritual subjugation and forced negation of the very qualities which the superpossessed races consider a virtue in themselves but a sin in those who unfortunately find themselves under their domination. But races somehow will not stay down; and as history has given us countless examples of the folly of forcible suppression, nothing less than a grant of autonomy and liberty of cultural development will free Europe from one of its potential menaces to peace and well-being.
The achievement of self-determination may after all be necessary in order to attain fuller growth and a wider conception of responsibilities. Their pride satisfied, the races should thus be unimpeded in their progressive march to a better civilization. At the present time the minorities in Europe are more interested in political than economic liberation; but once the former- is attained they ought to be able to devote their undivided attention to the latter problem. In any case civilization is not a standard but a continuous creative process requiring two simultaneous cooperative impulsions,-that which consists of the fulfilment of a common desire and that which comprises a pooling of separate individual contributions. The tendency of races is, primarily, to develop as separate entities, and secondarily, as parts of one cosmos or united universe. Although probably too much emphasis is being laid on the former and too little on the latter, I do not think that there is anything inconsistent in advocating cultural freedom, or even self-determination, of the races and the economic unity of the world at the same time. Such unity is impossible without peace, and peace is hardly likely unless justice is done to the forty million minorities in Europe.
Many centuries ago a great writer said:
In necessariis uni-tas, in du'biis libertas, in omnibus caritas-essentials unity, in doubtful matters liberty, in all things charity.
Those wise words, Mr. Speaker, may well be applied to the situation in Europe. Economic unity is very essential, and it is a matter on which all the nations of the world should place a great deal of emphasis. I do not think we can have prosperity in Canada unless we have prosperity in Europe. It is true that we have questions on this side of the ocean which call for immediate attention, but nevertheless I believe that unless the situation in Europe is changed it is hardly likely we shall have immediate prosperity in this country.
I hope on another occasion to tell the house about my trip to Bucharest and describe what was done there. I left Canada last September 41761-127
as the Canadian delegate to the interparliamentary union conference in Bucharest from October 1 to October 9, 1931. I was the only delegate from Canada. I was supposed to be accompanied by twenty delegates from Great Britain and other British possessions, but the old country being at that time in the throes of a general election, I found myself not only the sole delegate from Canada, but also the sole representative from the whole British empire.
Mr. F. H. PICIvEL (Brome-Missisquoi): I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to have this opportunity of dealing briefly with a subject in which I am much interested. If congratulations from a backbencher are worth anything, I desire to offer mine to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) for the clear and businesslike way in which he presented his first budget, the preparation of which involves very careful study and a great amount of work. I think the thanks of the house are due to the hon. minister for a task well done.
I represent a constituency interested in mixed farming, (principally dairying, such farming as practically all of the counties in Canada east of the great lakes are interested in. Of course, many of the different counties throughout the three iprairie provinces, and especially in British Columbia are also interested in this branch of farming, some to a greater, some to a lesser extent, but I understand that this industry is increasing rapidly in those sections. By nature the west is a grain-growing and grazing country, and as such those engaged in it perform a very important economic function. At the present time the dairy industry is suffering greatly in this country; it is simply drifting. I may say, without attributing the cause to any party or to anyone, that it is simply drifting without any directing policy. To me it seems that we have rather neglected the dairy industry. In 1925, with the introduction of the Australian trade treaty, the industry received its death blow-, and it has never recovered. Its recovery will take a long time. People directed their agricultural efforts in other directions, having lost interest in dairying, -because there was nothing in it. Right here I want to express concurrence in what the hon. member for Dufferin-Simeoe (Mr. Rowe) advocated the other day-a small bonus on butter and cheese. I believe -that at the -present time that would stimulate and help an industry that is in dire distress. With regard to the address last night of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard), we of course do not always see eye to eye, but so far as he voiced dissatisfaction

The Budget-Mr. Picket

at the treatment which the milk producers are getting in the city of Montreal, I agree with him. The milk producers in the country are receiving one dollar while the distributor in Montreal is getting three dollars; that does not seem to foe right; it should foe rectified. I think something should foe done about it.
What I want to call to the attention of the house particularly is the committee on agriculture. I have been a member of that committee since 1930 and its time has been spent for the most part discussing wheat. I have on three or four occasions tried to get a word in to talk about butter and eggs or something of that kind, but each time I have been sidetracked entirely and the committee has talked wheat. I have never seen Garnet wheat, but I know that I could step up to a bin and pick out Garnet or Marquis or Reward or any other variety of wheat.


Frederick George Sanderson: Did you not talk a good deal about butter in the election of 1930?


Mr. PICKET:: Yes, and with great results.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: You actually slipped in on it, didn't you?


Follin Horace Pickel: I trust that something will be done so that we won't slip out on it.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I am afraid you will.


Follin Horace Pickel: Pacific Railway Company. I have none of its stock, unfortunately; I hold no brief for that railroad, but as all Canadians are, I am proud, of it. I do not think there is in the world another railroad better equipped or managed than the Canadian Pacific. I mention it because I do not know of any other company or combination of people to whom we could give the national railway. By getting rid of it. we would lessen that deficit of a million and a quarter dollars that, every week of our lives we are throwing into the mismanaged Canadian National, and negotiations should at once be opened with somebody for the disposal of it.


Frederick George Sanderson: Why not take the matter up with the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) ?


Follin Horace Pickel: I am taking it up with the house; that includes the Minister of Railways.


Frederick George Sanderson: He is not listening to the hon. member.


Mr. MANION:: I heard every word he said.


Follin Horace Pickel: Before leaving this subject may I say that I think the Liberal party is derelict in its duty in that it does not erect somewhere around these parliament buildings an imposing monument to the memory of the late Hon. A. G. Blair, late Minister of Railways in the cabinet of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He told that party what it was doing and how it was going to ruin the country, and that is what will happen if we continue in our present course. We have a bankrupt railroad and if we continue we are going to bankrupt the Canadian Pacific and the country.
Mr. MicINTO-SH: Is it the railroad or the government about which the hon. gentleman is talking?


Follin Horace Pickel: Both railroads.
I should like to say a word or two about the imperial conference, although I would not wonder at people looking askance at a backbencher having the temerity to discuss such a subject. I want to mention a few facts in connection with that great conference which is to take place here in July. During the election of 1930 the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) pranced around the country from town to town telling the people that if we did not elect the Liberal party so that he could go to the conference, we were lost; that there was nobody else in sight who could represent Canada at the conference. The elections came on and the -Canadian people decided they would not send that right hon. gentle-
[Mr. Pick ?1.1
man. Perhaps they made a mistake. During the special session of 1830, while we were passing legislation in regard to the relief of unemployment and -making changes in the tariff, the leader of the opposition took every opportunity that presented itself to instruct the present,Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) how to act when- he went to the conference, got him all -dressed and dolled up, showed him how to pussyfoot in bis stockinged feet and told him he would have to approach the throne with -courteous conciliation.
The conference took place, and I suppose my hon. -friends thought our worthy Prime Minister would go there and act just as -the leader of the apposition had told him. I presume the leader of the apposition showed the Prime Minister jrsst how to approach the throne with -that courteous conciliation, -and just how to pussyfoot, because he himself had always been so successful in his negotiations in- t-h-e United States. Every time the leader of the opposition -carried on negotiations in the Unite-d States regarding a-n-y sort of matter, immediately he returned to -Canada the government of the United States raised the tariff. As I say, -the imperial conference took place in London and the Prime Minister attended it, worthily supported by the Minister of Justice (Mr. -Guthrie). What did1 he tell the-m? He shocked the English people; but it was just what they needed; if the Prime Minister had -not -gone there, they would be still in -the -rut they have been in for hundreds of years. Strange to say, they took his -advice; but after he returned from tba-t -conference it will be remembered that during the session of 1931 we sat here sweltering, -melting and dissolving in our seats in July, while members of the opposition were bringing in great tomes, encyclopaedias an-d dictionaries to define that little word "humbug". How they rolled that round in their mouths! What a juicy morsel it was! They were as pleased as a boy going out to kill skunks, and the result was about the same.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Follin Horace Pickel: I have not much more
to say, Mr. Speaker. Indeed I have already said more than I intended and have taken up too much of the time of the house, for which I apologize.
Before the house rose for the dinner recess I had just reached the point where the skunk was functioning well. After we had passed

The Budget-Mr. Roberge
days and weeks discussing that little word "humbug" which was applied to the right hon. the Prime Minister's efforts in England at the imperial conference, things quieted down until the British elections came on. What was the result of those elections? The British people did exactly what the right hon. gentleman had urged them to do, and I consider that that was the greatest political achievement of modern times. I do not think any other statesman in the British Empire, British or colonial, has accomplished so much. The British people went to the polls and voted protection. They had lived under free trade for a century; it was a great reversal of opinion for them to vote protection, but they did so, to my mind, as the express result of the right hon. the Prime Minister's visit to that country, and this session has been conspicuous for the absence of the use ol that little word humbug. Once in a while it may slip out unintentionally from some member on the other side of the house, but it has been heard only two or three times this session, and yet Hansard was full of it in the session of 1931.
I should like to express my appreciation of the efforts of the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country. The opposition endeavour to belittle his efforts and to belittle him personally at every opportunity that presents itself. I admit that their criticism does not have much weight, but why they should endeavour to belittle a man of that calibre is more than I can understand. He is devoting his whole life to the good of this country, and he is in earnest about it. He is doing his very best and the people of Canada should be thankful that he is at the head of affairs in this country in these times. It should be every Canadian's prayer that the Prime Minister be spared to lead us out of the morass in which we now find ourselves. From what little political experience I have had, and it has not been much-successful experience, at all events-it seems to me it must be a terrible sacrifice for the Prime Minister to be occupying the position he does. He is pulled first one way and then another. His life must be a continuous tumult, and we should endeavour in every way we can to make his task as light as possible.
In conclusion let me refer for a moment to the dairying industry. I should like a little cooperation from those members of the committee on agriculture who come from the grain growing sections of this country. I have been endeavouring since I came here to do what I could for the dairymen and the mixed farmers, but I must confess that I have not
been able to do anything, and if I cannot help them in any way there is no use in my staying here. That is what I am here for, to help the mixed farmers of this country, and if the members of the committee on agriculture who come from the grain growing sections would only cooperate with the dairy section of that committee even to a very small extent we could do wonderful work.


Mr. BROWN:: Has the hon. member ever noticed a lack of willingness to cooperate with him with regard to the dairy industry?


Follin Horace Pickel: I will answer the hon.
gentleman by saying that members from the wheat growing section are too willing to cooperate. If we mention butter they take it right out of our mouths and tell us all about it. If we talk milk, they take it right out of our mouths and tell us all about it, and ninety-five per cent of them use canned milk.


John Livingstone Brown: You are dreaming, man.


Follin Horace Pickel: That is the condition of
affairs, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that this big, unwieldy committee of sixty members -be subdivided, and let us have a dairy section, a mixed farming section, and a grain and beef section, if you like. Why, Mr. Speaker, I have talked and heard so much talk about wheat in the last two years that I have stopped using bread. It seems to me that the grain section of that committee should be willing to cooperate courteously with us once in a while for. the good of the dairy industry.


Mr. EUSEBE ROBERGE (Megantic) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend
to go over the whole ground covered by the speech of the hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Pickel), I approve, of the suggestion which he has just made to the house. The committee on agriculture should, next year, be divided into two committees, one could specialize in the dairy industry while the other could look after the products of the farm, as a whole. I think that Quebec as well as the other provinces which have adopted mixed farming, would benefit more by this plan. I cannot approve, however, of his congratulations to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) with reference to this year's budget, the latter does not help the small wage earners, farmers or workmen, and still less does it fulfil the pledges made at the last election. In the last electoral campaign the Conservative party made many promises in our rural districts. I shall not refer to them all but I shall mention butter, because it served as their battle horse. On all the hust-
The Budget-Mr. Roberge

ings throughout Quebec, the Conservative party stated that it was a disgrace to see farmers selling their butter at such low prices as 28 or 30 cents per pound.
They asserted that as soon as they assumed power the price would go up to 40, 50 or 60 cents per pound. Well, what do we witness now that they are at the helm of the affairs of this country? To-day, while walking on Rideau street, I noticed that butter retailed at 20 cents per pound. All farm products are down like butter and the farmers at present, receive about the same prices as previous to 1896, under an old-time Conservative administration of early days.
In my own county, sir, the work in factories has dwindled at least 50 per cent. In my speech on March 22 last, I stated that the number of unemployed was larger than it had ever been in the county of Megantic, and at that date it had increased 1,200 or 1,400 over what it was on June 30, 1930, in spite of all the pledges made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I also mentioned then that the government had refused to help the workmen of Black Lake by not expending certain sums, because they had been voted under a Liberal regime and obtained through their member. To-day, I shall add and prove to the house that if the asbestos mines at Black Lake have not been working for seventeen months and if now the Thetford mines only employ half the men that they did in June 1930, notwithstanding a 50 per cent reduction in wages, the Conservative party which has been in power for 20 months, is to blame. The government is entirely responsible for the unemployment prevailing in Black Lake and at Thetford Mines. It is owing to the government's bad administration and forgotten pledges that the mines at Black Lake are entirely closed and are only half worked at Thetford. The embargo placed by the government on Russian goods is also, to some extent, to blame for this situation. I do not approve of the existing regime in Russia, however, I am opposed to the policy of this government which set an example to all the other countries, to the detriment of our industries and our miners who have no work. It is all very well for a prime minister to request that we should repose our trust in him, he has, however, no right to abuse it to starve our workmen so that his name may become famous abroad. It is going beyond all limits and the workman is strongly against such means. If the embargo against Russia was necessary, at least, they could have waited until England, France, the United States, Germany and all the large countries of Europe took such a step; Canada could then have followed. But it is ridiculous that
fMr. Robergp.]
Canada should be the first to take such a step. AH the great powers have continued to trade with Russia, and we, alone, have deprived our w'orkmen of work Iby placing an embargo on Russian goods. Russia to retaliate, sowed, the following year, one third more wheat, and more than doubled its asbestos output, that is why prices of asbestos have fallen more than 50 per cent and wheat proportionately. That is the result arrived at by the embargo adopted by the Conservative government. If the mines at Black Lake are closed, it is because Russia has lowered its prices 50 per cent and doubled its output. And if a similar situation exists at Thetford Mines, the embargo is also partly to blame.
The government, sir, not content with seeing the number of unemployed become larger every day, increases the cost of living by putting up the sales tax 6 per cent, this year. Will that benefit the unemployed? The cost of living having increased, they will become more numerous.
Both the budget and the bill authorizing a horizontal cut of 10 per cent in salaries is evidence of the lack of interest which the government takes in the small wage earner. The latter is called upon to bear this cut while a great number of high salaried people are exempt. This is shown by the speech of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who advocates exempting a class of high officials. Is this a good way of helping the country to reduce its national debt? If the government actually requires these $8,000,000 to balance its budget, why call upon the small wage earners instead of requesting those who are making large profits and are in a better position to put up the money, for a year only? Why not increase the tax on profit from 7 per cent to 50 per cent, after deducting what the act allows for living and overhead expenses. I am quite sure that millionaires and high financiers, who boast of being so patriotic when they force small wrage earners to pay, would be willing to help the government to balance its budget, since it would be only a matter of one year.
Mr. Speaker, as long as the government endeavours to levy taxes on those who have no money, it will continue to pile up deficits.
Another subject to which I want to draw the attention of [DOT] the house will interest, I think, members on the government side as well as those in the opposition, as we have all pledged ourselves to help our constituents. For over twelve years a certain person known as Garfield MacKinnon, who passes himself off as secretary of the Association of Mail Contractors of Canada, and gives as his address Guelph, Ont., has been-according to informa-

The Budget-Mr. Roberge
tion which I gathered following an inquiry which I have been making since February 6 last on his activities-travelling through part of Ontario -and Quebec as well as through the Maritime provinces, in order to exploit the mail carriers wherever he -goes, and take advantage of their trust in him. After having given to the -house the proofs which I have in my possession, I hope that members who also are in possession of any evidence that Garfield MacKinnon has also swindled -their constituency, will kindly -make it known to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), in order that he may hold an inquiry an-d -protect in the future employees against this individual.
In January last, Mr. MacKinnon came to the county of Megantic and held meetings, at Thetford Mines, of all mail contractors residing in the upper part of the -county; he also held a meeting at Plessisville. The latter took pla-ce on January 23. Those present state that the defeated candidate at the last election, Mr. J. L. Beaudoin was also present and that Mr. Garfield MacKinnon -promised all mail carriers who joined -the association that they would receive in the future $70 per mile, they would also be paid for all legal holidays and all letter boxes would be placed on the right side of the route; he, however, added that those who refused to join -the association would lose their position within six months.
To -prove my contentions, the following is an affidavit, sworn before notary C. E. Gos-selin. of Plessisville, and a receipt given by Garfield MacKinnon to Mr. Joseph Cote, mail carrier:
Province of Quebec,
District of Arthabaska,
Plessisville.
We. the undersigned Antonio Boulanger, Wilfrid Boule and Joseph Cote, mail carriers, all three residing in Plessisville, after being sworn on the Holy Bible, state:
That we are under contract to carry the mail, the first, on rural route No. 1 Somerset-South: the second, mail carrier from the post office of Plessisville to the station of Plessisville and return; and the third, on rural route No. 2.
That on or about the last days of January, 1932. a person named Garfield MacKinnon, claiming to be secretary of the association of mail carriers or mail contractors, called at the respective domiciles of the undersigned, requesting a contribution of five dollars, as mail carrier, otherwise they would lose their contracts.
That the said Joseph Cote alone paid the five dollars requested.
That the two others refused to pay said amount of five dollars.
Sworn before me, at Plessisville, this 4th day of April, 1932.
Antonio Boulanger,
Wilfrid Boule,
Joseph Cote.
C. E. Gosselin. N.P.
The following is -the receipt given to Joseph Cote:
"Membership"
Canadian Mail Contractors' Association Plessisville, Que.
January 23, 1932.

Received from Mr. Joseph Cote, P.O. to C.N.Ry. Plessisville, one membership fee of five dollars to the Canadian Mail Contractors' Association.
With thanks,
Garfield MacKinnon, P.O. Box 34, Guelph, Ont. Sec.-Treas. Canadian Mail
Contractors' Association.
The -day of his arrival at Plessisville, I was notified by telephone that Garfield MacKinnon h-ad held a meeting of all -mail carriers, at the hotel, in order to induce them to join the Association of Mail Carriers of Canada. A number of my friends having notified me of what was taking -place at Plessisville, I asked them to advise the mail carriers not to join this association before ascertaining whether Garfield McKinnon was employed by the Post Office Department and to refuse his request should he not give proof to that effect. I -promised them that as soon as I arrived in Ottawa, I would make inquiries and notify them whether i-t was in their interest to join this association. O-n my arrival in Ottawa, at the beginning of February, I communicated with the Post Office Department so as to obtain information on this matter, and I wrote the following letter -to the Superintendent of Mails:
Ottawa, Feb. 5, 1932.
G. C. Anderson, Esq.,
Superintendent,
Post Office Department,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Anderson.-Will you be good enough to let me know if there is an association for mail carriers in Canada, if so, is Mr. MacKinnon, Ottawa, formerly from Guelph, the secretary.
If this association still exists, will you be good enough to let me know the name and address of the president.
Yours truly,
Eusebe Roberge, M.P.
The following is the answer received on February 6:
Post Office Department, Canada, Mail Service Branch
Ottawa, 6th February, 1932. Eusebe Roberge, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Roberge,-I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 5th February, with regard to the Canadian Mail Contractors' Association.
In reply to your inquiry, I desire to advise you that the last information I have on the
The Budget-Mr. Roberge

matter is a circular issued in 1928 at which time Mr. Joseph P. Everett of Blenheim, Ontario, was president of this association.
In connection with the activities of Mr. Garfield MacKinnon, I am enclosing for your information copy of circular issued by the District Superintendent at Quebec, in accordance with instructions from the department.
Yours sincerely,
G. C. Anderson,
Superintendent.
As mentioned in the letter of the Superintendent, he forwarded to me a circular letter from the District Post Office in Quebec, dated July 19, 1927, which I shall read to the house, as well as the questions that I had inscribed in Hansard on February 18, 1932, and the answers given by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve).
The following is the circular letter received:
Office of the District Superintendent of Postal Service
Quebec, July 19, 1927.
Notice to Mail Contractin'?
The department is informed that Mr. Garfield McKinnon is still endeavouring to collect $5 from mail contractors as a subscription to the association of mail couriers; and in order to obtain this amount he threatens to have their contract cancelled unless they pay said amount.
I am instructed by the department to notify all couriers plainly and precisely that Mr. McKinnon has no influence whatsoever with the Postmaster General and that he is entirely unable to follow up his threats as regards cancelling contracts.
Mail contractors will kindly observe that there is no necessity for them to join the asisociation of Mr. McKinnon in order to submit their complaints to the department as all mail couriers are free to communicate directly with the Postmaster General. AH improvements in the service in the past was done independently of Mr. McKinnon's efforts and it is therefore useless for them to pay $5 to Mr. McKinnon in order to receive favours from the government.	_
Mr. McKinnon obtains money under false pretence when he threatens to have their contracts cancelled, while, on the other hand making them promises.
S. Tanner Green,
Administrator.
The following are the questions which I put to the Postmaster General, on February 18, 1932:
No. 32 .
Mr. Roberge: Monday next-Question:
1.	Did the Saskatoon district superintendent of postal service on July 28, 1922, send out a circular stating that Garfield McKinnon was to have a bill introduced in April, 1920, in order to improve the position of mail contractors?
2.	Did said contractors pay any money to McKinnon?
3.	If so, what amounts were contributed and what benefits did they derive?
'Mr. Roberge.]
4.	Did the Quebec district superintendent of postal service send out a circular on July 19, 1927, warning the said contractors against the promises by McKinnon?
5.	Does the said McKinnon still seek contributions from said contractors?
6.	Has the government taken the necessary measures to prevent McKinnon carrying on such practices?
The following are the Hon. Mr. Sauve's answers:
1. No record.
2 and 3. No official record. No benefits derived by contractors from activities of Mr. McKinnon.
4.	Yes.
5.	Department understands Mr. McKinnon solicits contributions.
6.	Contractors have been properly advised.
After receiving this answer, as the Post
Office Department had published a circular letter dated July 14, 1922, notifying mail contractors not to join this association, I made use of this circular letter to point out to those interested the means Garfield McKinnon took to gain the confidence of the mail contractors and swindle them, as shown by the letter he wrote himself on March 24, 1920, and mentioned in the circular letter of the Post Office Department, of July 14, 1922. I shall not read the whole circular because it is somewhat long. I shall simply quote some extract:
On March 24, 1920, Mr. McKinnon wrote to a rural mail contractor of Ontario, as follows :
My Dear Sir,-
Your letter received to-day and I was very glad to hear from you. I am working very hard day and night, doing my very_ best to secure a large membership, as quickly as possible. In order that we can have our case carefully prepared and presented by experts before the government and parliament, at Ottawa early in April, and I would very much appreciate it, if you would kindly join with us at once.	_
We will be successful in our undertaking with the government, just as soon as our membership is large enough. So will you kindly do your duty and join with us at once.
Kindly let me hear from you at once.
Yours very faithfully,
Garfield McKinnon.
According to these extracts, which I have just read, Garfield McKinnon was to have a bill introduced in April 1920, in order to improve the lot of mail carriers. To find out whether such a bill had been introduced in the house between the above date and up to the time of making this statement against Mr. McKinnon, I wrote to the law clerk of the house, and his answer is as follows:

The Budget-Mr. Roberge
Mr. Eusebe Roberge, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Roberge,-
Pursuant to your letter inquiring whether a bill had been introduced in the house since April, 1920, by Garfield McKinnon, or by others, to improve the position or lot of mail contractors, I must state that I went over the files covering the whole of that period and that at no time was such a bill introduced in the house. I came across a dozen bills relating to the Post Office Act. but none in the nature referred to by Mr. McKinnon.
Respectfully yours
Maurice Ollivier,
Tuesday, Feb. 23, 1932.
Law Clerk.
As you see McKinnon never had such a bill introduced in the house.
The following is a letter published in a circular from the Post Office Department. It is written in English, I had it, however, translated in French:
That this motive did not change is made evident by a letter from a postmaster in western Ontario, who on April 13, 1922, wrote to the Post Office Department, as follows:
On April 12th there was a man in this community by the name of Mr. McKinnon who was supposed to be organizing a mail couriers association.
He was leading the couriers (also the ex-couriers) to believe that he could get them back pay on their contracts as far back as 1917. They were to be paid at the rate of $70 per mile. Some of the old mail couriers were supposed to receive two or three thousand dollars back pay. Of course for the services Mr. McKinnon was going to render them he collected from the couriers the sum of $5 each- at least from those who were foolish enough to pay him. I know some of the ex-couriers who paid him the $5. and he is supposed to dig up this $2,000 or $3,000 of back pay for them.
Our old couriers, Mr.	and Mr. paid him the $5, and believe me they need the $5 worse than the man who received it.
It is my opinion that such men as this should not be allowed to travel through this country, taking money out of real poor men. and leading them to believe that he could get for them something which is impossible.
After obtaining the information given to the house, I wrote to all mail contractors of my county, the number 47. Of this number, 17 had paid, each, to McKinnon the sum of So.
The reason for disclosing these facts to the house, is that McKinnon swindled, as I have just shown, in the county of Megantie alone, seventeen contractors out of $5 each, he has therefore stolen from my constituents S85. I request the Postmaster General and the Minister of Justice to have this man arrested. He has been living on the proceeds
of other people's money for too long, he has obtained their money under false representation.
Both on behalf of my constituents, who have been swindled, and on my own, I ask that this man be made to return all the money thus obtained in my county, or that he be punished accordingly. This man has been scoffing at our governments far too long; he began to play this game under a Conservative regime and did the same thing under the Liberal rule and he has started again since the change of government. I think that the Postmaster General and the Minister of Justice should act immediately and rid the county of this Garfield McKinnon who swindled such large amounts by abusing the trust of mail carriers.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Will the
lion, member allow me a question?


Eusèbe Roberge: As soon as I am through, you may speak as much as you like.
I request all members to kindly furnish the hon. Postmaster General with any evidence they may possess, for, in their interest as well as mine, our people must cease being swindled by this adventurer. If, for the last twelve years, the Post Office Department has been unable to obtain the necessary proof to have this man arrested, it is because the mail carriers feared they would be deprived of their contracts if they gave an affidavit as the one I have read to the house. That is why I beg the hon. Postmaster General to give his mail carriers a renewal of their contracts for four years as a reward for the services they render to his department, and to prevent also the person who distributes political favours in the county of Megantie, from cancelling such contracts.
The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche) seems to be interested in this question. This being the case, I shall read to him a circular letter which I have in hand:
Meeting of the Association of Rural Mail Carriers
Richmond, Que., Dec. 22, 1931. Mr. C. LeBrun,
R.R. 2 Bromptonville.
A meeting of the association of rural mail carriers will be held, at Richmond, in the City Hall, Tuesday evening, Dec. 22, at 8 p.m.
Your worthy member, at Ottawa, Mr. Francois Joseph Lafleche, will be present and will address the meeting. All rural mail carriers and mail contractors, either from post office to post office or post office to railway station, are earnestly requested to be present
The Budget-Mr. Roberge

at the meeting as questions relating to the improvement of the lot of rural mail carriers will be discussed.
Without fail be there!
Yours truly,
Garfield McKinnon,
Secretary of the
Association of Canadian Mail Carriers.
The hon. Postmaster General states in one of his answers to my questions, asked on February 18, that mail carriers have been duly warned; however, so many changes have taken place since this government is in power, that I thought it wise to notify all rural mail carriers to beware of Garfield McKinnon.
The following is another letter to show that this man is not deserving of trust, since he was unable to hold a sm,all contract previous to becoming secretary of an association which he founded to exploit the people:
Ottawa, April 6, 1932.
Mr. Eusebe Roberge, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawra, Out.
Dear Mr. Roberge,-*
In answer to your letter dated the 31st ultimo, I wish to inform you that Mr. Garfield McKinnon was a contractor carrying mail on rural route No. 6 of Guelph, from Feb. 1, 1919, to Jan. 21, 1920. It was found necessary to relieve him of his duties as mail contractor owing to the unsatisfactory service given.
Yours respectfully,
G. Anderson,
Superintendent.
I think, sir, as a result of this proof and that which may be given by other members, the hon. Postmaster General will find it possible to prevent this individual travelling through our rural districts in order to obtain money under false representation as he has been doing for the last twelve years.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, with other members
I wish to extend to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) my congratulations on his excellent presentation of the budget. I liked the manner of its delivery and particularly the absence of partisanship throughout the whole speech.
From the capitalistic point of view undoubtedly this is a good budget; that is, if we are to continue putting the interests of capital above the welfare of human beings. But since that is not my idea, it does not seem to me to be a good budget, particularly in the methods relied on for raising taxes. For the most part the new taxes are to be levied on the great masses of the people; the consumers will have to pay them. It is true the income tax will be paid by those

on whom it is levied, but the sales tax, the nuisance taxes and the excise tax-which seems to be a new name for a tariff tax-are passed on to the consuming masses. This will increase unemployment, because the purchasing power of the people will be still further reduced, and at the moment it is dangerously low. So I do not favour the minister's method of raising revenue.
I should like to see the income tax very much increased, but not on the lower incomes; instead of an increase of one hundred per cent in the income tax on a $4,000 income, and reducing this percentage until on an income of $100,000 the increase is only thirty-two per cent, I would graduate the increased percentage the other way, so that the higher the income the higher would be the rate of income tax. I think very soon the time will come when we shall levy taxes on those who have the money to pay them. I have said that before in this house, and I shall continue to say so until finally it will be done. Really the masses of the people, our workingmen and farmers, are not able to carry any greater tax burden than that under which they are at present staggering. As a matter of fact, many of them are not able to pay their present taxes.
I was interested in the proposal made on Tuesday by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) that the state should take over all incomes in excess of $25,000. Why not? At the present time we are in a jam because we have a surplus of goods, but those goods cannot be bought by the people who need them. There are persons enjoying large incomes who could spend more, but they aTe satisfying all their needs. In fact they do not know how to spend their money. The only way in which they spend it is in creating more machinery to produce more goods to add to the present surplus. Really it would be a convenience to them to suggest another channel of expenditure. True, they snap up government bonds, as we found out this year when the government floated certain loans; those loans were oversubscribed by people with more money than they knew what to do with. But we need a great deal of money to run this country, and by taking it from the masses in the form of burdensome taxation we are simply causing a greater amount of unemployment. Therefore it seems to mo that it would be the part of wisdom-although I know that it does not sound sane in this house-to take over this accumulated wealth for the benefit of the state. Indeed, this would not be a very great hardship to our wealthy people, because their wealth will not

The Budget-Miss Macphail
be of much use to them unless somehow or other we can get out of the depression.
Not only am I in favour of increasing the income tax on the larger incomes, but I am also in favour of an inheritance tax. Really I do not see why money should be inherited in such vast amounts. You cannot inherit education, you cannot inherit any accomplishment. When great sums of money are passed from generation to generation it really means that children yet unborn are destined to become the slaves Qf other children yet unborn, who by reason of the wealth they inherit from their parents will be able to command the services of hundreds of thousands of people. These whose services are commanded have not a chance to start life on even terms with their more favoured fellow citizens. I have in my hand what has been quoted in this house before, but I do not think it can be quoted too often. It is said that in the United States in 1929 five hundred and four persons had an aggregate net income equal to the gross amount paid to one million and thirty-two thousand cotton farmers and one million three hundred thousand wheat farmers. That condition of things cannot be justified. It is wholly immoral. It is just a question of how long it will take our people-because a similar situation exists in this country-the masses of our people, our workmen, farmers and small business men, to realize what this means, and to see to it that this great wealth shall be conscripted and applied to social uses to relieve the toiling masses from the burden of taxation that is driving them to desperation. Apparently the time is not yet ripe for this to be done, but it will be done, either during this depression or when we are in another, but in any case it will not be very long before in this intelligent age we shall see to it that those who have amassed great wealth by some means or other, legal but immoral, disgorge that wealth to take care of the social necessities of our people.
With respect to the Imperial economic conference that is to be held in this city in July, I have this to say to the government, although I know' it does not matter whether I say it or not. They v'ould be very wise not to parade the Imperial conference as much as they have done; at any rate I would suggest that they do not parade it any more, because the more people expect from it the worse it is going to be-for the government. I do not for one moment think that the Imperial conference is going to be the world-shaking event that we have been led to think. As a matter of fact, I agree with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan), who spoke the other night.
I will quote his exact words because they say just about what I want to say in this regard. The hon. gentleman said:
The Imperial conference will sit in Ottav'a in the month of July.
I think that is about what they will do; and for their sake I pray that it will not be as hot as it was last July, for that would be a bit hard on the old country people. Let us consider the Imperial conference for a moment. It is not that I do not want it to succeed; I do want it to succeed. But how can it? Last year the Canadian Prime Minister went over to Great Britain to tell the British people what they should do. They were to put up a tariff around Britain and give us a preference inside, while in return we were to leave the tariff against Britain where it was but raise the tariff against other countries ten per cent. In brief, Canada said to Britain, "You buy our goods and in return we won't buy yours." Since that time we have artificially jacked up in three ways the prices of British goods coming to Canada by artificially stabilizing the pound; by juggling with the value of goods for customs purposes; and by the new-fangled tariff called the excise. In other words, three times since then we have said to Britain, "We want you to buy from us but we don't want to buy from you."
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), in his very excellent speech the other night, a speech that interested me greatly up to a point and then disappointed me terribly, talked about the things he would like to get from the British Empire. I have all the articles mentioned, but rubber was one of them-things that are coming in free; we shall get these from other parts of the empire. I fancy that will not interest the industrialists of Great Britain very much; at any rate it does not seem to me to be a major concession.
This is the thing that we must realize, and I think we all do realize it, and we might as well admit it, namely, that Canada's trade with the empire has been declining. In the calendar year 1931 we bought 75.S per cent of our imports and sold 63.6 per cent of our exports outside the British Empire. In 1914 the empire took 55.3 per cent of our exports and in 1929 only 39.3 per cent. But the share of our trade with the United States, both exports and imports, has remained fairly constant over -the same period, in spite of American and Canadian tariffs. As a matter of fact Canadian trade has expanded more with "other foreign countries" other than the United States. It is with these countries that
The Budget-Miss Macphail

we have made our greatest increase in selling and buying. From 1914 to 1929 our exports to "other foreign countries" increased from 7 per cent to 24 per cent, representing almost one-quarter of the total trade. I am using figures from the Canadian Forum compiled by "F.H.U." who is Professor Underhill, I think. But there is something else to notice:
Our greatest group of export commodities consists of wheat and wheat flour. We grow so much wheat in Canada that Great Britain cannot possibly absorb it all, and we are therefore dependent upon world markets. Our second greatest group of export commodities consists of forest products, lumber, shingles, pulpwood, pulp and paper, and for these the United States is the greatest market. Even if Great Britain shuts out the Scandinavian countries and the wicked Russians, her market, as Professor Underhill says, cannot be a substitute for the American market which we already have.
In view of all these facts, which are known to all of us, it is foolish to hope that -we shall be able to -build up empire trade unless each part of the empire makes concessions to the others. This is the thing which the government ought to take to heart: It cannot be done with -the attitude which the government took in Great Britain last year and which they have held consistently since. Unless we are willing to buy goods from Great Britain, we cannot expect her to go on buying in large quantities from us. Personally, therefore, I do not think that the Imperial conference, which, as the hon. member for St. Ann so aptly said the other night, is to sit in Ottawa in July, will be a great success. I do not think it can be.
May I now for a good -part of my time devote myself to agricultural conditions. By agricultural -conditions I do not mean calamities like the drought in southern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta; I mean agricultural conditions that are normal so far as yield is concerned. It is true they are not normal, because the commodity prices have fallen so badly; but as to yield, conditions are quite normal. I know a good deal about farmers and I know that in the best of times farmers work harder than most people. Their hours are long and their labour is hard and unending. On the other hand, country life has many compensations. Anyone who lives in the -country, who -has spent most of his life on a farm, knows that such life has its compensations. But the farmers to-day are suffering so terribly that I am afraid they are not remembering the compensations of country life. We recall that in 1930, the last session of the last -parliament, we heard a good deal about the suffering of the Canadian farmer. I -can still remember how speakers then on

this side of the house, and now members of the government party, would get up one after another and tell us, almost with tears in their eyes, about the terrible condition of Canadian agriculture, warning us that if the Conservatives were not returned to power it was going to be disastrous indeed for the people on the land.


An hon. MEMBER:: And if they were returned to power?


Miss MACPHAIL:: We know all about that now. In case you have -forgotten it- this was before they went to -the country- I want to give some of the gems of wisdom that fell from their lips. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. -Garland), at -page 653 of volume 1 of Hansard of 1930, the long session before the election, interrupted the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), to ask -this question:
Do you consider 45 cents per dozen a fair price for eggs in the middle of January?
If you had asked anyone that question this year they would have dropped dead with surp'rise. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence), in his inimitable style, said, as reported at page 649 of the same volume of Hansard:
The egg industry is just like every industry since the government came into power-it is sliding through to ruination.
Well, it is through. If it was sliding before, it has at least now stopped; it is at the bottom. And the hon. -member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon), speaking in the same debate, as reported at page 391 of the same volume of Hansard, referred to the production of cheese and butter as an outlet for the farmer's milk, and said:
To-day they are receiving perhaps from $1.25 to $1.50 per hundred pounds for their miik.
Those were the makers of cheese. Then he went on to say:
Therefore when the argument is advanced that the dairy farmer is content to take from $2.10 to $2.40 per hundred pounds for his milk and to get his butter elsewhere, the members of the government who present that argument are simply saying to over two-thirds of the dairy farmers of this dominion: you can dispose of your product just how you like; we are not interested in you at all.
I direct attention to those prices, $2.10 and $2.40; apparently he thought they were poor prices. Now I should like to refer for just a moment to the speech of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), that dynamic and distinguished gentleman from my part of Ontario:
Personally, I hope this government may very soon decide to go to the country, because I

The Budget-Miss Macphail
realize full well a change of government is of vital concern to me and to all others interested in farming, and unless steps are taken very soon to this end, farming is a job that will not be sought by very many people.
Further on he said:
These are matters of economic consequence to the farmer, because we hear a great deal about prosperity, there is in Canada to-day no other class that is labouring harder, working earlier, toiling later and getting less for its efforts than the agriculturist.
Again, he said:
At last it is beginning to be realized that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada, and that when it declines, when it gets on an unsound economic basis and loses the widespread markets it has enjoyed in the past, all the subsidiary industries that are dependent upon it begin to feel the pinch.
That was bad enough in the session of 1930, but it was nothing to the very terrible story told throughout the country while the campaign was in progress. It is a waste of time to recall it, but when I hear supporters of the government pleading for understanding in this house and in the country, saying the condition from which we suffer is a world condition, that agriculture must be patient, that members of parliament must be patient, that the people must be patient, and that we must be fair, I wonder if they remember the speeches they made in 1930. Then they were anything but fair. The Prime Minister came into my constituency, dramatically waved his hand at a closed factory across the street and said "Put me in power and in three weeks that factory will be running full time." That was not enough; a little child toddled up on the platform and the Prime Minister, putting his hand on the child's head said, "Let us vote right for the children's sake." I did not say things like that in 1930; I said the condition under which we were suffering was not entirely due to any government, and then I was accused by my Conservative opponent of being a Liberal. That was a gross libel.
What are agricultural conditions to-day? I should like to give you some of the facts. We were talking about milk, and I now quote from the^Milk Producer for February:
Cheese factory milk in 1931 averaged around 70 cents a ewt., some of it less or about the same price obtainable in say 1905. At that time it cost less to manufacture cheese and to hold milk. Taxes were only one-third of what they are to-day. Living costs were less, as prices for what the farmer had to buy were comparable with what he had to sell.
It goes on to say that everything the farmer has to buy has increased in price while everything he has to sell is at about the same price it was in 1905. I was hom-e at Easter,
and on the Saturday following Good Friday- I heard someone call it Good Saturday the other day, but I think that is not right-I went out to buy some eggs. I paid 25 cents for two dozen of extras, so you see this government has not been of very great assistance to poultry raisers. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) will see that the egg industry has "slid through to ruination."
Now I should like to make a comparison of prices in connection with many farm products, taken from a Toronto newspaper for the first week of February. The first item is cream sold on a butter fat basis. It sold at sixteen cents a pound in February of this year while in 1930, when things were supposed to be so fearfully bad and when the government now in power promised to remedy everything, it sold for 35i cents. Some of the other articles are:
February
	1932	1930
Eggs (extras). . .	23	cts. 48 cts.Butcher cattle. . .	$5 35	$10 25Hogs	4 25	13 00Choice butcher sheep	3 50	8 00Spring lamb. . . .	7 25	12 50Choice calves. . .	8 50	15 50I really wonder	that	hon. gentlemen
opposite talk about agriculture at all when I think of the things we heard and the insolence to which I listened in Southeast Grey from Conservative speakers there. I am certainly amused rvhen I think of them to-day. Last week there was a rural conference held in Newmarket which was addressed by a United Church minister, Mr. Armstrong, who is now in Dundas county. He has recently written a book called Salt of the Earth, which deals with people on the land. They may be the salt of the earth, but apparently they have no power in this government. With reference to the conditions of the dairy farmers he says:
Very few herds have an average yield of six thousand pounds of milk per year. Six thousand pounds of milk at fifty cents per cwt. amounts to $30 per year. Take a cow that cost $80 two years ago. Sound accountancy should allow about fifteen per cent for depreciation and another five for insurance. Then she has to be fed and housed and groomed and milked, and the milk taken to the factory. When all these costs and this work are taken into account the income of $30 will come a long way from paying for them.
I should like to discuss agricultural conditions in Southeast Grey, where extreme poverty was hardly known until recent months. In that riding there were no wealthy people and no extremely poor people, but to-day the farmers in all nine townships are having a tremendous struggle. I am referring to the
The Budget-Miss Macphail

real farmers, not those who must be lectured by someone from the agricultural college but farmers who do their work very well and who are a fine type of citizen. I have here a number of letters to which I am going to refer. The first is from the clerk of perhaps the best township in my constituency. He gives prices, quoting the figures for February 18. He pointed out that they were then getting from seventeen to twenty cents a dozen for eggs-they are much lower now- for cream, fifteen cents a pound butter fat; for hogs, four and a quarter cents a pound. He went on to say:
I had seven out on the 18th February and received $55.35. A year ago the same hogs would have brought a little over $127.
It is no wonder the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other day, in such profound manner I almost thought it was a discovery, that when commodity prices fall, debts increase. At any rate, I am glad we all knew this, but it was something I thought we should have known a good while ago. So the farmers of Southeast Grey and, indeed, of Canada generally, are finding their debts have increased-well, you can multiply them by two and sometimes by more than that. I am going to take perhaps a little time on these letters that come from farmers who actually engage in the business of farming. One man says:
Agricultural conditions are the worst I have ever known in my time and if conditions do not soon improve I believe that many of our farmers right here will be down and out and we have as good farmers and as good farming land as any in this province.
He is not complaining of natural conditions. Another farmer who lives in my immediate neighbourhood compares prices with taxes. He says that the total taxes on his farm in 1896, including his road work, which really was manual labour but which he put in at the ratt of pay prevailing at that time, amounted to $15.87; this year taxes on the same farm were $106.70, with grain and stock at about the same prices as they were getting thirty-five years ago. He said that then he could get a man for eighty cents a day for haying and harvesting; this year he paid $2 to $2.50 a day.
He gives an interesting comparison of prices between 1896 and 1931, as follows:
Commodity

	1896	1931
Sugar	
$2 90	$5 25Tea	
0 25	0 50 to 70Flour	
2 25	2 70
With wheat $1 in 1896 as against 65 cents in 1931. He goes on to give many other articles, including some implements, as follows:

Implement-	1896	1931Walking plough	$ 12 00	$ 27 00Harrow	
12 00	25 00Seed drill	
50 00	140 00Binder	
125 00	240 00
One could go on and on with similar examples, if time permitted. The situation really amounts to this, that the farmers are putting their products on the market below the cost of production and are giving their capital away with every pound of beef, every hog, every bushel of grain, every pound of milk, every dozen of eggs they sell. Some farmers do not realize they are doing this. They are cutting down their living expenses; their standard of living is below what it ought to be; it is becoming lower all the time. By living miserably, indeed, not really living at all, they are trying not to break in on their accumulated capital, but they are actually giving their capital away and cheating themselves. [DOT] Many farmers who had little mortgages on their farms are finding they have to take bigger ones if they can get them-and some of them cannot; they have to borrow money, and in that case they are simply breaking into their capital.
There has been a decline in the cost of living. This afternoon I secured some figures in this connection from the Bureau of Statistics. The following shows the decline in retail prices from January, 1930, to March. 1932:
January,	March,
1930	1932
Commodity-	Index number Index number
Foods	
106-5	66Clothing.. ..	96-5	76-4
It must, however, be remembered that the things that have fallen most heavily in price are those which the farmer produces, while the things he buys have not fallen very much. So that the farmer, while he is providing a lower cost of living for people who do not farm, is not himself benefiting to any great extent from a lower cost of living.
The drop in agricultural prices from August, 1929, to March, 1932, is 53 per cent, while the drop in manufacturers' prices-this is not retail-in the same period is 25 per cgnt. I am quite sure, if I had been able to secure the figures for the drop in retail prices, they would not have followed that of the manufacturers'; I do not believe retail prices have declined 25 per cent. Outside of representatives of industrial centres, there is hardly a person in the house who has not some farmers in his constituency, and we find that farmers are being ground between lowered commodity prices and proportionately increasing cost of living, including interest on debt. If it was said

The Budget-Miss Macphail
away back in 1930 that the farmer was becoming discouraged, you can take "becoming" out and say that the farmer is discouraged. It seems to me that the government which is now in power will have to embark upon a policy of inflation, because when the farmers of Canada send their products, we will say, to England, and are paid in English money, when they get that translated into Canadian currency, they receive less for their product than it actually brought in Liverpool, little as that was. I do not see how we can go on doing this, and so finally we shall go into a policy of inflation, or "reflation," or whatever you like to call it. I do not care what the term is, but there simply must come about a closer relationship between the amount of goods to be moved and the amount of money in circulation. I believe we shall have to acquire a new idea of money and think of money as something that transports goods from the person who sells them to the person who needs them, and then the services that money performs can be paid for. But we are not now over paying for the services it performs; we are paying tremendous wages to money for services which, as it happens, it does not perform.
I feel very keenly in regard to the agricultural situation, and I think hon. members can readily understand why. It is not simply that I represent an agricultural constituency; it is that these men and women, boys and girls, are the best we have in Canada. Remember this, that agricultural people are the source not only of our food supply but of our national life, and if we cannot keep on the farm a decent standard, not only economic but cultural; if we cannot hold our best blood on the land, at least as the source of the life of our urban centres, then indeed, we shall be sapping our national life at its very source.
I have always been extremely interested in cooperative endeavours. I have felt for a long time that farmers can do very much to make their life better by selling, processing and completely marketing their own products cooperatively and buying cooperatively what they need; but you cannot successfully build up cooperative enterprises on a falling commodity price level; it simply cannot be done. If you can keep your price level steady, or if you have a price level that is rising, then the building up of cooperative enterprises is an easy matter, but if you try to build up a cooperative enterprise on a falling market all you do is to bring one more cooperative concern to an end and to discredit the whole movement. For instance, last year we had a
number of wise people in the house who knew how the pools got into difficulties. The reason was simply that the price of wheat fell to almost nothing. We have a little abattoir up at Barrie, the first thing of its kind in Ontario. It is experimental; we are trying to have the farmer process his own hogs, lambs and calves. What happened? Three things. First of all, the government pays high interest rates, and so all other enterprises in Canada must do the same thing. Secondly, there was a falling commodity price level, which meant that the meat that you put in to cure was put in at a price higher than that at which it could be sold when they came out of cure, and of course you cannot make money fast that way. Thirdly, in Canada we lack efficient trained men with social consciousness. You can hardly find them. There are some, I am glad to say, but not very many, and when a cooperative enterprise strives to get people who will serve the whole group, people who do not think that success can be measured in dollars but know that real success comes from serving a group and in having the supreme satisfaction of seeing the standard of living steadily raised, whether it be in a rural or urban community, it is very hard to find that kind of person. All these things make it very difficult to make a cooperative enterprise successful. I think one of the casualties of this depression was A. J. McPhail, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. Speaking of cooperation he says:
The prospect of greater financial returns alone is not enough. Unselfishness, the spirit of sacrifice, the spirit of fair play, of "do unto others as you would that they should do unto you," of kindness-these qualities make a great and lasting appeal to the hearts and imaginations of men. Cooperation in its best and truest sense stands for all of these.
Again he says:
Cooperation is a combination of the practical and the ideal. It offers ample scope for putting into practice the ideas of the practical man as well as the ideals of the idealist. It is not only the most efficient, economical and practical way of doing business but when carried to its ultimate conclusion it recognizes equality and the interdependence of all human beings. It provides a business medium through which progressive and socially minded men and women wth high ideals can find satisfaction and peace of mind in useful work. It is revolutionary in that it aims to bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth by returning to its members as nearly as possible the full value of the product of their labour.
I did intend to make some concrete suggestion as to what might Ibe done even in this trying time to remedy at least in part the agricultural condition. One suggestion is
The Budget-Mr. Willis

this. In the case of experimental processing stations, such as the one at Barrie and others that are being started, all the expert help that can be given by the government should be given, and I do think it ought to be possible for these concerns to raise loans without having to pay a high rate of interest, so as to give them some sort of chance. I do think that we must have some degree of inflation. We must at least get ourselves on a par with the pound sterling so that we will get as much money for our products in Canada as they actually brought when sold in Great Britain. I feel that by relieving farmers and the masses of the people-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has spoken over forty minutes.
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris): Mr. Speaker, I think it is a matter of happiness to this house and the country that this year we had a budget presented by one of the country's most eminent statesmen, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). It is a matter of equal satisfaction that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), who acted as financial critic on behalf of the opposition, also comes from the same small town of Amherst in Nova Scotia. It is also a matter of satisfaction that we have in this house the member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), who comes from the town of Amherst. It may be said of that town, I think, that it has given to this country more than its share of the outstanding statesmen of this house.
I desire this evening not to follow the budget closely but rather to make reference to conditions which have existed and do exist in the province of Manitoba, particularly in the constituency from which I come. May I say that my constituency has the doubtful distinction of comprising within its borders the entire drought area of the province of Manitoba as designated by a survey made by the Department of Agriculture of that province. I do not think I can better inform the house of the serious conditions that exist there than by reading a letter which I received a short time ago from the reeve of the municipality of Edward, within that area. The letter which is dated March 7, 1932, and addressed to myself, says:
We have had a cold stormy week and to-day caps it all. It is without doubt the worst day to be out in this winter so far. The week before last we had a thaw which took practically all our snow. Then we had a fresh snowfall of about six inches accompanied with much wind so that very little stayed on the ploughed fields where we would like to have it. It has also been very windy and cold since. The dust did not rise much before, but to-day

the air is full of grit, even the snow mixed with it does not keep it down it is so cold and dry.	.
Our conditions here may well be described as desperate. I am afraid there are many around both cold and hungry to-day. After the thaw cattle were able to pick up a little in the fields but they can get nothing now and many are out of feed. Ninety per cent of the horses have had to get their living on the prairie all winter and this weather is particularly hard on them. We recognize that considerable has been done for us, the relief work last fall, and the free freight on feed and wood, but the people here have mostly exhausted all their resources; their savings if they had any, the help from their friends, without help now to get feed and seed we are down and out. . . .
Some among the farmers are very bitter at what they are taught to regard as the indifference of the dominion government to our needs. . . .
Yours truly,
M. J. Basted.
Pierson, Manitoba.
It is the latter paragraph to which I wish particularly to direct my attention this evening. This matter was first brought to the attention of the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who, speaking in this chamber on July 29, 1931, as reported at page 4280 of Hansard, had this to say:
I have endeavoured to make clear to the provinces that if we are to maintain any semblance of constitutional right they must be responsible for the creation, within the area of the provinces, of those committees of administration, of control and of supervision which will insure that during the coming winter there will be no hardship, hunger or suffering. But in my judgment it would be an anomaly, and would result in a very difficult situation indeed, if we were to say that the dominion government should assume responsibility for setting up organizations to deal with local communities. I think that would be the negation of every theory we have of constitutional government, because it would involve an assumption that we had such a condition in this country that the provinces, the municipalities. the towns and the cities could not function. It is possible that they may not all be able to function because of financial difficulties, but with respect to the calling of meetings, the appointing of committees and dealing with matters of that kind I have asked all the premiers of the provinces except the premier of Quebec, who said they had the matter well in hand, to consider the matter from that angle, that the provinces, within their several areas, should organize voluntary associations or committees which would undertake to see that the difficulties which must be met during the winter will be successfully overcome.
May I say that that invitation as issued by the Prime Minister was accepted by the province of Saskatchewan, which did set up its organization. May I say that within my own area I went to the different councillors and reeves, pointing out to them their responsi-

The Budget-Mr. Willis
bility. Particularly I told them that they must place their needs before the provincial government and that that body in turn would deal with them or would ask financial aid from the federal government. Within the area of my home constituency, certain municipal works were carried on. Taking an average of those works, which were chiefly road construction, in which the responsibility was divided between the municipality, the province and the dominion, the dominion paid 55 per cent of the cost, the province paid 35 per cent and the municipality 10 per cent. There was indeed a great need for those works, because had they not been carried on the people could not have fed their horses or placed their land in shape by doing fall ploughing. Without that assistance it would have been useless to attempt to have a crop. In addition to that the federal government unassisted by the province or municipality, carried on public works and spent $46,000 in my constituency.
I desire to refer more particularly to the correspondence which has taken place between the federal and provincial governments in an attempt to answer the question asked by the municipality of Edward as to where responsibility lies. First I shall refer to the return which was brought down in the legislature of the province of Manitoba. I find a telegram dated October 23 of last year addressed to A. MacNamara, assistant deputy minister of the Department of Public Works at Winnipeg. It is as follows:
Your telegram October 22 regarding purchase of feed. I am directed to inform you that the expenditure proposed in this connection cannot be contributed to by Dominion government.
Harry Hereford,
Dominion Director.
I bi'ing this telegram to the attention of the house because it shows that on October 23 of last year this government stated its position to the government of the province of Manitoba.
Then, seven days after that, on October 30, in spite of the communication of October 23 we find a further message directed to the Hon. Robert Weir, Minister of Agriculture. The part referring to relief is as follows:
In order to meet the situation it is proposed to allow the municipalities to furnish to any farmer not in a financial position to make hi's own purchase sufficient feed to carry his stock over the winter, and to pay for this feed on a basis of one-third by the Dominion government, one-third by the provincial government and one-third by the municipality.
Yours very truly,
John Bracken, Premier.
I desire particularly to have hon. members note that in spite of the refusal on October 23 41761-128
the Premier of Manitoba, only seven days later, again asked for a contribution. Then, the next communication to which I wish to make reference is that of November 5, 1931, addressed to Mr. John Bracken, Premier of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. It is as follows:
There is an area in Saskatchewan where they have had three successive crop failures. The provincial government has set up a relief commission to advise in connection with this area. The whole cost of administration of this commission and everything in connection with the distribution of seed and feed is borne by the provincial government. In this area the Dominion government provides the money for fuel, food, clothing, seed and feed. If you have such an area and are prepared to set up such a commission and carry on in the same way, I shall be glad to place this matter before council.
Yours very truly,
R. Weir.
The answer to that telegram came from the premier of Manitoba on November 24, 1931. It is addressed to Hon. Robert Weir, Minister of Agriculture, and the clause referring to fodder relief is as follows:
As to the appointment of a commission to administer relief in this area, we do not consider it necessary to go to that expense, but we do desire to secure the same measure of dominion relief that similarly affected areas in Saskatchewan receive. We know of no areas where there have been three successive crop failures, but in some there have been two partial failures and. of course, the complete failure this year. We are asking only for such assistance from the dominion as has been accorded to areas with the same number of failures in Saskatchewan.
Yours very truly,
John Bracken.
It is to be noted that Mr. Bracken would not set up a relief commission in the province of Manitoba, giving as his reason that he was not prepared to make the necessary expenditures. May I say that all this time a relief commission was operating in the province of Saskatchewan. I thought it best to learn some details in regard to that commission, because I was particularly anxious that my constituency of Souris should receive the same treatment as the constituency of Assiniboia in the province of Saskatchewan, just across the line. That constituency was in a location parallel to my own, that is to say both Assiniboia and Souris were within the drought area. Assiniboia is in what is known as the "B" area, or the two-crop failure area. The constituency of Souris also, has had crop failures for two years. I addressed my letter to Mr. MacPherson, the Attorney General, whom I happened to know, and on January 15, 1932, I received a letter



The Budget-Mr. Willis
in reply from the Saskatchewan Relief Commission. It is as follows:
I have before me for reply your letter of the 8th instant to the Hon. M. A. MacPherson. In so far as "B" area is concerned I might state that the commission is suppplying relief in this area in the same manner, and under the same conditions as relief supplied in the "A" area, the only difference being that the "A" -area was organized first, having suffered three successive crop failures.
This commission was set up by order in council, of the government of the province of Saskatchewan, for the express purpose of administering relief in any portion of the province where distress was apparent.
The commission is financed by the province of Saskatchewan and operates under the wing of the treasury department. All moneys expended by the commission are received by us and allocated by the treasury department for our use.
Yours faithfully,
G. B. Daniels,
General Manager.
The "B" area referred to in Mr. Daniel's letter is the area in which the constituency of Assiniboia is situated. He indicated that fodder relief was given to that area. I should like to add that Mr. Blakeman, in charge of the federal seed branch in the province of Manitoba, went to Mr. Evans, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for that province, suggesting to him that the federal government was willing to supply two men to make a survey of the constituency of Souris or any other drought stricken area, if the provincial government would supply another two men. For reasons best known to themselves the provincial government refused to do their share.
I desire to refer in chronological order to the telegrams passing between Hon. Robert Weir, Minister of Agriculture and Hpn. Albert Prefontaine, Minister of Agriculture at Winnipeg. The first telegram is. dated December 5, 1931, and is as follows:
Be telegram. Alberta and Saskatchewan governments are purchasing feed and taking responsibility for their live stock. Dominion government is not buying any feed direct. Would expect Manitoba to do same.
*	R. Weir.
Then on December 7, referring to the same matter, we have a letter from Mr. Weir, Minister of Agriculture, to Mr. John Bracken, Premier of Manitoba. It is as follows:
Dear Mr. Bracken:
With reference to your letter of November 24 I feel there is no doubt but that Manitoba will be treated in the same way as Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The dominion government is not purchasing direct any feed for live stock for the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
,	Yours very truly,
R. Weir.
May I say that the Minister of Agriculture came to the town of Melita in my constituency on January 12. I met him in Brandon, and although there wTas a very bad snow storm raging he drove eighty miles out and eighty miles back to visit the reeves of the different municipalities. He got their opinions and took two of the reeves to Winnipeg to point out to the provincial government the need's of the community, and also to emphasize the necessity of the province taking up its constitutional obligations. The Minister of Agriculture at that time impressed upon the provincial government that they should state their needs to the federal Minister of Finance, and that financial assistance would be given. He pointed out also that there were no agreements in Saskatchewan in regard to their two-crop failure area, also that it was a provincial responsibility, and that all provinces were being treated alike. Following that there is a letter from Mr. J. H. Evans, Deputy Minister of Agriculture of Manitoba, to the Hon. Robert Weir, Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa. The letter is dated January 15, and the part relating to fodder relief which I wish to quote is this:
I am hurrying a copy of the complete statement of the standing of municipalities in Manitoba up to January 1, 1931. The municipal department is going to have available inside of one week a statement up to January 1. 1932, which will be forwarded to you immediately. In the meantime I am working on an estimate of our needs, both as to feed and seed. Obviously the best we can humanly do is to give you an estimate. This will be sent to you at the earliest possible moment.
I bring that to the attention of the house particularly to point out that on January 15 the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for Manitoba had not made an estimate of the needs of that province, very well knowing at the same time that the different municipalities within my area had furnished to the provincial Minister of Agriculture all the necessary material. I desire also to refer to additional evidence in a letter addressed to A. Mac-Namara, assistant deputy minister, Department of Public Works, Winnipeg:
January 16, 1932.
Dear Sir:
Referring to your letter of December 14th in which you mention the question of feed for stock, not only in the drought area of Manitoba, but in other parts of the province.
I have acted on your suggestion and have had Mr. Dickson look up his notes made at a meeting on October 2nd, and find that they do not deal with the point you raise, but only with the question of freight on feed to the drought area. Mr. Dickson, secretary to the minister, informs me that the Senator's attitude towards the question of feed and fodder, was that it was a matter to be dealt with by the provincial authorities, and the minister's secretary comfMr. Willis.]

The Budget-Mr. Willis
ments that the fact that Alberta and Saskatchewan are both looking after the situation in the drought area in this regard would seem to bear this out.
Yours truly,
Harry Hereford,
Dominion Director.
I place that on record for the purpose of indicating that apparently there was an understanding as early as October 2 that a contribution would not be made by the federal government for that purpose. Then on January 30 the premier of Manitoba visited Ottawa, and at that time, so far as I can gather, he made his first estimate of the requirements of his province, amounting to
8450,000.	On February 16 we have the next letter of importance, when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) wrote to Premier Bracken:
February 16, 1932.
Dear Sir:
My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has brought to the attention of the government the question of the necessities of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the matter of seed grain relief in drought areas.
You will, perhaps, for financial reasons, find it difficult to cope with this problem unaided. I write to advise you that the Dominion government is prepared to render reasonable assistance, and I make the tentative suggestion that for this purpose we will be prepared to lend you the necessary funds against your one-year treasury bills bearing interest at the rate of 5| per cent.
If this proposal is acceptable to you, we are prepared to name a definite amount to be determined in the light of your necessities.
As you no doubt will require to make your plans as far in advance as possible, if you will, upon receipt of this letter, be good enough to advise me by wire what assistance, if any, you require, you will be advised definitely as to what extent we are prepared to assist.
The matter was again brought to the attention of the provincial government in a speech which the Minister of Agriculture made in this house again pointing out the responsibility of the province of Manitoba. I quote now from Hansard, page 344, two paragraphs taken out of their context to show how the responsibility was pointed.out:
My idea had always been that the provincial governments should receive from the federal government whatever money was absolutely necessary and be responsible for looking after their own people.
. Then again:
All I can say regarding the difficulty in Manitoba is that the duty of the authorities there is to put their case before the government. indicating what money they require; and in the meantime I should hope that they would strain every effort to look after their own people with the money received.
That seems to have had some effect because on February 19 Mr. Bracken suggested to this government that he would require not 8450,000 but S500.000. On February 24 Mr. Bracken again changed his estimate and asked this government for 8650,000. Following that the next, and I trust final, document, is a telegram from the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the Hon. John Bracken, premier of Manitoba, dated March 7, 1932:
Hie whole basis of our assistance to the provinces for unemployment and farm relief is founded upon the belief that the governments of the western provinces would discharge their constitutional obligations and that the dominion in the national interest should support and supplement the work of the provinces in the discharge of their duty. This is made clear in the legislation passed by parliament. We are treating the three western provinces on the same basis with respect to seed and feed. Saskatchewan has advised us that necessary legislation being passed to secure advances being repaid out of nineteen thirty-two thirty-three crop. We assume that similar legislation will be passed by Manitoba and Alberta. Dominion will accept treasury bills of provinces to enable them to function with municipalities in the case of Manitoba up to six hundred and fifty thousand dollars being the amount you indicate as required. Until farm relief act extended no further money can be paid except for obligations incurred prior to March first.
The last sentence of course refers to the blockade in this house at that time.
May I summarize the return to which I have made reference. First, it shows that continuous efforts were made on the part of the province to have the dominion contribute a share of feed relief, which was refused on October 23, followed by the federal government continuing to point out that it was a provincial responsibility; second, the request by federal government for setting up of relief commission or other administrative body and refusal by Manitoba because of expense; third, continuous request by the province that Manitoba be treated as southeastern Saskatchewan and continuous assertion by the dominion that all provinces were being treated alike, and assertion that Alberta and Saskatchewan were both looking after feed and fodder in drought areas of their provinces; fourth, feed requirements were not estimated by the province until January 30, and the estimate was changed on three different occasions with final estimate on February 24; fifth, no loan was requested for feed until January 30, and no refusal was ever made to loan money for feed, and never a consent to contribute a share of relief but only to finance province. That, as I say, is a review of the return. The matter in the province from which I come is of considerable concern
The Budget-Mr. Willis

because there it has been taken up by the newspapers and by the public, and these are the allegations which are made. First, they say there has been unequal treatment. In Saskatchewan the provincial government, unaided, is looking after ninety-six municipalities in the two-crop failure area, and there is no agreement in regard to it. In Alberta they are looking after their drought area unaided by any share contributed by this government. Manitoba, according to its own survey, has only ten municipalities, and yet that province has been unable to look after that area so far as fodder relief is concerned. Saskatchewan, it is true, has seventy-six municipalities where for three years there has been a complete crop failure. There, apparently, they are feeding 300,000 people. In that area there used to be an average yearly crop in the last five years of 83,000,000 bushels. It is the only place in Canada where the federal government is spending money for that purpose, and it is the great exception. But you must remember that in Saskatchewan there are ninety-six municipalities in the same condition as in the constituency of Souris all of which are looked after by the provincial government. The farmers in my constituency have been treated unequally with those of southeastern Saskatchewan, because in southeastern Saskatchewan they were looked after by the Saskatchewan government, whereas in my constituency they were not looked after by the government of Manitoba.
These are comparisons between the federal constituency of Souris, in the southwestern part of Manitoba, and the federal constituency of Assiniboia, in the southeastern part of Saskatchewan. I have searched in vain among the records-and there are many-as to where this government has treated the farmers differently in Manitoba from the way it has treated them in any other part of Canada; but I find that the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta have treated their farmers entirely in a different way from the way in which the government of Manitoba has treated the farmers in the drought areas of my province. I asked the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) to send a telegram to the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan, which he did, and the telgram, dated Ottawa, March 13, 1932, reads:
Hon. W. C. Buckle,
Minister of Agriculture,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
What time did provincial government or relief commission commence buying hay, oats or feed? When did distribution commence in federal constituency Assiniboia? What date did relief commission commence work?
F. W. Turnbull.
The following came back in reply, dated March 14, and addressed to the hon. member for Regina:
F. W. Turnbull, M.P.
Most of Assiniboia seat in B area and distribution would be general at time commission started operations although provincial government gave some emergency relief. Relief commission started functioning September 1, 1931, and first emergency orders issued September 15,
1931.
W. C. Buckle.
That shows that into an area comparable with the area of the constituency of Souris, feed started to come, apparently, on September
15,	whereas through provincial action no feed has come into the federal constituency of Souris. It is indeed to be regretted that such was the case, because we find that the provincial government of Saskatchewan came into Manitoba and bought there their feed supplies in the way of oats and barley and shipped them into Saskatchewan, and now, when Manitoba is looking about for feed and seed, it finds that the best of it has been sold to the government of Saskatchewan.
The second allegation made against this government is that there was uncertainty and no cooperation. I want to point out that on July 29 the Prime Minister placed the responsibility on the province of Manitoba. On October 2, apparently, Senator Robertson again placed upon them that responsibility, and on October 23 they had a flat denial in regard to a share contribution by this government. Again, they were invited on November 5 to set up a commission, but they refused. The responsibility was pointed out to them on December 5 by the Minister of Agriculture and on January 13 he went to the bedside of the premier of Manitoba and pointed it out again. Then, again on January
16,	Mr. Hereford pointed out the responsibility, and on February 18 the Minister of Agriculture made a speech in this house in which he pointed out the provincial responsibility.
In the third place, it is said particularly that the dominion has plenty of money while the provinces in general have not. May I quote Air. Bracken, as we find him in the Free Press of October 17, 1931, in regard to the financial standing of the province of Manitoba. He said:
It may be news to you that while some of the prairie provinces have had difficulty in selling their bonds at a reasonable price. Manitoba recently completed the sale of $5,000,000 worth at five per cent.
Then again, in his budget address, he pointed out the stability of that province; he said that they were practically balancing their

The Budget-Mr. Willis
budget, at the same time taking care to point out the large deficit faced by the federal government. The province of British Columbia floated a loan successfully; the province of Alberta floated a loan successfully; the city of Winnipeg floated a loan successfully; the province of Ontario floated a loan successfully. Manitoba at first refused to float one, but I noticed the other day that they are going to float a loan at last for S5,000,000.
The fourth allegation against this government is that there was delay. May I point out that the loan was never refused by this government. It was first requested on January 30 last, and then it was changed on three different occasions, until the final figure came to this government on February 24. There were invitations all along the line from this government to the government of Manitoba, and there were warnings to them from this house through telegrams and letters. In regard to delay, may I say that when the time did come, the necessary legislation on the part of Manitoba was not ready to carry into effect the benefits to be derived from these moneys which had been loaned by this government.
The fifth allegation against this government is that the offer of a commission was not applicable because there was no three-year crop failure area in Manitoba. Let me point out that the commission set up in Saskatchewan, as noted in the correspondence we now have on Hansard, were looking after the "A" area, the "B" area and the "C" area- that is, those areas where there were respectively three crop failures, tw'o crop failures and one crop failure.
It is pointed out also that there was a lack of knowledge on the part of the province of Manitoba. That is the sixth allegation. May I point out that the province of Manitoba could merely have taken down the telephone and asked the government of Saskatchewan how they were handling the relief question, and could have had the answer. It is said that the province of Manitoba has received orphan treatment from this government. The only orphans in the picture are the farmers of the drought area of Manitoba. They are the orphans that have not been fairly treated by the province of Manitoba. I repeat, they are the only orphans in the picture. The responsibility, so far as the federal government is concerned, was pointed out, I think, very well by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), when he spoke in this house on April 3, 1930. It is agreed in this house that the responsibility is, first, on the municipality, and when it cannot function then it is upon the province; and finally, if the province cannot function, the federal government has the responsibility. That responsibility the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta have accepted, and they have carried on and given feed and fodder relief to the farmers. Manitoba, of course, was unprepared, in spite of the information which they had from the different municipalities of which I know. On January 15 they had no estimate in regard to feed for their cattle. Then they changed their estimate on January 30, February 19 and February 24, on three different occasions, showing that they had taken no trouble to consolidate the information which had been received from the different municipalities in order to place it properly before the federal government.
It, is pointed out that there is a limit to credit so far as the different governments are concerned. May I point out to the house that there is a limitation of credit for every individual, for every municipality, for every province and for every dominion, and unfortunately some dominions have gone beyond that limit. If in the province of Manitoba, as it is alleged, they are in excellent financial condition, then they are able to look after the farmers in the drought area perhaps even better than is the case in Saskatchewan or Alberta.
The chief difficulty, which may be seen throughout the entire picture, is this: At present the government in Manitoba is facing a provincial election which must be fought on federal issues. The premier of Manitoba criticizes this government in regard to unemployment, in regard to its agricultural policy, in regard to the deficit, in regard to old age pensions, in regard to the financing of relief and in regard to the lack of markets. I say to this house and to this country that it is unfair to the farmers of the district I represent that we have in the province of Manitoba a man who, while seeking aid from the federal government, at the same time criticizes that government in regard to its policies. I point to the premier of Alberta, who does no such thing. I say that is unfortunate and I know for the last six months I have been up against that difficulty, of having a man asking for help and at the same time criticizing those who are helping him.
I note that I have not a great deal of time left, but I want to point out that because of these conditions and because the farmers within that area have not been assisted by the provincial government, in my opinion conditions there at present are worse than they are in any other place in western Canada. In
The Budget-Mr. Willis

that connection I want to point out also, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) pointed out, that this is a great and productive area. There is no lack of productivity of the soil; this condition exists for the same reason that a similar condition exists in Saskatchewan. Soil which for years gave crops is not doing so at present, and has not done so for the last two years because of drought. The farmers who are in that area are as efficient as the farmers in any part of Canada, but the drought is responsible for their condition.
In nothing that I say do I relieve this government of its real responsibility towards the people. It has a real responsibility to the farmers who live in my district, but so far -I know nothing of the future-I have sought in vain to find out in what way this government has not lived up to its responsibility in this regard. It is my considered opinion-and if it were not so I would not say it-that this government has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility and that necessarily the fault must lie with the government of Manitoba. The situation is unfortunate; within that area many cattle and horses have died. The horses remaining are in such condition that it will require more feed and much more care to bring them back to normal. They are so weak at present that they cannot do a full day's work, and they will not be able to do a full day's work when seeding comes along.
I think it is unfortunate that any question of politics should come up in regard to the responsibilities of the municipalities, the province and the dominion. The municipalities have worked hard to do what was possible for the people within their borders, but the municipalities have reached the end of their financial resources and now they must look to the province and the dominion for aid. I think the municipalities have fulfilled their responsibility to their own people.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Fraser, Cariboo):: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: At the outset may I follow the excellent example set by those who have preceded me and congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) upon his elevation to the important portfolio he now holds. May I also take this opportunity of congratulating him upon the manner in which he delivered his budget speech. He smiled; he almost seemed to be happy, and I wondered if the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) could have chosen anyone else who could have delivered

a budget speech as black, as gloomy and as hopeless as the budget speech delivered by my hon. friend, in a manner equally happy.
For just a moment may I refer to some of the remarks of my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Willis). I noticed that in beginning he said he did not propose to discuss the budget, I assume that there are a great many things in the budget which my hon. friend would not like to discuss, if I have been correctly informed as to what he promised would be included in the budgets introduced by this government.


Mr. WILLIS:: My hon. friend is entirely
incorrect.


John Campbell Elliott: One would almost think
my hon. friend was a member of the legal profession from the way he denies anything before hearing what it is. I am told that my hon. friend, with the eloquence which comes naturally to him, went throughout the riding of Souris during the last campaign showing the people in that riding milk cheques-[DOT]


Errick French Willis: Incorrect again.


John Campbell Elliott: Would it be better to
say cream cheques?


Errick French Willis: Incorrect again, and may
I suggest that three times is out.


John Campbell Elliott: I hope my hon. friend
was not showing cheques for milk from which the cream had been removed. At any rate he, in common with a great many hon. gentlemen opposite, told of the terrible prices the farmers were getting for the things they had to sell at that time. I do not think my hon. friend will deny that, and I do not think he will deny that the farmers of Souris would be very glad to-day to be getting milk cheques such as they were getting at the time my hon. friend was touring his constituency during the last campaign.


Errick French Willis: Now you are correct.


John Campbell Elliott: At last we are on common ground. I may add that to-day there is not one product of the farm in connection with which the farmer would not be most devoutly thankful, to what he would regard as a kindly providence, if he could get anything like the prices he obtained when my hon. friend and his friends were going up and down this country saying things were just as bad as they could be and getting worse all the time.
With regard to the balance of my hon. friend's remarks, he spoke of the lack of feed for his horses, but if I remember correctly he was in favour of the duty on corn. While my

The Budget-Mr. Elliott
hon. friend was speaking of the difficulty of getting feed for his stock I was just thinking what a fine thing it would have been for the farmers of Souris if that duty on barley, which he so much favoured, had not been imposed by the present government a year ago.


Errick French Willis: The hon. member is again
incorrect.


John Campbell Elliott: When my hon. friend
gets to know me better, I hope he will find I am usually correct. It was a duty on corn as a substitute for barley.
I should like to say a word with regard to the address delivered by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I have listened to her many times in the house; in fact I always listen to her when I have the opportunity, and I believe that to-night she made the best speech she ever delivered in the house. She cited certain figures relating to the prices which farmers are receiving it the present time for their products. They were somewhat along the line of some figures which I intended to quote, but I want to pay .my hon. friend the compliment of saying that conditions as she pictured them are worse under the present administration than I had intended to show. If I correctly recall the figure she gave, it showed a decrease of something over 50 per cent in the price of agricultural products. The information I was able to obtain shows that the decrease was just a little under 50 per cent, but I have not the slightest doubt that she is correct, so I give her the benefit of the doubt. I understand the price of manufactured goods has declined by 15 per cent, so we fin.d the farmers of Canada at the present time in the condition that, while the price of what they have to buy has decreased all round less than fifteen per cent-


Mr. SPENCE:: Make it 25 per cent.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is now
thinking of interest rates.
While the price of what the farmers have to buy has decreased less than fifteen per cent, the price of what they have to sell has decreased by more than one-half.
I should like to refer as rapidly as I can to two or three matters, although they have already been mentioned in the brilliant address delivered by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). First of all, let me point out that the budget shows that the trade of Canada this last year is just a little over $26,000,000, less than one-half of what it was two years ago when our hon. friends said that conditions were very bad. May I also call attention to the fact that the
funded debt in the last two years has increased by about $307,000,000. The decrease brought about in the funded debt by the government led by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) during the last five years that government was in office, amounted to $257,000,000, and unfortunately we hear now from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) that they have eaten up in two years the amount by which the former government reduced the debt in five years, and about $50,000,000 besides. Apparently under some governments deficits are such a common occurrence and amount to such enormous proportions that it is pretty difficult to realize how great they are. May I draw attention to the fact that the increase in the funded debt of Canada during the past two years is within about $30,000,000 of the total debt before the war? Before the war the total debt amounted to $336,000,000, so that the increase that has taken place in the past couple of years would almost equal the total debt prior to the war.
I regret to say that the budget delivered by my hon. friend is, I believe, the most terrible one that has ever been given to the house, not excluding the budgets that were delivered during the war years, because it was realized then that a war was in progress. During that period the deficits some years were very large, but the large deficits came practically after the war was over, while we were in the reconstruction period. The deficit, however, in the present budget is the largest shown in any budget that has ever been delivered in the house with the exception of the war years or the years immediately succeeding the war. Those are some of the things to which I think the attention of the public should be directed at this time.
What perhaps is the best test of the condition of the country is the bank debits. The figures are as follows:
Year	Bank debits
1929	 $46,670,000,000
1931	 31,586,000,000
It can thus be seen what a tremendous decrease has taken place. To-day the farmer is selling his grain, cattle and dairy produce, about which the hon. member for Souris was so eloquent during the last election-, for from 21 to 30 per cent less than he did two years ago, but as the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth pointed out, when the farmer goes to buy boots and shoes for his children, he pays only 4-6 per cent less for them now than he did two years ago.
Another interesting point about the present budget is this-and I am not blaming the
The Budget-Mr. Elliott

present Minister of Finance for all of it, because he had charge of the department, not for the whole year but for only a very small part of it. The sales tax, which is a most important one, last year realized much less than one-half of the estimate. That is not good financing and is not creditable to the manner in which the country has lived up to the expectation of the right hon. gentleman who introduced the budget a year ago.
Perhaps of all the bad features of the present budget, the worst is what is called an increase of two per cent in the excise tax. That is a tariff; there is no question about that. I do not know what is the idea of trying to disguise it by calling it an excise tax, which it is not. It is a tax which will bear heavily on all the people of this country, and bear heavily upon them in a way which cannot be estimated. It is one of the heaviest burdens than can be imposed. When a country gets into the condition in which this government finds this country at the present time after it has been in office for a year and eight months, it should be heroic enough to take steps that will compel those who have the ability to pay, to pay sufficient to get the country out of its financial difficulties. Wealth does not come to the people of any country entirely through their own unaided efforts. The man who has made a great fortune in Canada or any other country has made it partly of course by his own endeavours, but very largely by reason of the opportunities that have been afforded to him by the country in which he lives. At a time of crisis like this, is it too much to ask of the men with whom this country has dealt so kindly that they shall contribute not a small portion such as the government proposes in this budget, but a very substantial proportion of their wealth to help the country out of its present condition and if possible get it back on the road to prosperity. These men will again have the same opportunities they had in the past to make money, which they cannot do as conditions now are.,
I would ask the Minister of Finance why it is that in the budget, with the admission as to how bad conditions are in this country, there is no suggestion of any remedy. The only suggested remedy is to make the masses of the people pay more taxes. Mr. Speaker, the common people are not in a position to pay more taxes. I happen to know them pretty well, particularly those in the section in which I live, and during the last six months more of the best farmers that live in this dominion have come to me and told me that they did not know how in the world 
they were going to get the money to pay their taxes, than in all the rest of the time I have known them. Many who five or six years ago were among the best, most prosperous and enterprising farmers in that community are to-day on the verge of bankruptcy, because the man who was enterprising and courageous four or five years ago perhaps bought another farm for his boy or built a barn or got himself into debt. There is one thing which has not come down in price in this country, Mr. Speaker, and that is the rate of interest which people have to pay on the money they borrowed some years ago or have to borrow to-day. I know something about the way interest works, and I know that it accumulates to-day just as it did when times were prosperous. A great many of the people in this country who borrowed money four or five years ago are to-day unable to pay even the interest. I am fairly intimate with a certain party who has sold several farms and know how conditions are with him; in fact many of our farmers to-day are not only unable to pay off any principal, but are also unable to meet the interest, and many of them are not able to pay even taxes on their farms.
This government came into office less than two years ago-it seems a lot longer than that to the people of this country, but it was only a year and eight months ago-on the greatest group of promises ever made by any party in an election campaign in any country since elections were first- started, promises which I think were never exceeded for their absolute lack of limit. The Conservative party in its election campaign proposed certain definite remedies which were going to cure conditions not within a year or two, but almost immediately-in a few days, a few weeks or a few months. It was explained very clearly from every platform from which the Prime Minister and those who were with him spoke in that election that in a country situated as Canada was, different from almost any other country in the world, there was no reason why the people should not be prosperous if the government was doing its duty. This government has been in office nearly two years now, and it seems that the longer they are in power, the worse conditions get. What would the people of Canada not give to go back to the conditions that obtained only two years ago, when our friends opposite were going around the country telling the farmers and the manufacturers and the people in every walk of life how badly off they were.
Why have conditions become so much worse since the present government -came into power?

The Budget-Mr. Elliott
There is no question that world conditions have exercised a certain influence, just as they were exercising a certain influence upon the affairs of Canada during the last election when our friends would not admit that world conditions had anything to do with our economic affairs.
I want to call attention to what I think may assist the government, if they will be assisted, in getting this country out of the position in which we are now placed. We have been building up in this country for a great many years now a fiscal policy. That policy has been built up by great men, the leaders of finance and commerce in this country, and in order that my hon. friends opposite may know just how far they have departed from the policies which they claim to be following, may I call attention to a resolution which was introduced into this house on the eighteenth of January, 1911, by Hon. Arthur Meighen, now the government leader in the upper house? His resolution reads:
That in the opinion of this house, a substantial reduction in the import duties on agricultural implements is now due the agriculturists of Canada, and is in just accord with the true ends of a protective tariff.
That was in 1911. He followed that up by saying:
I hope to bring home to the government this afternoon that in their attempts to continue the National Policy which had obtained for years before, they have overlooked, they have neglected one essential feature of that policy, they have quite forgotten its guiding principle, namely, the principle that as our industrial institutions advanced in strength and as they were able with every advance to acquire a hold on the home market, the import duties were to be diminished and adjusted in order to meet the evolving and changing conditions.
Then Mr. Meighen quoted the words of the father of the national policy, Sir John A. Macdonald, who in 1878 used the following words:
If we had a protective system in this country, if we had a developed capital, we could, by giving our manufacturers a reasonable hold on our home trade, attain a higher position among the nations. I do not mean that we should adopt a tariff like that of the United States, but one such as the necessities of Canada demand.
Then he quotes further from the words of Sir John A. Macdonald:
It can well be understood that a judicious tariff may, on the whole, be a moderate tariff.
Then the present leader of the upper house went on to say:
So that the basic principle was laid down in so far as the feature I am now emphasizing goes, was that the object of that tariff was to give the manufacturing industries of Canada a
reasonable hold on the home market. The same principle was supported by Sir Leonard Tilley at page 429 of Hansard, 1879.
And he also mentions that it was supported by Mr. Foster who in the year 1894 used these words:
If there is to be a protective system at all, everybody knows that it must be higher in its inception than as the years gradually pass, when industries have become established and when the industrial development of the country grows apace.
And then Mr. Meighen goes on to quote the words of the Hon. John Haggart and others.
I am about to quote from the speech from the throne which was presented on February 15, 1921, at a time when the present leader of the Senate was Prime Minister. The following words were used:
It is the opinion of my advisers that in such revision regard must be had to the necessities of revenue and as well that the principle of protection to Canadian labour and legitimate Canadian industries, including agriculture, which has prevailed for more than forty years in this country, must be consistently maintained: but that the customs duties imposed to that end should be no higher than is essential to ensure good standards of living among our working population and to retain and make possible the normal expansion of the industries in which they find employment.
One would have thought, looking over the increase in the public debt of this country and seeing that in 1920 it had increased by about $674,000,000, that if financial conditions were going to be cured by increased tariffs this country needed such advantages at that time as badly as it does now. The point I wish to make is that in the changes in tariff which took place in 1930 and again last year the leader of this government, and the hon. members who followed him, departed entirely from the principles of the national policy as enunciated by Conservative leaders of the past. The national policy was one of protection for industries until they got on a sound footing and were able to compete with outside industries of a similar nature. The provisions of the present Canadian tariff practically prohibit from entering Canada goods which can be produced in Canada. The condition is so serious that I think the house should have from the government some statement as to how long they propose continuing with the experiment of prohibitive tariffs, and how long they are going to allow this country to go back financially by leaps and bounds as they have been doing since they came into power. The country cannot stand such a policy for many years. The high tariff legislation has been in force for a year and eight months,
The Budget-Mr. Elliott

and judging from the speech of the Minister of Finance I would say that there is not much hope of a change, because in this budget he is levying duties which were not thought of a year ago. That is a position which is very serious, so far as Canadians are concerned. It will be quite impossible for some industries to carry on unless a change is made.
One hears a good deal about the Imperial economic conference; I hope that it will produce some good results. It was interesting to note that the Minister of Finance said he did not think it advisable to make any substantial changes in the tariff in view of the impending conference. I should like to ask him this question: What is the difference in that respect between this conference and the last one? We know that just before the last conference nearly all the items in the Canadian tariff schedules were jacked up. I am glad to see the Prime Minister in his seat, because I think he more than anybody else is responsible for the increases in tariff which have taken place. I believe he had some voice in the proceedings which took place when the present budget was being formulated. Why is it necessary to put into the budget speech the statement that in view of the pending conference it is not thought advisable to make any substantial tariff changes?
I wish to say only a few words more with regard to tariff changes which have taken place, and in that connection I should like to read from the Eastern Chronicle of October 20, 1931. That newspaper quotes the Ottawa Journal, which I am sure should appeal to my right hori. friend the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. It is as follows:
From the statements of Hon. Mr. Cahan it is clear therefore that what the Dominion government has done is to place tariff on large classes of British goods of from 40 to 50 per cent, according to fluctuations in the value of the pound sterling.
The editorial is quite lengthy, and time will not permit me to read it all I should like to submit the following for the particular benefit of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister:
That any manufacturer established under our tariff should as part of his business prepare himself to face changes in world trade and finance without rushing to Ottawa for more tariff when new circumstances do not suit him.
That a tariff on importation of 40 to 50 per cent is too high a tariff under almost any circumstances, and is particularly objectionable upon British go.ods.
Under present world conditions and particularly under the specific conditions which Canada has to face commercially and industrially, it seems to the [DOT]Tournal that the prin-

ciple and practice of tariff protection is necessary for this country. But it should be reasonable protection. There may he wisdom in giving a good tariff advantage to our manufacturers and other producers. But there cannot be wisdom in setting up a tariff advantage for anybody so great that it can be relied on to furnish a profit at the expense of our own people for manufacturing or production for which this country has no natural advantage, or for business which does not enjoy good management. ... a man's pocket lias a fierce influence on his logic. As for the Journal, our creed is that an industry in Canada which cannot get along with a moderate tariff advantage should not be in this country at all.
I submit one of the great reasons for the condition in this country to-day is the tariff system which has been introduced, a system contrary to the policies of my right hon. friend's predecessors, contrary to the policy followed since the 'national policy was first introduced.
With regard to the imperial conference I have this particularly to say to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance. I read from the former's speech on the budget of 1930, page 1825 of Hansard:
If a dollar goes to the West Indies that should go to a Canadian, it is no better than if the money went to the United States.
That statement was made in the campaign when the British preference introduced by Mr. Dunning was an issue.
I was interested also in reading some .remarks by Sir Josiah Stamp. He needs no introduction to the people of this country and particularly to the Prime Minister. It was a distinct privilege for many members of this house and the Senate to hear him in an address he delivered in this building a short time ago. I quote this extract from that address as reported in the Montreal Gazette of April 8, 1932:
"Two thoughts I would leave with you about the Imperial conference," said Josiah Stamp in his concluding remarks. "As an economist I would ask politicians to listen to me. If you have a solution of a thing, or a scheme, or the result of a bargain which is a fine thing for yourself but not so good for the other man, if that is tiie way it works out, my experience is that no such bargain ever pans out that way. It cannot be lasting. Such bargains have a terrible nemesis within them.
"I dread to think that the wonderful sentiment of empire should ever be tested by material results. Never by arithmetic should we say a thing is good or bad for the empire. Never must the empire rest upon a mere economic connection that is purely mercenary or materialistic. We require, in arranging for empire trade and relations, not only a wise judgment but a long judgment. Do not let us go into this Imperial conference with any shortsighted penny-wise-and-pound-foolish idea. I believe the British empire is and can be the greatest economic and moral force in the world to-day. We are engaged in rebuilding the

The Budget-Mr. Mullins
world, in rebuilding society, after a military and financial disintegration. In that great task the British empire must lead the way, to the end that 'out of its ashes strong as the morning springeth the new'."
I should like to place alongside those words the passage with which Mr. Dunning concluded his budget speech in 1930 so that hon. members may see how closely the two statements correspond. That, I submit, is the sentiment that should govern in approaching the economic conference. I cannot think that it was good business at a time like this to impose what is called an excise tax, which is really a tax against all goods coming from Great Britain. That was not the kind of friendly gesture that I think makes for success in such a conference. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the economic conference will be productive of much good, I do hope, if it does nothing else, that the multitude of wise men who will then be gathered together will be able to point out to the members of this government the economic folly of a tariff that means prohibition of imports and not merely protection for the industries of this country.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in this house for some time listening to hon. gentlemen opposite, and I have yet to find one constructive suggestion coming from them; every word has been a.word of criticism. I have been listening to the old story of the tariff. How they have been bolstering it up for political purposes so they may have political propaganda when they go to the country later on! I have lived under every Prime Minister from Sir John A. Macdonald down to the present right hon. gentleman who occupies the position, and I never knew one of them who ever took office under the same conditions as confronted the present Prime Minister. You left on our doorstep a lot of problems that were very hard to handle. We on this side of the house have done everything possible to help out the situation. I remember quite well how the right hon. leader of the opposition went up and down the country asking for more support, to be given a larger representation in this house in order that he might have an adequate majority independent of the Progressives. But a majority was given to this side of the house. We have a working majority and when measures come up we can put them through.
I have heard a great deal of the old story called the tariff from the apostles of free trade. But I wonder where they come in. The tariff under hon. gentlemen opposite was reduced. I admit it. But they raised the valuation for duty purposes. Let me illustrate. On a hundred dollar binder you reduced the tariff to six per cent, but you raised the valuation for duty purposes to $114. That misled the people all through the western country; they were not actually paying only a six per cent duty on their binder, as they were led to believe. Every prime minister has had to have a tariff. And the tariff is a good thing fox this country; it has prospered under a tariff. What did Abraham Lincoln say? Listen to this:
I do not know much about tariff, but I do know this much-when we buy goods from a foreign country, we get the goods and the foreigner gets the money; but when we buy goods made at home, we get both the goods and the money.


John Livingstone Brown: Can you prove that Lincoln ever said that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, it is attributed to Robert Ingersoll.


Henry Alfred Mullins: It is written in history as I have given it. But I can prove what this gentleman said because I heard him; I refer to President Hoover:
The most urgent economic problem in our day is agriculture. An adequate tariff is the foundation of farm relief. The domestic market must be protected. I would use my office to give farmers the full benefit of our historic tariff policy.
That speech was made at Palo Alto in California on August 11, 1928.
An hen. MEMBER: He has changed his mind since.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I happened to be down there at the time, I was not then a member of this house. Then what about the right hon. leader of the opposition? Speaking at Kingston, Ontario, he said:
We realize that our industries here have to have safeguards with respect to competition from other parts of the world, competition from the country to the south of us, competition from conditions as they are in England, and we think that is all the more reason why these days of depreciated currency and the like we should have the benefit of expert advice and information on all these great questions on the tariff.
That was the statement made by the leader of the opposition when touring this country. I have another statement, one made by the Hon. Charles Dunning. Mr. Dunning said, "I am no free trader". I heard him at the town of Yorkton say he was advocating free trade. He was a free trader there, but in the following article he says that he is no free trader. Let me quote:
"I am no free trader. If Saskatchewan were all of Canada then free trade might be good, but it is not all of Canada, neither is Ontario.
The Budget-Mr. Mullins

It is because of the difficulty of getting a national tariff policy and making it a practical, not a political matter."-These observations of Mr. Dunning embrace a whole flock of surprises.
It is surprising to learn for the first time and from his own lips that he is no free trader. It is equally surprising to have his admission that Saskatchewan is not all of Canada. It is positively startling to be informed from such a source that the tariff should not be regarded as a political matter. Mr. Dunning is assuredly stepping out. Can it be that he has fallen in with bad company in the wicked east?
That appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune.
Now, before I resume my seat I am going to ask for more protection, and this will seem a rather strange flower to come from the prairies. But I am going to put myself on record as asking, in aid of agriculture, more protection than we have. I want one of the principal products of the farm to have some protection. I want the live stock industry to be protected. For instance, we are bringing in 50,000 cattle and shipping out about 25,000 or 30,000. You will ask me in what way I want protection for the live stock of this country. I have heard it said by hon. members on the other side that prices are going down gradually. I admit it; they have gone down. But I say to them, you have gone down in quality; you have no export cattle at all. What is driving down prices is this. We are bringing in 10,000,000 pounds of canned meats from the Argentine, and how are we bringing in those canned meats? In this way. We are bringing in the front quarters. When they slaughter their cattle in the Argentine they take the hind quarters and cut them what they call long-I am talking on a subject I know something about, because I had money invested in that country in a packing concern -and they ship the hind quarters to England and then can the front quarters, and that meat comes in to Canada in great quantities in competition with our live stock, thus driving prices down. I may be asked how I arrive at the estimate I have given of 50,000 cattle. Perhaps some hon. members may know something about this business; I believe the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) has some knowledge along this line. Well, take a 1,000 pound steer and dress it, and you will find that the average steer will dress 500 pounds of beef. Take the bones from that meat so as to get the meat ready for canning and you have 200 pounds of beef ready to put into cans. If, therefore, you bring into the country
10,000,000 pounds of canned meats you are bringing in the equivalent of 50,000 cattle. Now, I want the government, by order in council, under the authority we have given them in this house, to adopt some sort of pro-

tective tariff to stop that meat coming into Canada. I also want them to do the same thing in regard to the bringing in of pickled pork. A large quantity of that product is brought in and some of it comes in free. A good deal has been said about the price of hogs being lowered. Yes; the price of hogs is being lowered by the importation of vegetable oil that is brought in from the south, providing work for coloured labour in the southern country, and it is brought here and manufactured into a shortening called Crisco. We import something like 89,760,400 pounds of this article which takes the place of lard. Lard is a five per cent better shortening than this product, which is a deodorized oil, the odor being taken out by the Wesson process. It is not as healthy a food as lard derived from well fed Canadian hogs-and we have the best hogs in Canada, fed under our conditions. Any man who has ever been in Illinois or Iowa will know how they feed their hogs there, but the hogs in Canada produce a better iard than this imported shortening. I would ask the government to impose a good, stiff, heavy duty in order to shut that product out of this country. I submit that this should be done in the interests of farming in Canada. I find also that there is a good deal of barrel pork coming into this country. Why should wTe import barrel pork in competition with our farmers who are producing hogs? The Atlantic and Pacific stores in Toronto brought in two carloads of hams from Chicago and knocked the price of bacon down very low. The result was that the hog market in Toronto was affected that day when these hams were imported.
Seeing that it is eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 15, 1932