1933-04-05

Mr. SPEAKER:: On Monday, April 3, the
hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot), raised a question of privilege. He quoted, he said, an article from a newspaper called "Le Journal" of Quebec referring to him, and complained that he had thereby been misrepresented. I find, however, on reading a translation of the hon. member's remarks that he went much further than he had a right to in addressing himself to a question of privilege. He attacked the reporter and made remarks concerning members of the house which he had no right to do at that time and in that way.
I therefore direct the Editor of the Debates to expunge from the record the first and

Privilege-Mr. Bennett
second paragraphs of the second column of page 3893 of Hansard of Monday, April 3, commencing with the words "Le correspon-dant" and ending with the words "le premier ministre," and also the fourth paragraph of the first column of page 3S94 commencing with the words "II y a un paragraphe" and ending with the words "pour bien faire," the remarks therein being entirely improper and unparliamentary on that occasion.
The practice in England in dealing with a newspaper article alleged to be a breach of privilege is found in May, pages 98-99-
W hen a complaint is made of a newspaper the newspaper itself must be produced, in order that the paragraphs complained of may be read. A member complaining of the report of his speech in a newspaper, has been stopped by the Speaker, when it appeared that he had no copy of the newspaper on which to found his complaint. It is irregular to make such a complaint, unless the member intends to follow it up with a motion, but such a motion has been confined to declaring the article, or letter, to be a breach of privilege, without further action.
In this house the practice has been for the member to cite the article, point out that it is a breach of privilege, and that he has been misrepresented. It is not permissible for him to go further when so speaking.
Quoting from Blackmore's decisions by Speakers Dennison and Brand at page 248 on an occasion when an hon. member complained to the house of certain newspaper articles as libellous of an hon. member and constituting a breach of privilege and an objection being taken that the hon. member was entering into extraneous matters, the Speaker said "The hon. member is bound to confine himself strictly to the question of privilege which he has brought before the house," and quoting from Peel's decision, House of Commons, page 107, "If motion is made that certain passages in a newspaper constitute a breach of privilege, the discussion must be strictly confined to whether the words read at the table do constitute a breach of privilege," and so in this house discussions must be similarly limited.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BENNETT

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I desire to direct attention to the fact that yesterday, as reported at page 3947 of Hansard, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) added to the report of Hansard certain words which he said were used by me on the preceding day. I had not seen the report of Hansard, nor was I able at that moment to send for it; as a matter of fact I have seen it for the first time within the last hour. I find that the report in Hansard, which was not revised, was made from the sheet
which I hold in my hand. It did not contain the words which the hon. member for Temiscouata has sought to add to what I said, and I deny the right of that member to add to any observation made by me in the house. I therefore ask that the words in question be deleted; otherwise, it would permit any hon. gentleman in the house to impugn the accuracy of a statement in Hansard and make remarks for other members of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I may say that, after reading the report of the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member of Temiscouata, I examined the transcript of the report made by the reporter on the occasion and I find that the words in question were not reported. I have discussed the matter with the Editor of Debates and he informs me that no such words were reported and therefore were not deleted, nor has the report of Hansard been in any way changed. I direct that the remarks made by the hon. member for Temiscouata in this connection be expunged from the record; they should not have been made.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: I beg to lay on the table of the house a number of orders in council passed pursuant to relief legislation.



COURTS OF ADMIRALTY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 66 respecting the courts of admiralty.
He said: I might offer a word of explanation in regard to this bill. At the present time the admiralty courts in Canada are constituted and obtain their jurisdiction under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act of 1890, passed by the parliament of Great Britain. In the year 1929 a conference was held in London on the operation of dominion legislation. That conference made a report regarding the question of admiralty and other matters and the report was taken up at the Imperial conference which met in London in 1931. It was adopted and has been subsequently ratified in effect by the statute of Westminster, passed by the parliament of Great Britain and by the parliament of Canada. Under the authority of the statute of Westminster this parliament can now pass an admiralty act and establish a court of admiralty, as proposed in this measure. I may inform the house that the bill I have now the honour of introducing has been prepared by those considered in this country most capable of dealing with admiralty laws.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps before the house proceeds
to questions I might be permitted to say that the Senate committee dealing with the shipping bill has been hearing large numbers of witnesses and the committee would be greatly pleased if any members of the House of Commons who desire to suggest that witnesses attend from their several constituencies would do so at once. The proceedings are being printed, and in view of what has transpired I think it would expedite matters if any witnesses desiring to be heard would appear before that committee and make their statement.


Mr. GRAY:: Did I understand the right
hon. gentleman to say that the proceedings are being printed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. DUFF:: Will witnesses not be allowed to appear before the committee when the bill comes to the House of Commons?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We would avoid that by considering the bill in committee of the whole and proceeding in the way I have suggested.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	Is it true that the Canadian destroyers Saguenay and Champlain are still cruising?
2.	If so, what is the purpose of such cruises?
3.	What is the cost per day for the operation of each of said destroyers, including salaries of men and officers?
4.	Do these destroyers form part of the British West Indies squadron?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To train the personnel for the purpose of maintaining sea going efficiency under conditions which are essential but which are not obtainable in Canadian waters during the winter months.
3.	Saguenay, $645; Champlain, $485. It may be explained that the ships are in permanent commission and cost the same amount for general upkeep whether they are in Halifax or the West Indies. There is, of course, expenditure for fuel on passage, but the figures given for cost of upkeep include the cost of fuel for the average amount of steaming done in twelve months.
4.	No.


QUEBEC CITADEL
Mr. POWER:: 1.	In connection with work being carried on at the Quebec citadel by way of unemployment relief under the Department of National Defence, how many (a) engineers; (b) assistant engineers; (c) accountants; (d) foremen; (e) gang bosses or sub-foremen; (f) cooks; (g) storemen; (h) clerics and timekeepers, have been employed since October, 1932?
2.	What is the salary paid to each?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.
Maximum Total number
	number	of individuals
	employed	employed up
	at any	to March 31,
	one time	1933
(a) Engineers.. ..	.. Nil	Nil(to) Asst, engineers	.. Nil	Nil(c) Accountants ..	.. Nil	Nil(d) Foremen.. ..	.. 1	1(e) Gang bosses	or	sub-foremen..	12	13(f) Cooks	4	4(g) Storemen.. ..	.. 2	2(h) Clerks or time-	keepers	.. 3	3Foreman	
S60Gang boss or	sub-foreman....	40Cook	
50Storeman	
30Clerk or timekeeper	
20



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. YERVILLE:: 1.	What were the number of dredging inspectors at Deschaillons during the months of August and September, 1932, their names, ages and residences: how many were married and how many single?
2.	By whom were these men recommended?


CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	How many persons permanently employed in the civil service of Canada are sixty-five years of age or over?
2.	What was the total salary of such
employees for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933?'	.
3.	How many of said employees are paying into any one of the several superannuation funds?
4.	How many pay into the retirement fund?
5.	How many permanent civil servants are sixty years of age but not over sixty-five?

The Budget-Mr. Rowe
6.	What was the total salary of said employees for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933?'
7.	How many between the ages of sixty and sixty-five are paying into any one of the several superannuation funds?
8.	How many pay into the retirement fund?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, telegrams and other documents received by the government or any officers thereof, since August 1,	1932, and prior to Tuesday,
March 21. 1933, with respect to the establishment of the stabilization fund announced by the Minister of Finance in his recent budget.



ILE AUX GRUBS, QUE.-SIGNAL AGENT

Mr. POWER:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, orders in council and other documents, from August 28, 1930, to date, dealing with the position of signal agent and semaphore operator at lie aux Grues, Quebec.



ST-MAURICE DE l'f.CHOURIE AND CAP DBS ROSIERS-PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all paylists respecting works carried out by the Department of Public Works at St-Maurice de l'Eehourie and Cap dcs Rosiers, in the county of Gaspe, from the month of August, 1930, to date.



FERNIE COAL MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines (Air. Gordon) based upon a telegram I have before me from the city of Fernie, British Columbia. Has the minister received representations from Fernie pointing out the very serious condition of the coal industry in that vicinity, and what are the intentions of the government with regard to preventing the closing down of that industry and the total collapse of that community?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, a communication was received by a member of the government in connection with the situation at Fernie. It appears that through inability to market their products, which has been growing apparent for a period of years, I believe, the mines at that point gradually have been going down until now they are practically closed. The question of what can be done, if anything, has been taken up with the government of British Columbia, upon whom the responsibility rests, if there is responsibility on any other than those im-53719-236
mediately concerned. If it is possible for this government to assist, of course that assistance will be given. I have not the details as to the number of people affected, and am awaiting further word from the government of British Columbia.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 4, 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 amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston and the amendment of Mr. Lucas. [DOT]
Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow the varied arguments that hon. members who sit to your left have brought forward during the course of this debate, in which they charged the government with broken promises and made a general criticism of the budget now before parliament. However, I am glad indeed to express my appreciation of the mutual admiration which has been shown on every side of this house for the very capable manner in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) presented his budget for 1933.
In common with all other hon. members I appreciate the situation and the condition with which we are confronted to-day. I believe every hon. member realizes that the great difficulties we have had to face within this country, confused by even greater problems without, have added enormously to the task of the government, and have brought about grave and unprecedented problems in administration. I do feel, Mr. Speaker, as I know many other hon. members feel, that it is unfortunate that following the great war and until the depression in 1929 so many countries entered upon an era of extravagance; there seemed to be something of a celebration, and I believe Canada was right in the vanguard. We saw reckless extravagance such as has not been witnessed in modem times; watered stock and borrowed money became the principal methods of our new progress, and future generations were bonded in debt for services we have enjoyed in the past. At last we have found that we cannot borrow ourselves out of debt, and now we must meet the obligations we incurred in connection with services we enjoyed for several years.
Mr. Speaker, though we find the ship of state rocking and listing in perhaps the worst

The Budget-Mr. Rowe

economic storm we have ever experienced, the hon. members who sit to your left charge the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and this government with having broken some little preelection promises.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Perhaps the government has
not followed as rigid a course as would have been pursued during finer weather, but I think it is only fair that I should recall the record of hon. gentlemen opposite. We remember that in 1919 the Liberal party drew up their famous platform; the Progressive party began to appear somewhat dangerous, so we had a platform of double construction, with new party principles in Liberalism, re-planked by agricultural timber, in the hope of catching Progressive votes all over the country.
Then in 1921 what happened? The then Prime Minister, the present leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Mackenzie King), questioned as to why he did not carry out the promises he had made, said they were merely a chart and compass by which he might set the ship of state aright. However, Mr. Speaker, there were two charts, one for low tariffs and free trade and the other for lower tariffs and freer trade, but the wisdom and influence of the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding prevailed and both charts were discarded, the compass buried at sea, and the ship of state began its reckless, uncertain journey. In 1925 and in 1926 we had, by the way, a new system, a new array of fantastic promises. I am not going into details, but I well recall the speeches of the leader of the Liberal party at Richmond Hill and other places throughout the dominion. He promised: We will reform the Senate and we will give the Progressive and Farmer parties what they cannot secure for themselves. The Liberal party was returned to power, and it answered the first promise by placing in the Senate some of the most remarkable reformers Canada has ever known. How did it answer the second promise? By kidnapping the leader of the Progressive party and his shipmate, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), leaving the Progressive party shipwrecked, in distress and still crying for aid.
In 1930 we had from my hon. friends opposite a new array of promises more fantastic than Liberalism had ever before known. They said: Now we will shelve the old low tariff policy, that old, dusty free trade program which we have had for years, and bring forward a "countervailing" system. Nobody knew how high; nobody knew how low it would be, and only heaven itself knew 
how often it might be changed to suit the whims and fancies of various countries in control of our fiscal policy.
As I listened the other day to the ex-Prime Minister, with all respect to him I must say that my interest was more or less mingled with amusement as he defended his fourteen points of his new policy, and concluded by saying: "Mr. Speaker, we and the Liberal party guarantee tariff stability for Canada." I have long since made clear my position in the house, and I do not want to take an attitude of, I told you so, to refer to any speech I have made, but hon. members who have been in the house for a number of years will know that I pleaded with the former government to try to develop agriculture in a less lop-sided fashion. We are charged with having increased tariffs. The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) said yesterday that if the present government had lowered tariffs it would have been much better for the Dominion of Canada. In another breath he said that we must inflate our credit to buy where we can buy the cheapest; while the countries with which we trade would not know the value of our money. Such is another inconsistency.
If the years from 1920 to 1929 were those which we are to assume were the prosperous ones, all one need do is to recall the development of this country during that period. What was the trend of development? In 1920 we sold $27,000,000 worth more finished products from farm and factory than we purchased, while in 1929, the concluding year of this era of prosperity of which my hon. friends opposite boast, we imported $243,000,000 worth more of the same products than we sold. That is some indication of the trend of development of the dominion. That is partly the reason we had to spend $26,000,000 on immigration and had a government which, in the year it went out of office, had produced a situation whereby more people were leaving Canada than were entering it. In 1922, 72,000 Britishers came to Canada, while in 1929, 10,000 more people left this country for the United Kingdom than came over from the old land. That was the concluding year of their prosperous era, the year before the present opposition had even admitted that the depression had begun. So I say: What would have happened had we inaugurated a policy of lower tariffs? Is there an hon. member who sits either to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker, or among the wilder group in the far corner, who will for a moment maintain that had we lowered tariffs in 1930, we would be better off now, especially when it is considered that in the way of debts, which were largely

The Budget-Mr. Rowe
inherited by us from our predecessors, we owed a million dollars a day to the republic to the south? At the same time, every day but Sunday we were buying from them a million dollar's worth of goods more than we were selling to them. Just a month before we gave the electors an opportunity to express their opinions, the Hawley-Smoot tariff came down that would have shut out, in normal times, each day three quarters of a million dollars' worth more of our products. Is there an hon. member who has the courage to say that in spite of that we should have inaugurated low tariff policies for the benefit of the dominion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Earl Rowe: Some say yes and some say
no. I believe this lopsided development which was carried on from 1920 to 1929 contributed in no small measure to the crisis through which we are now passing. I refer to agriculture, not because I am a farmer, but because I believe if prosperity comes in this dominion it must develop through agricultural prosperity. There is an old adage in that good book-and I advise my hon. friends opposite to read it oftener-that tells us that it is "to the fruits of the earth and the flocks of the field we must all turn for substance." We must turn to these in our day of adversity. What happened with respect to our progress from 1920 to 1929? Improved machinery and fertile lands have brought about the production of more wheat with less labour, but let us take the export of agriculture in mixed farming. In 1920 we sold to the old land $77,000,000 of meats alone, while in 1929 we imported 41,000,000 pounds of meat to feed our own people. Through a low tariff policy, the cheap meat producing countries were able to export to Canada these products, to say nothing of other farm commodities.
The present Prime Minister, realizing that it was only through the maintenance, development and restoration of agricultural prosperity that we could secure prosperity for all, made a brilliant effort in 1930 in spite of the fact that other markets were shut to us, as everyone will admit. Hon. members opposite may smile, but I ask them: Where would they have sold these products? In June, 1930, the Hawley-Smoot tariff shut us out of the United States markets. In the same year the Prime Minister made one of the most brilliant attempts to secure an imperial conference agreement. It is true that he failed in 1930, but the British acceptance of the same proposals in 1932 was a clear-cut vindication of the Prime Minister's judgment, and time alone 53719-2361
will record this achievement as an outstanding feature in imperial development. Is there an hon. member who would say that the British market does not mean anything to this country, a market that consumes 65 per cent of all the exportable mixed farming production of the world, that had been buying 76 per cent of its supplies from foreign countries and only 26 per cent of it from empire countries? It is the only free market left and the only market that buys more foodstuffs now than it did before the war. Therefore I consider that in that market and in our home market lies the only hope for agriculture in the Dominion of Canada. I know there are those who will say: No, we shall drift on at the mercy of the different elements throughout the world; we were the fine weather birds; we got along fine in world prosperity; we will make prosperity by improved world prices, by favourable world conditions. It is remarkable that almost always in the days of adversity of this dominion, the people have turned to the party which now sits to your right, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: I thank hon. members because they agree. If you study the history of this country, you will find that our people have usually turned to the Conservative party to bring them through the days of adversity. In these difficult days the Canadian people have again turned to this party, and the present government is doing everything in its power, independent of the political consequences, to clean up the mess that was left to them by the Liberal party. It is of fundamental importance at this time that we should encourage the development of our overseas market. While I am a farmer, I have still every confidence in the national protective policy of the Conservative party. As a farmer I realize that there is no other market that is as important for our farm products as the home market, and there is no development more necessary than its development through the finer processing of our products from farm, forest and factory. When we consider the great possibilities that we have overseas at the present time, I want to impress upon the government the necessity of developing that market still further.
I heartily support the agricultural stabilization fund which has been brought down in this budget. It is almost needless, indeed, for me to say that I am in favour of it because last year I proposed something simi-
The Budget-Mr. Rowe

lar myself; in fact, the present plan looks to me like my plan of last year in a dress suit. What I proposed last year when agriculture was confronting the greatest crisis in her experience was a straight bonus on mixed farm products, to be administered by a board so that none but the high-grade products would receive the bonus, and the bonus would be automatically eliminated when prices increased in order to encourage regularity of supply. But the plan proposed by the Minister of Finance is even better. At present pound sterling value low, and with hogs at three cents, as they were last year, it means that we would receive 35 cents a hundred; if hogs go to six cents, we shall receive 70 cents, and so on. So the future looks brighter than the present. This is the first attempt in the last quarter of a century that any government in this country has made to improve the price of farm products. I would urge upon hon. gentlemen opposite who represent rural constituencies throughout this dominion, when they go back home and speak in the little red sehoolhouse against the duty on sugar and how they voted against it, .to tell the farmers also that this agricultural stabilization fund will mean more money to the farmers of this country than all they will have to pay for the sugar, taxes included, that they consume throughout the year. But I am very glad that some hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the attitude they have in regard to this agricultural stabilization fund because it means that there will be very many more Liberal constituencies vacated at the next election.
Any hon. member who represents a farming constituency or knows anything at all about farming knows what advantage this agricultural stabilization fund will be to the farmers of this country. I have heard lawyers, industrialists, doctors and other professional men, all asking how this is going to help the farmer. I have even heard hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house who are farmers themselves asking the same question, but every hon. member who knows anything about agriculture knows what a great influence the price we receive for our surplus farm products abroad has on the domestic price. All you have to do is to look at the market reports since the budget was brought down to see that this is so. I say further that there is not a farmer in this house who will dare rise and say that it will not affect the domestic price of farm products. Every fisherman, every poultry raiser, every cheese maker, every cattle raiser and every hog producer in this dominion will receive material benefit from this fund.


William Duff: Did you say every fisherman?


William Earl Rowe: Every fisherman who exports-


William Duff: You don't know what you are talking about.


William Earl Rowe: It is applicable in the same way to the fisherman who exports his products. I have spent as much time in agriculture as the hon. member has in the fishing industry-


William Duff: Leave fishing alone.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has no right to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor, particularly in that way.


William Duff: Stick to agriculture.


William Earl Rowe: I hope that when my hon. friend goes to the agricultural sections of his riding which I have visited he will tell the farmers there that he voted against the agricultural stabilization fund. I have figured just what it will mean on the sale, say, of a small load of hogs. It will mean more on a load of a dozen hogs to the farmers of this country than the farmer pays, including the sugar tax, for all the sugar that he and his wife and family uses during the year. It will be of similar benefit to the cattle raiser; it will be of similar benefit to the poultry producer and to the cheese maker, and I leave it to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) to apologize for any harm he thinks it will do to the fishermen of this dominion.
We have on the horizon the possibility of new outlets for our products. I have explained briefly what Britain buys from world production. I have mentioned the 800,000 head of cattle imported into the old land from the Irish Free State, and in view of the rather difficult imperial relationships at present existing between Ireland and Great Britain and the tariff which has been placed against Irish cattle entering the British market, there are new opportunities for the Canadian producer.
We know that we have improved our position in the British market with respect to chilled beef. Argentine's exports of chilled beef to the British market have fallen off by 25 per cent in the last three years, while Canada's exports have increased from 4,000 quarters to 19,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite may shake their heads and say that that is not a large amount of beef. True, but it is sufficient to demonstrate the possibilities that lie ahead for this dominion, particularly with the ever-increasing speed of the great transportation lines crossing the Atlantic.
When I hear hon. gentlemen opposite criticizing the Imperial conference agreements, I should like to know what market they hope to get for our surplus products, or do they

The Budget-Mr. Rowe
propose that we should consume all that we grow in this dominion? I know that under their reckless lopsided development this country from 1920 to 1929 increased its exports of wheat by 100 per cent, while its exports of finished products decreased by 65 per cent.
As to the hon. members in the far corner of the house who pose as the apostles of agriculture, there has been no group in this country which has made more noise and accomplished less for agriculture than that particular group. I say that with all respect, because they were a hindrance to the previous government. They claimed to be apostles of freer trade, and when the government had not a majority in this house without them, this country became dependent upon wheat and wheat alone in consideration for lowering the tariff barriers against everything they wished to buy. In 1928 I warned the then government against the possible difficulties in competitive wheat marketing, and I remember that at that time a Progressive member said to me: "You do not know what you are talking about. Wheat will never go below one dollar a bushel. The market for Canadian wheat is unlimited so long as we buy all the products that we require free of duty." That hon. gentleman did not come back to this house, and last year I suppose he grew wheat at 40 cents a bushel. I would ask, is there any way in which our surplus wheat can be consumed more readily than by our hogs, our dairy cattle and our poultry throughout this country? Is there any place less interfered with by machinery better suited to give employment to our people? Are there any two conditions weighing more heavily on the situation to-day than unsold wheat and idle hands in Canada?


Mr. VALLANCE:: Two cent hogs.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member says "two
cent hogs." I might remind him he is not selling any in Ontario because we are getting six cents at some points.


An hon. MEMBER:: Since when?


John Vallance: We are dealing with
the feeding of wheat though.


William Earl Rowe: During the period from 1920 to 1929, western grown cereals were being shipped 'to Denmark and that country was exporting bacon and securing the bacon tmde that we had established in Great Britain. We were very successfully supplanted by Denmark. In 1920 we supplied 26 per cent of the British bacon requirements; at that time Denmark supplied 12 per cent. In 1930 Denmark supplied 60 per cent, and after the nine years of prosperity about which hon. members
opposite talk we supplied only two and a half per cent. We supplied some of the grain tha' enabled the Danish producers to capture oui market.
Every effort should be made by the government to study outlets in other countries, especially in British countries, to study and explore the possibilities of continuity of supply to the countries we are now supplying, and to ascertain the particular grades they desire. I know there are those who say we cannot develop this trade to any great extent. I can say that it has come to the stage described in the story the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) once told, that we have to. It seems that the hound was after the rabbit, and the rabbit climbed a tree. When someone said that the rabbit could not climb, the reply was that he had to climb the tree. I know that to-day farmers of Canada realize something must be done, or else they cannot go on and produce wheat at less than cost. We know that Australia, Argentine and New Zealand produce mixed farming products at a much lower cost than we do in the Dominion of Canada. We know those countries have organized their agriculture, and by commission and investigation have explored the outlets in each country, because they were forced to do it. For example, New Zealand consumed only eight per cent of her meat production and only fourteen per cent of her dairy production. Therefore the export market was an actual necessity to them. They studied and explored the markets, and to-day they have captured them. After the great war Denmark explored 'the British market, studied its requirements, studied its desires, studied how much was needed in the mining sections of Great Britain; they found out how much heavy thick pork was needed in those sections; they studied the demand for the finer, thinner breakfast bacons to be used in the urban districts, with the result that after concerted effort, in 1929, they had captured the market. We have entered into a competitive game; we have entered into a difficult task. We are faced with the necessity of capturing markets which we had and lost. We must secure those markets against the odds of favourable climatic conditions in other countries. We must capture them against the whole organized efforts of other countries.
I know there are those who ask: Why did the government bring down the agricultural stabilization fund at the present time? Because they realize that agriculture must be restored. We learned long ago that "he who counts the cost will never yoke the plough."
The Budget-Mr. Rowe

In recent times we have learned new truths, "if we go on, we will lose more, and if we stop we will lose all." Something must be done if this nation's prosperity is to be restored. It is a problem not only before hon. members sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, but surely it is the concern of those who sit to your left. It is a problem not only existing before this country, but before other countries. The economic committee of the League of Nations have expressed their conviction that world conditions will never be improved until agricultural prosperity is restored. Two years ago the Macmillan committee in Great Britain made an investigation with reference to general conditions and reported that until price levels were raised, and until agricultural prosperity was restored, even in the old land, we could not hope for improvement or prosperity. In the old country only ten per cent are engaged in growing foodstuffs, while in Canada fifty per cent are engaged in that occupation.
In the old land they appointed a dairy commission, a hog commission, a fat stock reorganization commission, to find ways and means by which they might give to the United Kingdom some assistance to bring back the prosperity necessary to give the purchasing power required to improve business and to put work in each factory throughout the empire. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government of this country-and this is merely a suggestion- should appoint a live stock export commission made up of hon. members of this house. It should not be a royal commission, but should be composed of members who have a mandate as the business representati^tes of the people of Canada. That commission should investigate, survey and explore the outlets in other countries, should investigate our present supply, the regularity and grades of such supply, the continuity of it, and should also arrange so that the statistical bureau of Canada will show to us, as they have never done in the past, statistical references as to the volume of supply expected for high class trade, and so on, so that we can approach the problem with some accuracy as to the grades available for the market. First, we would have to ascertain the continuity of the demand for particular grades which might be guaranteed regular supply.
It is absolutely necessary to revitalize agriculture. I compliment the government upon what it has done; I believe it has taken a step in the right direction. I believe such a commission might well investigate the possibility of utilizing the port of Churchill to transport cattle from western Canada, to the great cattle market of Birkenhead. I believe

the commission might investigate the possibility of establishing feeding stations in eastern Canada. I believe they might also investigate conditions in both the west and the east with a view to freight rate adjustments so that eastern farmers might be encouraged to feed western cattle in transit with the advantage of a through rate, in this respect following the example of the western states.
They might well investigate further the possibility of establishing in the maritime provinces not only feeding stations but killing stations. I know there are some hon. members on this side of the house as well as on the other who do not agree with that, but I say conditions are changing and changing rapidly. We are told that the British housewife to-day does not want the heavy beef, but she wants the fine prime finished beef, and she wants it fresh, so that she can have more hot roasts, and not so many larger cold roasts off frozen beef carcasses from the Argentine.
I should like to refer hon. members to the fact that during the last three years the exports from the Argentine have fallen off by twenty-five per cent, and our exports have increased to nearly five times their former extent. Even though that is small, it is at least an increase and a hope. I believe killing stations might be installed in the maritime provinces so that chilled or almost fresh meats, in ever increasing quantities, in view of our improved transportation facilities, might be supplied through cool Atlantic routes and sold on the counters in London as fresh Canadian beef. These are matters which are absolutely essential. I believe they are of such national concern that they should not wait. I am convinced that the restoration of prosperity in Canada must come after a careful organization and investigation of these better and more stable outlets. After all, mixed farming is the basis of prosperity in this dominion. I know that some hon. members who are wheat growers and who would not have agreed with that view a few years ago will now agree. I believe the time is not far removed when mixed farming will take the place of wheat growing in many wheat growing sections. The time is not far distant when other wheat growing sections will be engaged in supplying the British beef market. I believe that there is another step that the government might take, if I may make another suggestion. I think I have done more prescribing without being called in, as the doctors say, than many other members of this house, but I say this with all respect-it concerns both sides of the house-we are passing through the most

The Budget-Mr. Rowe
critical times Canada has ever gone through, and I say in the interests of agriculture, of the small manufacturer, of the small business man, of Canada itself, we must have a lowering of interest rates in this dominion. I say that with all sincerity. I say it as a farmer. I have no apology to make for any votes I have given in favour of the national fiscal policy of protection, but I do believe in a quid pro quo for agriculture. The great distance between Canada's agricultural producers and their markets is a further handicap to them, whereas the manufacturer in Canada is protected by that very handicap of distance from his competitor. The manufacturer is protected by tariffs which preserve his market for him but the farmers cannot be protected in their markets when they have an exportable surplus. Therefore we must get that quid pro quo by any reasonable means in order to make our whole social organization more successful. I say that I believe the lowering of interest will help a great deal in this terrible financial crisis through which we are passing. I do not think there is an hon. member but will agree that I am not pleading needlessly for agriculture, when you consider that last year we were selling the products of our soil for 44.9 per cent of what we sold them for in 1926, while the manufacturer if he was selling anything was selling his products at from 72 to 96 per cent of 1926 prices.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined
to have less confidence in my argument by reason of the applause I hear from the opposite side.


An hon. MEMBER:: Come over here.


William Earl Rowe: If what I said in the former part of my speech met with the same agreement, my hon. friends would come over here. I will say further with reference to the financial crisis that we have been going through that the brunt of it at the present time is being carried by agriculture, the basis of the prosperity of any country, the distress of which is a main factor in the present depression. But I can see no cure in the proposals of those who want to inflate our currencj* so that no one will recognize it. As we maintain our national financial institutions, maintain the credit of this country, the soundness of its money, and help to pay the obligations of large industrial corporations that a protective policy has built up, I say our quid pro quo should be such as will help us to maintain our position in the future and bring back prosperity to the farmers of this dominion, to the benefit of everyone in the country.
I congratulate the government on the steps which they have taken. I know there is the soldiers' pension reduction, the sugar tax and other little things that might be criticized but I do not propose to go into them. I wish only to warn my farmer friends on the other side-because there are some of them I would like to see come back-when they are considering this proposition of sugar tax and stabilization fund, not to forget the old saying that it is possible not to see the woods for the trees. While maintaining the financial credit of this dominion, we should not forget the reminder of Goldsmith that:
111 fares the land to hastening ills a prey
Where wealth accumulates and men decay;
And I would quote his further warning:
An honest peasantry, a nation's pride,
Once destroyed can never be supplied.
I think that indicates Canada's first obligation at 'the present time. As a farmer myself I am not ashamed to compare the Canadian cultivator of the soil with the bold peasantry of whom Goldsmith wrote. On the other hand, I can say that 'there are many farmers in this dominion from whom you have not heard. We have had petitions presented by those in the far corner from 6,000 farmers, but we know there are 720,000 more who have not been heard from. We know there have been a few stampedes started and brought to the parliament buildings to embarrass this government by trained agricultural politicians, but most of the farmers of Canada do not require organizations signified by several letters of the alphabet to describe where they stand. The farming class in Canada are still the stable class in Canadian citizenship, and they have stood this test with the same fortitude and loyalty as in other times of trouble. The agriculturists form the great mass of Canadian citizenship, they constitute almost fifty per cent of the population and probably another thirty per cent are intimately dependent upon them. They will maintain sound Canadian citizenship, they will preserve the institutions and form of government that we have enjoyed in the past, and I say to all those interested in good government and who cherish the institutions we have inherited that they need not fear that the rural part of our population will be carried away by these alphabetical new proposals. They are not concerned about sending to parliament members who have searched the alphabet for descriptive letters; these will be sent back home and will never be heard of again while Canadian agriculture marches on into a brighter and more prosperous future.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this debate has been so intermittent that it is very difficult to get back to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). The minister admitted what he termed the darker elements in the picture, the low level of business activity, the shrinkage of trade, the pressure of low prices and existing debts, the increase of unemployment and the various social costs which it involves. Perhaps no more serious indictment could be drawn against the policies of the government of the last two or three years than those words of the finance minister himself. If it were necessary to add anything by way of illustration I might point out that in a very interesting pamphlet by Mr. J. A. McLeod, general manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia, it is shown that since 1929, Canada has experienced a shrinkage of export trade of sixty-five per cent. Nothing that the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards) said yesterday in his rather elaborate presentation will offset this statement by Mr. McLeod. Further than that, with regard to unemployment may I emphasize the situation which was brought to our notice within the last few days by reports from social agencies of the city of Montreal, which show that one-third of the entire population of Montreal is now in receipt of relief. These are appalling statistics. Again I say no government can very well present its report of the preceding year's work and disregard the effect of its policies as we see them in this huge unemployment which exists all over this country.
The unfortunate thing is that the finance minister indicates no way out-none whatever. In my judgment his budget will intensify rather than ameliorate the evils. It is all very well to admit the difficulties involved in the shrinking of trade; it is all very well to point out the evils of diminishing .returns. It seems to me that the situation is as if a man tied a tourniquet around his arm. Gradually the arm becomes numb, the blood ceases to circulate, the fingers are dead, and we ask what the trouble is. Surely one would point out that the bandage was too tight around the arm, and the common sense of the situation would be to release the bandage. In this case, instead of that, the government admits the shrinking of trade, it admits the deadness and the depression, but all it says is, "Give it another twist; tighten it still more; cut off still further the free circulation of goods, make it more difficult still for us to increase purchasing power."

Is not that a suicidal policy? The Minister of Finance said:
As a nation, Canada is able to take care of her foreign commitments without undue strain. Our financial structure continues intact and our credit remains unimpaired in the markets of the world.
Without being too disrespectful I would suggest that the one word to characterize that is the word bunk. That is the only way to describe these high-sounding phrases. Let me read again what he says:
As a nation Canada is able to take care of her foreign commitments without undue strain.
Does anyone mean to say that we are not having undue strain to-day?
Our financial structure continues intact.
Yes, the banks continue intact, but the very foundation of our financial structure is being undermined and we are threatened with bankruptcy. The minister says also that our credit is unimpaired in the markets of the world. Nonsense. Can we float loans in the markets of the world as we have been able to do in the past? It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to get off these high-sounding phrases, but they mean nothing.
Our banking system has fully maintained its enviable reputation, meeting every demand upon it-
Does the Finance minister mean to say that it has met the demands of the people of this country? I do not think so.
-and retaining the fullest confidence of the public.
The minister's public must be a very narrow one, because I submit that across the country there are a large number of people who have not the fullest confidence any longer in our banking system.
The chief concern of our banks would appear to be the difficulty of finding satisfactory outlets for the investment of their surplus reserves.
That is an extraordinary situation. As I take it, the only factors necessary for the production of all the commodities needed in this country are these: First, natural resources; secondly, the equipment with which to work them; thirdly, man power, labour of hand and brain; and lastly, finance, capital, something to tide us over the present. I do not know of any other factors than these four. We have undoubtedly the natural resources, the capital equipment, to produce three or four times what is now produced, and this could be readily extended without difficulty. The only thing we seem to have lacked in the past has been a little financial credit, and now we are told that the banks have so much of it that they do not know what to

The Budget-Mr. \Voodswortli
do with it. This shows that there is an absolute need of fundamental changes before we can bring about the prosperity for which we all long.
There is a word of wisdom given by the Minister of Finance which I would commend to the house:
The present crisis is international both in its causes and its effects, and the remedy must be sought in international understanding and cooperation. Slowly, but nevertheless surely, the world is approaching full realization of the fact that the day of national self-sufficiency is past.
I would commend these words to the member who preceded me, but he too hurriedly left the chamber to receive the ovation tendered him because of his partisan speech.
Slowly, but nevertheless surely, the world is approaching full realization of the fact that the day of national self-sufficiency is past, that an international disease can only be cured by an international remedy.
That is a far cry from the self-contained, commercially independent Canada, as depicted by the Prime Minister in his preelection speeches. The Prime Minister may be learning, but he is learning at the expense of Canada.
What is there in the budget that would indicate any move towards international cooperation? The Minister of Finance does suggest that we should give support to the world economic conference. But let me ask this: AY hat can the world economic conference do as an independent unit, something apart from us all? It may pass certain resolutions, but before they can become really worth very much they must be implemented by act of all the people attending the conference, by practically all the nations of the world. If any one nation or group of nations stood aside the resolutions of the conference would be worth nothing, and it must be conceded that our government in the past has been travelling in exactly the opposite way to that which would be indicated by the leading economic authorities of the world.
The speech of the Minister of Finance reflects what I have before called the professional optimism of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance says:
I am of the firm belief that we can look forward with complete confidence to better and happier days. We still retain the same rich and varied resources, we are still blessed with those qualities of resourcefulness which are a heritage from our sturdy pioneer forbears.
I wonder that the Minister of Finance can talk about our natural resources. When I attempted to do so the Prime Minister
promptly told me that they belonged to the provinces and we could not take them into consideration when dealing with federal affairs. But we are told now that they belong to the provinces.


Mr. GEARY:: Perhaps he was speaking as a Canadian.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A\Then I talked about our natural resources I too might have been talking as a Canadian, but immediately I was told that our natural resources came under provincial jurisdiction. Further than that, I would ask: Who actually owns these natural resources? Outside of agricultural resources, a great many of them were owned by large corporations, many of them American corporations, and therefore they are not immediately available to us. Our policies are cramped because of the ownership of these big concerns by people south of the line. As regards resourcefulness, if we had one-tenth of the resourcefulness of the pioneers we would sweep away this plutocracy under which we now live. We have resourcefulness but it must be directed along different lines because we face a different problem from that of the pioneers.
As I listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance, and as I tried to understand something of the situation in Canada, there was one word that stood out above everything else like a great illuminated sign from which you could not get away-the little word "debts." The Minister of Finance says that the net debt on March 31, 1933 was estimated at $2,599.089.000. The interest on the public debt amounts to 8134,971,000 and the deficit on ordinary expenditures is $68,000,000. I would say that this is only a part of our debt, and perhaps we would get a truer picture if we viewed the situation as it is presented in that pamphlet by Mr. AV. Sanford Evans, entitled Cost of Government in Canada. The gross debt of the government in 1931, even before the enormous increase under this administration, including guaranteed bonds, was S3,348,975,668; provincial debts amounted to SI,276,629,288 and municipal debts to 81,430,000,000. From approximately $120,000,000 in 1904 the aggregate ordinary expenditure increased to
8275.000.	000 in 1913 and to the huge total of
8920.000.	000 in 1931. Adjusted to population the per capita expenditure in 1904 was $19.08; in 1913 it was S36.72 and in 1931 it amounted to $88.68.
Mr. Evans proceeds to bring home what that really means. The average value of all field crops for the five years from 1927 to 1931, which included three years of good prices, was

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
$866,000,000, while the ordinary expenditures in 1931 alone were $920,000,000. Not only have we had these ordinary expenditures, but almost all governments have been getting by through adding to our debts. Debts have increased even faster than ordinary expenditures, the per capita increase being 147 per cent of the rate of increase in ordinary expenditures. The expenditures in debt service during 193031, the last figures given by Mr. Evans, amount to $225,603,554, or one quarter of the entire expenditures. It is an appalling situation. Governments have become vast debt collecting agencies; we exist very largely in order to gather from the little people all over the country huge sums, of which then we turn over a very considerable proportion in the form of interest.
Here is another table given by Mr. Evans. The per capita taxes in 1895-96 were $10.94; in 1904-05 they were $15.98; in 1913-14 they were $31.20; in 1921-22 they were $66.10, and in 1929-30 they increased to S77.08. Taking the census return of 1921, and taking the average family as consisting of 4-62 persons, the average tax per family in 1913-14 was $144.14, while in 1929-30 it was $356.10, or almost two and a half times as much, practically $30 per month. It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to say that we have a sound financial structure. I do not see how we are going to struggle along under this load very much longer.
In a recent number of the Canadian Forum Mr. D. C. MacGregor contributes an article entitled The Threat of Financial Crisis, in which he gives us some idea of what this enormous debt load really means. I quote:
. . . one-fifth of the national income is being diverted by taxation already, it has almost reached its limit. In order to pay their taxes (which includes paying themselves bond interest), Canadians now work for the common treasury for two and one-half months in every year.
I wish I could have brought that statement to the attention of the hon. gentleman who preceded me. He spoke about little cuts here and there; he tried to show how the advantages derived by the farmer under this budget would offset all the disadvantages in the form of higher taxation on sugar and so on, but just think what our taxes really mean to us to-day. Out of every twelve months we work two and a half months for the state, just in order to pay the taxes. Consider the bondholders to whom we are paying such tribute. I continue to quote:
During the nineteen twenties the holders of government bonds received four per cent of the national income, and were quite satisfied. Today they are receiving more than seven per [Mr. Woodsworth. 1
cent of the national income, and with that larger share they can buy from fifteen per cent to thirty per cent more goods than when the bonds were issued. They have gained richly at the community's expense, without rendering any corresponding service in return, due to the catastrophic fall in prices.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Whose
words are those?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quoting from an article by D. C. MacGregor which appeared in the Canadian Forum. In connection with this payment of the interest on our bonded indebtedness may I suggest that it is absurd that we should continue to pay a premium to the Canadians who happen to hold bonds payable in New York. I think it a disgrace that a certain group of Canadians should thus profit at the expense of the great masses of the Canadian people. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimates that the total of the bonds so held, including only the direct obligations of the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities, is at least $600,000,000. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that if he wants to raise a little more revenue he should collect that extra premium. There is no earthly reason why Canadians who hold such bonds should not have to subscribe very liberally to the cost of carrying on the affairs of the country.
The situation has become impossible. We might cut down our debts, but- that is not suggested at all. Rather the Minister of Finance is intent on as nearly as possible making his budget balance, and he intends to do so by cutting down expenditures. He calls the interest charges on the debts uncontrollable and takes it for granted that they will be paid one hundred per cent. It seems to me that the time is rapidly approaching when we will have to face the cutting down of our bonded indebtedness. This might be done by a reduction in the face value of the bonds; it might be done by converting these bonds so that we would pay a smaller rate of interest, or it might be done by inflation. We in this corner of the house are inclined to think that inflation would be the fairest and easiest way to carry out the operation. It is true that the Minister of Finance proposer a conversion loan, but he says it will be on a basis that will keep faith with the investors and will not in any sense involve a repudiation of existing contracts. I would point out to him that after all the bondholders to-day are receiving practically twice as much as they should receive, because to-day the dollar will purchase twice as much as it would buy when the bonds were issued.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the position is something like this: I believe that in

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
Greenwich observatory there is a standard yardstick which is very carefully looked after. It is exactly thirty-six inches in length and is kept free from climatic influences lest it should expand or contract the least fraction of an inch. It is kept steady and unvarying, as a standard. Now let us suppose that I contract with someone to supply a thousand yards of cloth, and of course it is understood that thirty-six inches constitute a yard. Three or four years go by; someone gets hold of the yardstick and stretches it until it is seventy inches in length. Then he demands: Pay me my thousand yards of cloth, and he holds up a yardstick seventy inches long. The Prime Minister would say: Yes, of course, it must be paid, that is a contractual obligation. It is not a contractual obligation. The fact is that the dollar has increased in buying power, and under such circumstances it is only fair in the eyes of anyone who is not obsessed with the legal way of looking at the matter, that the people who own the mortgages, for that is what the bonds are, should receive back the real purchasing power of those mortgages or bonds at the times the debts were contracted.
Moreover, when the minister talks about keeping faith with the investors, I ask: What about keeping faith with our Canadian pioneers who put their all into this country? What about keeping faith with our pensioners who at the call went over to Europe and risked their lives, and who are now finding their pensions cut down? What about keeping faith with the ordinary farmers and labour people throughout Canada who are having their incomes very seriously reduced? Why should the bondholders not take their share of the losses and the depression? They are the only class that is exempt to-day. The Minister of Finance, in speaking of the high credit position of Canada, said:
This enviable position has been and can be held only by the maintenance of sound financial and monetary policies. . . . Let the sponsors of inflation never forget-one inevitable result would be a flight from our dollar, ,a withdrawal on a large scale of the capital invested by foreigners in this country in the form of securities and bank deposits-against policies which might lead to such dangers, this government has resolutely set its face.
I do not suppose my personal opinions would avail very much in opposition to those of the Minister of Finance, but let me read the remarks of Mr. McKenna to the shareholders of the Midland bank as recently as March last. He said:
The national finances are certainly better in countries where the persistent fall in internal prices has been arrested than in those where through adherence to gold it is still continuing.
Separation from gold is no longer a sign of budgetary disorder; adherence to it is not longer a distinguishing mark of sound national finance. . . . Controlled inflation, from being the remedy of fools >or knaves, has become widely regarded as the best available solution of our troubles.


Mr. COOTE:: Who said that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Right Hon. Reginald McKenna. Of course, if we in this comer say this, we are called the wild men from the west and I suppose the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) will be called the wild woman from the east.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order!


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope that is in order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to repeat these words of Mr. McKenna:
Controlled inflation, from being the remedy of fools or knaves, has become widely regarded as the best available solution of our troubles.
Confirming that, Mr. H. G. Hawtrey, a treasury official, said this:
The evil consequences of uncontrolled inflation are definitely surpassed by the evils of deflation.


George Gibson Coote: Would the hon. member mind telling us who Mr. McKenna is?


James Shaver Woodsworth: He is chairman of the Midland bank, a former chancellor of the exchequer, and in order that it may be realized he is quite respectable, I may say he is a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
The Prime Minister the other day gave us a very elaborate dissertation on gold and emphasized that our money was well taken care of by the gold coverage. I do not suppose my words would avail against those of the Prime Minister, who is supposed to be omniscient, but I would like to quote as against his position the words of another Conservative, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, a former Prime Minister. In an address before the Bankers' Educational Association of Toronto on January 21, 1931, Mr. Meighen said:
Under the Finance Act of later years, our government was authorized to advance to banks against specially named classes of collateral government notes by way of temporary loans and no provision was made for a gold reserve against these notes. ... As to the money advanced under the Finance Act it is indefinite, consequently loans of unstated amounts, without limit, depending wholly upon the discretion of the Finance department, can be made without a gold reserve.
The Prime Minister said nothing whatever about these advances under the Finance Act. I do not know whether it would be quite fair
The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

to him to say that he studiously avoided such a reference. Let me read from section 6, part II of the Finance Act:
Such securities shall be deposited with the minister or with an assistant receiver general; and the minister may request the trustees of the central gold reserves to make a valuation of and recommendation as to the amount which in the judgment of the trustees may properly be advanced on any securities offered in pledge under this part.
I ask: Who are these trustees that are given such enormous powers? Subsection 4 of section 61 of the Bank Act reads:
Appointment of trustees. Central gold reserves.
4. The association may, with the approval of the minister, appoint three trustees and the minister may appoint a fourth trustee.
The other day I asked the Prime Minister as to who the trustees at the present time were and he replied to me, as reported on page 3511 of Hansard:
The trustees are the Royal Trust Company, the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank of Canada.
The Royal Trust Company is, I think, generally considered to be more or less a subsidiary of the Bank of Montreal, so that apparently the Bank of Montreal and the Royal bank are the two who determine what advances shall be made under the Finance Act. The people have nothing to do with the matter; the gold reserve has nothing to do with it. Let me repeat this sentence from Mr. Meighen's speech:
Under the Finance Act of later years, our government was authorized to advance to banks-
Not to municipalities, although the banks may offer municipal securities.
-against specially named classes of collateral, government notes by way of temporary loans and no provision was made for a gold reserve against these notes. . . . As to the money advanced under the Finance Act-
Listen to these words:
-it is indefinite, consequently loans of unstated amounts, without limit, depending wholly upon the discretion of the Finance department, can be made without a gold reserve.
If that be true, I submit that much of what the Prime Minister said the other day was absolute nonsense. Without any undue reflection upon the Prime Minister, I say that those statements of Mr. Meighen read in conjunction with the Finance Act indicate clearly that my right hon. friends contention that we had for all our money a sufficient gold reserve was-well, parliamentary language fails me!

I should like to reply briefly to what was said the other day with regard to myself by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). He will forgive me for replying to him in his absence, as be spoke in my absence. The other day I made this statement with regard to the Farm Relief bill:
If we give great powers to the Dominion government and they proceed to use those powers in order that the banks and insurance companies may write up and keep written up their assets, and in order that loans may be made to the railways, I would say that the result will be disastrous indeed for this country.
I am quite prepared to stand by that. But on the basis of that statement the Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say about me, at page 3470 of Hansard of March 28:
Why does the government, he asks, safeguard insurance companies when the people of this country are out of work.
That is something I did not ask. He went on to say:
This is the utterance of a demagogue.
In the first place he puts words into my mouth which I did not utter, and then he characterizes me as a demagogue. As a matter of fact, what I was at the time protesting against was this, that the government under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, as has been time and again pointed out, did use their powers not merely to give relief in the drought stricken areas in Saskatchewan and to the unemployed, but also to allow the writing up of the assets of the insurance companies. I submit I am perfectly justified in resenting that being done under that kind of legislation, and in so doing I do not think I can be classed as a demagogue.
The Prime Minister himself in introducing the legislation last year with regard to insurance companies admitted:
A more stringent restriction of investments by life insurance companies is desirable.
And, speaking particularly of the Sun Life, he said:
As to the wisdom of some of the investments . . . they are not investments that I would make.
I am not at this time going to refer to the plea that we put up some years ago for the mutualization of the Sun Life. I am not going to deal particularly with the large dividends and big salaries enjoyed by the officials of that company. I am not going to go into the rather shady transactions of the officials of that company in connection with the Kreugers and the Insulls, but I do urge that when I suggest it is dangerous to give powers to the government when the govern-

The Budget-Mr. Gobeil
ment may use those powers in connection with an insurance company, especially with insurance companies of this class, I have a right to resent being called a demagogue. I suppose there is no use bandying words. I might, I suppose, call the Minister of Trade and Commerce a "plutogogue." I do not know whether that is parliamentary or not; I think it would be, since I do not think the word is in the dictionary. But where do we get with that kind of thing?
I have hardly time to go into the details of the budget; this may possibly be done at a later stage. But as I see the matter, the budget on the whole will tend to retain for the wealthy their wealth, and at the expense of heavier taxation upon the poor. The Min-
Income


.$ 3,000	
4.000		
5.000		
6.000		
10.000	(including surtax)
20.000	(including surtax)
ister of Finance decreases the income tax exemptions. He said:
It is felt that higher rates of taxation could not reasonably be imposed, bearing in mind not only the depleted incomes out of which the tax must be paid but also the fact that in some provinces the same incomes will be subjected to further levies for provincial and/ or municipal purposes.
That is a very nice doctrine for those in receipt of large incomes, but may I point out that indirect taxe9, like the tariff and the sales tax, repeat themselves over and over again; in fact, they pyramid themselves. Look for a moment at the income tax exemptions and the increases that have thus been made in the tax. Take the case of a married man with two dependent children. His tax at varying salaries, would be as follows:
1932 tax	1933 tax	Percentage increase
	$ 6	-
$ 12	38	22032	SO	15058	132	130275.10	462	701,545.60	2,005.50	30
That is, in the case of a man with an income of $20,000, under the new regulations, the tax is increased by 30 per cent, whereas in the case of a man receiving an income of only $4,000 his tax is increased 220 per cent. I thought it was bad enough last year when the government proposed to make an equal cut on everybody, because whilst the cut might have been 10 per cent all around, actually it was not equal in its effects, because it is not so much the actual percentage or the actual amount taken, but what a man has left, and 10 per cent on the little man means a great deal more than 10 per cent on the big man, so far as his power to pay is concerned.


George Reginald Geary: The hon. gentleman's time is up.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But this is worse,
because there is an increase in taxation in which the percentage decreases when it comes to the men of larger means.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in the budget debate this year, but as the budget deals largely with farm products, and coming as I do from a constituency largely composed of farmers, I felt it my duty to express to the government my appreciation of what has been done to further the interests of that class of our citizens. I do not wish to take up much time, and for that reason I shall not spend the usual time in paying compliments to the
hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) for the able manner in which he presented his budget.
This is not a political budget; it is a business man's budget. Taxes are never popular. In critical times such as those through which we are now passing revenues have to be found and consequently taxes must be imposed. But in this budget most of the taxes will fall on those who are best able to bear them.
The government deserve to be complimented for some of the measures they have brought down. First of all I would mention the stabilization of the pound for duty purposes at $4.60. I am sure that this provision as applied to some of the exported products of the farm will prove of great benefit to producers of that class of goods and will do much to stimulate the farming industry in this country and have a beneficial effect on trade in general.
I shall not undertake to analyze all the various features of the budget, as I do not feel qualified to do so. I shall confine myself to agricultural questions, and I desire first to make a few remarks on the dairy industry, and more particularly on the present butter situation in Canada. Hon. members opposite, from their leader down to those who sit on the same row of benches that I myself occupy on this side of the house, are very much divided on many of the questions that come before this house, but there is one question
The Budget-Mr. Gobeil

at least on which they are closely united. It is that one particular argument that has been so frequently used against this government, namely that of decreasing commodity prices. More particularly has that argument been raised in connection with butter prices. How many times has this house listened to these words: "Butter was selling for so much in 1929, but in 1931, 1932 or 1933-as the case may be-"it is only so much."


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Or so little.


Samuel Gobeil: I did not hear what the
hon. member said. I do not object to hon. members using that argument, if they wish, until the next general election. I feel quite sure that such an argument will not lead them out of the valley of humiliation. Unless they have made up their minds that they do not wish to come back to the house after the next election I really cannot understand why they still use that argument. In the first place it will do them no good, because Canadian dairy farmers are not fools. This argument is certainly the poorest hon. members opposite could put forward. There is one way and one only of establishing relatively high or low prices on any one commodity, and that is by comparing the price paid in Canada with that paid in other countries where it is produced or sold. Every Canadian knows that a comparison of present prices with those obtaining four or five years ago is a childish and ridiculous procedure. People outside the house would not dare do it, but it would seem that hon. members opposite have not abandoned the practice. Outside the house we never hear such comparisons, because they cannot be substantiated by facts. Hon. members opposite cannot mention one country in the whole world where commodity prices are the same to-day as they were three or four years ago. There remains, however, the infallible method of comparing the prices paid in other countries with those paid in Canada. If we follow that method, in what position does Canada stand to-day?
Speaking in this House of Commons on October 20 last, I placed on Hansard some comparative butter prices on the three markets in which we are interested. I refer to the markets in Canada, the United States and Great Britain. The quotations I gave at that time were for different months in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932. I am sorry that at -this time I find it necessary to repeat them, but I feel I will be justified in so doing, and for that reason shall place them again on Hansard. My purpose in placing these figures before the house is, in the first place,

to show that there has been a change in butter prices not only in Canada but in the other two countries, and, in the second place, to show that the Canadian position has been improving. The following is a comparison of butter prices in the three markets I have
mentioned:	Canada	United States	EnglandJune, 1930. .	. . . 27.13	32.93	28.02J ul v, 1930. .	. . . 27.59	35.24	28.95August, 1930.	. . . . 28.67	38.92	28.53December, 1930. . . 28.63	32.18	23.43January, 1931.	. . . 30.80	28.50	24.11February, 1931	. . . . 31.61	28.50	25.74March. 1931. .	28.88	25.32March. 1932. .	... 26.31	22.61	18.94April, 1932. .	20.04	19.38May, 1932. . ,	18.83	17.81August, 1932.	. . . . 19.21	20.31	17.81Speaking a	few days -ago	the hon.	member
for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) placed a few figures on Hansard. He gave the prices of butter for the months of January, February, November and December of 1932. I shall n-ot dispute his figures; I take it for granted they are correct, but they are not for the same months as the figures I gave. I quite agree with the hon. member that since the winter of 1930, Canadian prices have been fluctuating, bringing about a condition under which in some months the United States prices were higher and in others Canadian prices were higher. On the whole, however, Canadian prices gained. The hon. member ga-v-e figures which would indicate that in the four months there was a margin in favour o-f United States prices of anywhere from two cents to three cents pea- pound. But he w-ent farther than that. In reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Shaver) he gave the following figures for 1928:
Canada cts. -per lb.
January, 1928	 35.50
February, 1928	 36.50
November. 1928	 39.90
December, 1928	 40 60
United States cts. per lb. 48.90 46.50 50.70 50.80
This was a comparison of Canadian with American prices for some -time -back, showing a difference of anywhere from five cents to ten -cents per pound in favour of American prices. Since the winter of 1930, however, -the difference has very often been in our favour, and seldom in favour of the United States farmer.
May I remind the house that several hon. members opposite have referred to my remarks of October 20. I refer particularly to the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. APRIL 5, 1933
The Budget-Mr. Gobeil
Rheaume). I am sorry he is not in his seat. On October 25 last, referring to me, he made the following statement:
During the speech of my good friend from Compton he has declared that the farmers of this country should be proud of the prices they are obtaining for their butter, and I defy the member for Compton to go and repeat these words in his county.
Let me tell him that I never uttered such words, and the hon. member knew it when he said it. He knew it because he referred to Hansard, and he had only to refer to page 416 and he would have seen that what I said was this:
It will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that the action taken by this government on behalf of Canadian farmers has resulted in our farmers getting more for their butter than are the farmers of any other country in the world.
I wish to point out that the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville, deliberately misquoted me; he sought to put in my mouth words that I never uttered. But I remind the house that he did not dispute the figures I gave; neither did any other hon. member opposite, because they were the correct figures. He challenged me to go back to my constituency and say words that I never pronounced here. I challenge the hon. member-well, perhaps I should not say that, because the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville has proven that he can say anything; but I defy any hon. member to prove to the house that the figures I gave on the 20th of October last were not accurate figures for the month I mentioned.
What has been the situation in regard to butter in Canada since I gave these figures, and what is it to-day? The condition has continually improved, so much so that to-day there is a difference of between six and seven cents in favour of Canada as compared with United States prices and over ten cents a pound as compared with London prices. Let me read to the house some short comments made by two Montreal papers on the butter situation. These comments were written after the answer given by the right hon. the Prime Minister to my question relative to New Zealand butter en route to Canada a few days ago. Le Bulletin des Agriculteurs dated the 21st of March made the following comments:
Last Monday answering a question of Mr. Sam Gobeil, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett gave assurance to the house that these importations of butter would be controlled under the terms of the treaty with New Zealand because he considered these importations prejudicial to the dairy industry. The occasion seems to be favourable to examine what that protection that some are trying to discredit is actually worth to us. Without this treaty and the protection
that it affords us butter would sell to-day in Canada for 16 cents per pound, the price of butter is actually 18 cents in United States or 22 cents in Canadian funds, on the English market the best New Zealand butter is selling to-day for 14-54 in Canadian funds.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the comments made by that newspaper in Montreal which since its foundation has been looked upon by the farmers of the province of Quebec as the watchdog of their interests. But if some hon. members think that the opinion of this newspaper may not be impartial, let me give them now the comments of the Liberal organ in the city of Montreal, Le Canada, on the 21st ol March. I have the newspaper article here, and this is a translation:
New Zealand has always the resource of directing her butter to another market. There is no question of denouncing the treaty between the two governments. Their butter enters Canada by paying a duty of 5 cents per pound. The price of butter in Montreal to-day is higher than in New York, and even much more than the English price where New Zealand sells nearly all her butter. The highest price in Montreal to-day is 25 cents, in New York Saturday the price was 18 cents or 22 cents in Canadian funds. The average price paid on the English market for the best New Zealand butter is 14-54 in Canadian funds, so that, lacking action by the government, it would permit New Zealand to flood our market with butter, and would smash the prevailing present prices.
Now, sir, could there be a better compliment paid to this government than that? And it is paid by one of the greatest Liberal newspapers published in Montreal. Do hon. members opposite believe that such a happy condition was brought about by chance? I know they are not so narrow minded, they know better, but so does the Canadian farmer. The Canadian farmer knows that this situation was brought about largely by the efforts of the hon. Minister of Agriculture in 1930, by his constant supervision of the market, and by the arrangement arrived at by which no foreign butter would be offered for sale in Canada for less than 31 cents during the winter of 1930-31. It was brought about by the foresight of this government when the New Zealand treaty was drafted, the terms of which permit this government to take action, as it will on this occasion, without endangering or cancelling the whole treaty; preventing the flooding of our country with large quantities of butter and lowering our price to the London price. If hon. gentlemen opposite were in power to-day or if the same condition that existed in 1930 were still prevailing, as this Liberal newspaper said, the price of butter in Canada would be that of
The Budget-Mr. Gobeil

London, that is around 15 cents a pound. If hon. members opposite dispute that statement I invite them to explain the difference. How is it that to-day there is a difference of 10 cents a pound between the Canadian and the London price? What would stop New Zealand from selling butter here at the same price as they sell it at in London if it were not for the five cent duty and clause 4 of the treaty?
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), speaking a litle while ago said that in times of adversity Canadians called the Conservative party to power. My hon. friends opposite sneered at that. I will go further, I will say that had Canadians failed to call the Conservative party to power in 1930 Canada would be bankrupt to-day. It would be a calamity.


Mr. HOWARD:: On what do you base that statement?


Samuel Gobeil: It is all very well for my hon. friends opposite to smile, but let them explain how it could be otherwise if we still had an adverse balance of trade of $240,000,000 a year. If this government had not had power when England went off the gold standard to stop the export of gold, would not this country be bankrupt? Although the position of Canadian dairy farmers is not too rosy, where would they be to-day if they had to sell their butter at 16 cents as they would if my hon. friends opposite were in power? Does that mean that the Canadian farmer gets enough for his butter or that he is producing at a profit? Not at all. It means, however, that on the return of normal conditions, if the farmer producing butter enjoys, as no doubt he will, the same happy conditions that he enjoys to-day, he will find himself in a favourable situation such as has never existed before in Canada, and it will be entirely attributable to the action of this government.
This is only one class of commodity; let me deal with one or two other items. Let me take for instance cattle, to which the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) referred. How would hon. members opposite explain that under such depressed conditions as we are experiencing now we had exported to England from January 1 to March 23 last 7,863 head of cattle as compared with 409 last year for the same months, and nothing when my hon. friends were in power. Since March 23 last two or three cargoes have left Canada, but on that date the number of cattle we

shipped out was 7,863. There was another item I wanted to refer to, and if I have time I shall deal with it before I get through.
I would not want to finish these remarks without saying a few words with regard to the question of trade agreements with the United States. I listened with much interest the other day to the speech made by my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) and I am bound to say I had to smile at some of his remarks. He spoke, and others since then have spoken in the same way, as if it depended on this government alone to enact satisfactory trade agreements with the United States. I am not going to give the history of the negotiations between the two countries under the Liberal regime between the years 1896 and 1930. No better picture can be given of it than was given in the speech made by my right hon. leader on February 20. May I be permitted however to quote one paragraph from a speech made by Mr. Fielding in 1910, when he was Minister of Finance in the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
We had had negotiations from time to time with our American friends in relation to better trade conditions, and they had not turned out very successfully. We had, after repeated efforts, taken the ground that we should not again approach the United States with proposals for betterment of our trade relations, and that, if the matter was to be reopened again, it should be reopened, not upon the initiative of Canada, but upon the initiative of the United States. Accordingly, we declined to make any approach to the United States *while the question of the French treaty w-as pending.
Since that date the government headed by the right hon. gentleman who is now leader of the opposition held power for nine years, and what did they do to bring about better trade relations with the United States? Nothing at all. Did they try to do anything? Hon. members opposite know that better than I, but if they did' their efforts have been absolutely fruitless. I will go further and say that during those nine years the duties imposed by the Americans have been constantly increasing; they have been raised to such a point as to become absolutely prohibitive. I would quote some figures given to this house by my hon. friend from Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Thauvette), who I am sorry is not in his seat. These figures can be found at page 663 of Hansard of this session. The hon. gentleman was trying to convince the government that before the treaty for the deepening of the St. Lawrence was passed the government should see to it that better trade agreements were arrived at. If he were here I would tell him that

The Budget-Mr. Goheil
this might very well be brought about without his advice. On that occasion however he made a more telling criticism of the late government than any Conservative member could. He was comparing exports to the United States in 1921, when the rates were very low or practically free, with those of the year 1931, under present duties. Of course, I can very well understand the hon. member quoting 1931 instead of 1930. He was trying to make the house believe that this government was responsible for part of that change, although he knew very well that between 1930 and 1931 not one change had been made except on lumber, to which he did not refer, so far as the American tariffs are concerned. So that he might have quoted the 1930 figures; it would have been the same. Exports of live stock in 1921, under free entry, according to the hon. member, amounted to $21,240,000; and in 1931-one might read 1930 -they amounted to $764,000. As regards sheep, in 1921, under free entry, the amount was $1,676,000, whereas in 1931 at $3 per head the amount was $244. In wheat, in 1921, without any duty, the amount was $101,997,000; and in 1931, with a duty of 42 cents per bushel, the amount was $6,580,000. In butter, the amount in 1921, at 2J cents per pound, was $2,294,000; and in 1931, at 14 cents per pound, it was $20,000. Maple sugar in 1921, free, amounted to $1,122,000; and in 1931, $310,000.


Mr. LACROIX:: What about 1932?


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member can easily find the figures. He knows very well that we have gained since 1930-I am not going to say how much.


Édouard Lacroix: On maple sugar?


Samuel Gobeil: I say we have progressed
as an exporting country; we have advanced from twelfth to fourth among the exporting countries of the world. Is that sufficient for my hon. friend?


Édouard Lacroix: No, it is not; there were
no exports of maple sugar.


Samuel Gobeil: I do not think my hon.
friend can indicate another country in the world that has done so well during this period of depression. I have shown the results of the nine years of power of hon. gentlemen opposite; I have shown the condition in which 'this government found our trade relations with the United States in 1930. The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges went further and gave the adverse balance of trade with the United States as $323,000,000 in 1929.
Fortunately for Canada, and for my hon. friend opposite who has been interrupting me, that condition does not exist to-day. I only speak for myself as representing the county of Compton, but I feel confident that this government is prepared favourably to consider any trade proposals or suggestions which may be made by the United States that would be to the mutual advantage of both countries. I am also confident, however, that this government does not propose to follow, and will not follow, the policy adopted by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) during the years he was in power, when he v'as so much afraid lest any member of this house should say anything that might annoy the Yankees.
A few moments ago I said I should like to mention another matter; I could mention several, but the point I have in mind is rather personal. First let me say a word with regard to our exports of canned goods to Great Britain. Unfortunately I have not the figures with me. I went to secure them to-day, but I had no idea that I would have anything to say this week, and 'the figures will not be ready until Friday. I do know, however, that our exports of canned goods have increased very materially. I have in mind one item for which I can give the round figures. In 1931-32 we exported some 47,000 cases of canned apples, while last year we exported about 71,000 cases. This is only one item and there are several others I could mention.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Following the remarks of
the hon. member, would he suggest that the farmers in the county of Compton are as well off under this regime as they were under the Liberal government?


Samuel Gobeil: If my hon. friend from
Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) can show me one farmer anywhere else in the world who is as prosperous to-day as he was in 1926 or 1927 I will show him one in Canada. I claim that in the British market we have a wonderful opening for canned goods of all kinds. The market is unlimited; even if our Canadian farmers went into the canned goods industry to the fullest possible extent for the next ten years they could not supply it.
Now I should like to refer to a somewhat personal matter. I am sorry to have to do so, because this really does not concern the house at all, but I feel that it is necessary after the repeated insinuations-I will not say attacks because the gentlemen who made the insinuations were not brave enough to make what I

The Budget-Mr. Gobeil

would call attacks-from the other side of the house at different times in connection with strawberry preserves that were sold the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific by Joseph Gobeil, who happens to be my brother. I feel that I roust give the house an explanation, which I am sure will satisfy every hon. member that this matter should not have been brought up in the first place. Before doing so, however, let me say that I am proud of that little home industry, without regard to who owns it; I believe there should be an industry such as this in every community and every parish. It happens in this case that the owner was my brother, but would the house suggest for a moment that because he happened to be my brother he had no right to sell preserves to the railways? This is a home product, Mr. Speaker, that is not surpassed anywhere. Every hon. member knows the difference between cultivated and wild strawberries, and the best proof I can give the house as to the quality of the product is the fact that my brother receives orders from as far west as Saskatchewan and British Columbia. When the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) raised this question in the house some two years ago the committee on railways and shipping was sitting. At one of the meetings of that committee I asked Sir Henry Thornton for an explanation, and two or three days later Mr. Vaughan, general purchasing agent of the Canadian National, gave me this statement, which I will read to the house without comment:
In the House of Commons on April 1, Mr. [DOT]Tean-Fransois Pouliot stated that the Canadian National was charging 25 cents per jar for a while for strawberry preserves made by Jos. Gobeil, when the price for an excellent product put up by E. D. Smith & Son is only 15 cents.
Mr. Pouliot said that the Gobeil preserves is a "vicious stuff."
He intimated that the Gobeil preserves are bought through the Stadacona Sales Company of Quebec.
These preserves are made of wild Canadian strawberries, and were first brought to the attention of the general manager of the Canadian National hotel and dining car department in June, 1931. A trial order was placed with Mr. Gobeil on July 7, 1931, for 190 dozen of 3 ounce size at $1.20 a dozen and distributed to Halifax, Quebec, Montreal and Toronto.
The trial preserves met with considerable favour with the travelling public and were finding a ready sale. It was found, however, that the 3 ounce size was too small to make a proper serving, so the next order placed with Mr. Gobeil on October the 23rd, was for 100 dozen of 5 ounce jars at $1.50 a dozen, which was the price he had originally quoted for the 3 ounce jars. These prices included delivery at Montreal.
On December 4, 1931, another order for 96 dozen of the 5 ounce size was placed.
[Air. Gobeil.]
There is very little of this stock left, and a fresh supply will not be available until after strawberry picking time about the first of next J uly.
In Mr. Pouliot's remarks regarding prices, the comparison made is between preserves and jam which are quite different.
The statement was made that the jars used by E. D. Smith & Son are of the same size and shape as those used by J. Gobeil: if that is so, Smith's sample must have been from some very old stock, as the last order given by the dining car department to E. D. Smith & Son for preserves was placed on July, 1925. The order preceding immediately the Gobeil order for strawberry preserves was placed on December 20, 1929, with Canadian Canners Limited and was put up in 3J ounce jars.
All jam is put up in 3 ounce jars (government standard) and sold in dining cars at 15 cents a jar. All preserves are put up in 5 ounce jars and sold at 25 cents.
Bids were issued by the Canadian National on March 21, 1931, and on three items, namely strawberry, raspberry or peach preserve the E. D. Smith & Son Company did not quote, their bid reading "Sorry do not pack." The only quotations on these items were by Canadian Canners Limited at $1.40 a dozen and Wagstaffe Limited $1.28 per dozen. These quotations were for cultivated strawberries which do not compare in flavour with wild strawberries.
The price submitted by E. D. Smith & Son on strawberry and raspberry jam in the bid referred to was 15 cents a dozen more than one submitted by the Old City Manufacturing Company of Quebec who are supplying Canadian National requirements.
Many favourable comments have reached the dining car department regarding this wild strawberry preserve. One gentleman remarked that it is the best jam or preserve featured by the railway. The product is a good seller and many patrons of dining cars have asked where the product could be bought for their homes. There have been no complaints.
The product was submitted to Milton & Hersey & Company (chemists) for analysis. The report was as follows:
"We have completed the analysis of sample of wild strawberry preserve with the following
results:
Weight of contents	
4.2	oz.Water	
35.2	%Per cent, of sugar	
21.1	%Fruit substance	
43.7	%"
This material consists solely of wild strawberries, without the addition of any other fruit or fruit substance. It has a good flavour and is well made. The weight is a little greater than that claimed.
The orders for the preserves were made direct with Joseph Gobeil, and not through the Stadacona Sales Company.
I must apologize for taking up the time of the house in reading this statement, but I feel sure hon. members will realize that I had to read it in view, as I said before, of repeated insinuations. As long as those inferences were made by the hon. member for Temis-couata only I did not object very much to them; I was even pleased at the free adver-

The Budget-Mr. Loucks
tising for my brother and I did not object for the reason that clowns are never taken seriously, but-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. W. J. LOUCKS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, I feel happy to have this privilege as a farmer and representing an agricultural constituency, to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) on his budget, I do so, first, because of the royal commission which we are promised, to investigate banks and currency and, second, because of the creation of an agricultural stabilization fund. Let me dwell on the latter for a few moments. I realize that probably some hon. members from the east may feel that we in the wheat growing area are not so much concerned with the thirteen items mentioned in the stabilization fund, but I should like to assure the house that I am very much interested in the stabilization fund in regard to the thirteen items mentioned, more particularly as regards the production of cattle and hogs. I have four miles from my home, a neighbour who is feeding over 200 head so he can regard with pleasure and satisfaction the fact that the government of Canada is taking action in connection with a stabilization fund. Just imagine what it will mean to this particular farmer on over 200 head of cattle this spring, when he gets $4.60 on the pound sterling! Therefore I am glad to be here to endorse the budget in connection with the stabilization fund. I shall not take time to enumerate all the items mentioned, but they refer to agricultural products.
This shows vividly that after all the criticisms that have been offered, our government have the vision that we must start with agriculture if we are going to get out of the great depression in which we are at present. They have taken these items as a beginning. Some hon. members have offered criticism because the stabilization fund did not cover all commodities, but why should we criticize for that reason? It is a step in the right direction; it covers commodities produced from one end of the country to the other, and the very fact that the government has established this fund shows that it realizes that we must assist the basic industry of this country if we are to get out of the depression.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is not in his seat, but if he would turn a little more of 'his attention to agriculture, he might be more hopeful of a solution of the unemployment problem, because if agriculture could be brought back, many of those at present unemployed would find em-53719-237J
ployment. I do not think I would be extravagant wore I to say that in Saskatchewan, if we could only come back to former conditions and have a fair return for what we are producing in that province, we could take care of 100,000 of the unemployed. That in itself would help, and when one considers the nine provinces and the relationship between their populations and the situation, one might well feel we could go a long way towards ending unemployment if we could bring agriculture back to normal. I think we are now pursuing the right course along that line.	1
We are at present investigating the milk situation. I see the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) has just left the chamber, but I remember at the beginning of this part of the session he introduced a resolution to divide the agriculture committee, the east from the west, because he was convinced that the west was concerned with wheat and wheat only. I think he is assured now that 'the west is just as much interested in agriculture in general as is any other part of the dominion. As one of the members of the committee on agriculture-and I am not bringing in a report-I may say that there have been some very startling revelations. From what has been revealed before the committee, I wonder how the dairy farmer exists at all. When, as 'has been shown by at least one witness, a man can start out with an old milk wagon and a horse and become a multimillionaire, while all the farmers are going bankrupt, it is time we tried to find out how such things can be.
I make the statement that I feel, before we are through with this inquiry, we should investigate the packing plants. I should like to see the stockyards investigated, because there is something there that is worth while studying. Before leaving home I was informed that the stockyard at Saskatoon was charging at the rate of $40 a ton for hay and $40 a ton for oat chop, while oats are selling for ten cents a bushel and hay is very low. The stockyard is charging the same prices now as it charged when it went into business. As the price of wheat has gone down, the farmers are going more into mixed farming and they are making more shipments to the stockyards. I am sure, before we are through with this inquiry, we shall go further into the investigation why the middleman at this time, in our opinion, is exploiting the agriculturist.
I want to deal with interest rates for the farmer. I heartily endorse the suggestion that has been made in this house that there
The Budget-Mr. Loucks

must be a reduction in interest rates because it is impossible for the farmer in western Canada to meet the interest charges that are being piled up against him. I have been twenty-eight years in that country and I have never yet been able to borrow money from the banks at iess than eight per cent, and I think that is true of most of the farmers out there. The mortgage companies are not reducing their rates; they still hold out for eight per cent compound interest, and the banks are doing the same. I am therefore glad that the government has appointed a royal commission to investigate banking and currency questions, and their investigation will undoubtedly include interest rates and the other questions I have mentioned. The action of the government in that respect will be appreciated by the people of this country. If there could be a reduction in interest rates, it would give hope and encouragement to agriculture. I .think it might be possible to recommend that interest be thrown off for a year or two. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company threw off the interest which the farmers on their lands were paying two years ago, in order to give them a little encouragement, and at the very least I do not see why the mortgage companies could not reduce their interest rates.
There is another question I wish to speak about, and that is the cost of agricultural implements and repair parts. The farmers are demanding to know why agricultural implements and repair parts are as dear as they are to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: You had better come over here.


William John Loucks: I think it is time that
question was investigated. I remember that when I bought my first binder out west in 1906, a Massey Harris binder, it cost me $170. In 1907 I bought my second binder, and it cost me about the same. What do we find to-day? Binders are costing all the way up to S290. I mention that to show how the price of our implements has gone up while wheat is selling at practically the lowest price in history. I can tell you that very few binders were sold in our town last year. There was only one purchase, and the purchaser told me that he bought it on a two-year term and that it cost him $295. That is a ridiculous price to have to pay at this time. I remember that in 1905 I bought a John Deere 14-inch gang plough, with breaker bottom, and the price was $101. To-day it costs around $200. Those are excessive prices, and the farmers are asking why they should have to continue to pay these prices when their 
products are selling so low. I know that the farmers say that it is easy for the manufacturer to close his factory and lock up his door. But the farmer cannot do that. He must continue. It would be pitiful for the people of this country if the farmer ceased to produce.
Last summer before harvest I had occasion to buy repairs for a combine. I needed a new table canvas for my combine. I do not know whether some hon. members know the nature of a canvas for a combine. The length of that canvas is 33 feet or twice 16i feet. I asked the price, and the agent wanted $93 for a canvas. I said, "You are crazy; surely you do not mean that." "Oh, yes," he said, "that is the price." I said, "That means at least three hundred bushels of wheat to pay for the canvas." He said to me, "Mr. Loucks, you go over to that tent-builder over there. He repairs canvas and he may be able to do something with that old table canvas of yours." I went over to the tent-builder, and I got a price on duck to rebuild my canvas, and the price was $11 for the duck to put on a new table canvas. Then I went to the hardware store and bought $2 worth of rivets, so altogether it cost me $13. I have a boy who is quite a mechanic, and he fixed it up. So I paid $13 for a table canvas for which I was quoted a price of $93 by the dealer. Such a price is ridiculous. All that was left outside of the canvas were the slats and four strips. If the manufacturer had charged me $25 for the labour, that would have been quite sufficient.
I might mention another thing, the bill hook for a Massey Harris binder. I do not know whether some hon. members know what a bill hook is, but it is self-explanatory; it is a bill with a hook on it. We have always paid $1.60 for a bill hook, and this year for the first time in my twenty-eight years out west I had to pay $1.75. Is it any wonder that the farmers are asking, why should this thing be? Imagine the number of bushels of wheat it takes to pay for a bill hook for a binder to-day, and you have to replace bill hooks quite often.
Some hon. members may say that it is the tariff that is causing the increased price. But I take issue with that. It is not the tariff. I was down in Montana on the first of January and I got prices on an International binder, an International drill, and on different implements; and I found that right in the state of Montana prices are about the same as at Delisle, Saskatchewan. So it cannot be the tariff. That is not the cause at all.

The Budget-Mr. Loucks
While it might be well to have reciprocity, if you like, with the United States, yet at the present time I am not convinced that that would save the situation. While I was down in Montana I also got prices on the bacon type of hog, and the very best price they could get down there on the first of January was 2-1 cents a pound. I got prices on different commodities, and they are all about the same as we are getting in Canada. Last Sunday I got a letter from my daughter in Montana, and she says that eggs are selling there at five cents a dozen to the farmer. So it is a good thing for the farmer that eggs are included in the commodities coming under the agricultural stabilization fund. When I went home a year ago a friend of mine said to me, "Bill, it took 160 dozen of eggs to pay for the setting of the tires on my lumber wagon." He will not say that when I go home next time, because eggs are at a much better price to-day. Recently I got a letter from my son in Saskatchewan, and he tells me that the bacon type of hog has doubled in price. So already we are getting results from this budget, and the government deserves the credit.
Some hon. members may say: But you have not exported any of these commodities to Great Britain. The great point is that our farmers know that they will now get a fair price on the commodities they export, and that is bound to stimulate the domestic market, and that is where we are beginning to get results.
I have already mentioned interest rates, and now I want to say a word or two about the inflation of money. I know that some of my friends may not agree with me, but I am willing to wait for the world economic conference which is going to be held this summer. I believe that if a universal system can be worked out at that conference for the stabilza-tion of money we shall get the right results. I agree with the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) when he states that should that fail our only alternative is to inflate money, or to bring our money to a point where it is on a par with the pound sterling. However I would not be one who at this time, with knowledge that a world conference is at hand would press for such inflation.
We all agree that there must be an international stabilization of money, I do not wish to criticize, but one important point came to my mind when the hon. member for West Edmonton was speaking. Going over the fourteen points in the Liberal platform I noticed that nothing is said about inflation. As the hon. member was Minister of the
Interior in the late government I wonder how he could come out so boldly for a policy of inflation when, as a matter of fact, that is not mentioned in the Liberal platform. I do not believe the farmers of western Canada will accept, with very good grace, the fact that the Liberal platform contains nothing about an inflation policy. I think hon. members opposite might well take it from me that they would do well to insert another plank in their platform.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Thank you.


Alfred Speakman: You might insert it in the Conservative platform too.


William John Loucks: There is something else I
should like to say. There is to be a world grain conference at Regina in July of this year. Although I am not dictating, I suggest that a committee be appointed to meet representatives of other exporting countries. In fact, I would include the importers as well, because there must be a spirit of cooperation. More particularly however the exporting countries should be represented. That will be the opportune time to get together with representatives from other wheat growing and exporting countries to see if we cannot possibly oiganize an international selling agency to look after the selling of our wheat. I am convinced great good would come from that. I believe this government will see that Canada is well represented, and that our representatives will be in a position to cooperate with those from other countries in discussions of matters touching the export of wheat.
This brings me to another matter which I describe in the following words:	The wind
sweeping over the prairies carrying new ideas to the hearts of men. I wish to relate what happened at a meeting held in my home town on January 17, and in doing so I will read some of the resolutions there considered. It was representative of Conservatives and Progressives or, if you like, members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The mayor of the town was the sponsor of the meeting. Although he is a Liberal, and spoke against me during the last election campaign, there are no hard feelings between us. We realized that we must get together and do something; and for that reason the meeting was advertised. The town went to the expense of throwing the town hall open, upon which occasion over two hundred farmers assembled. The provincial member from Rosetown constituency was on the platform with me. I was convinced of the sincerity of our audience; they were attending the meet-
The Budget-Mr. Loucks

ing only in an attempt to find a way out of present difficulties. Many ladies were in attendance; the hall was packed.
At this point I shall read some of the resolutions so that hon. members may have an idea of the trend of thought in my constituency, 'because I believe these resolutions reflect the views of my people.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Read them all.


William John Loucks: The first resolution was as follows:
Moved by A. L. Anderson, seconded by Mr. W. Hurley that having two great transportation railways in Canada, operating at considerable loss to the Canadian people, more particularly the government owned Canadian National; and in view of the fact that thousands of Canadians are unemployed and much rolling stock lying idle; and in view of the fact that American wheat is exported in considerable quantities and that we are of the impression that much of our Canadian wheat is utilized to bring up the standard of American low grade wheat which is exported, be it resolved that we ask our federal member, Mr. W. J. Loucks, to support or propose legislation whereby we as shippers of Canadian wheat may be assured of the perfect identity of our high grade wheat.
The interpretation I place upon the resolution is that the (people in my constituency feel the time has arrived when we should . consider patronizing our own ports to an extent greater than we have done in the past. The second resolution was:
Moved by Mr. Alec. Currie, seconded by Mr. W. Clark, that we ask the Dominion government to establish a national grain marketing agency.
Our farmers are convinced that is the action we should take. I must say that I hold a similar view.
May I add that the farmers in my constituency, to a great extent, 'have lost confi-demoe in the grain exchange at Winnipeg. There is no doubt that we have tried a wheat pool and I must confess, to a certain extent have failed in our attempt. Therefore the farmers turn to this government and ask: "Why not set up a selling agency to look after our wheat"? They would heartily approve of the scheme if such an agency could be made international. Our people are convinced that is what we should do. When I think of the farmers who gambled on wheat and who lost their farms, I feel more certain than ever 'that there should be some provision whereby we could sell our wheat without the intervention of the grain exchange. I know of a man who lived in the town adjoining that in which I live-I will not mention his name-a man who was a great asset to the

Dominion of Canada, a man who stated he had never gambled until 1929, but who as a result of losing over $50,000 lost his mental balance. I am not speaking too strongly when I say that the grain exchange is probably the greatest gambling hole in Canada, and has wrecked more farmers than has any other agency. Therefore I say that we should not hesitate to take some step toward the elimination of gambling in wheat on the grain exchange. The business man can gamble, or leave it alone, but it is clear to me that farmers who are not gamblers know nothing about 'taking a first loss, and that is the reason 'they lose their farms. I could mention one farmer after another who mortgaged his farm, men who had money in the banks. The very man I mentioned a few moments ago was one of the biggest exhibitors of grain in this dominion. There is no doubt as to why he went wrong mentally; he is in the old country at the present time. Everybody said wheat was going to come back to $2 a bushel; our banks all said that.
I can remember very well that in the fall of 1929, while in the pool, I took my initial payment. I wanted to go down to Moose Jaw to get some feeder steers. With a certificate before me for 10,000 bushels of wheat on which I had realized eighty cents a bushel, I said to the banker, "I want to borrow some money." The manager at our local bank said, "Why, Mr. Loucks, your certificate is still worth at least half a dollar; that is all the security you need. How much money do you want?" "Well," I said, "I want enough to go down and buy a carload of feeders-probably; I am not sure. The answer was: "You can have all the money you want." What has happened since, since this depression came? I want to tell you something that happened last summer. I got letters from different municipal secretaries in my constituency; the provincial member was sick, so they began to write to me. The secretaries said: The farmers are coming here; they do not know how they are going to get twine and repairs for binders; what can you do? I told them it was a provincial issue, and I was the federal member but would do what I could to help the situation. Mr. Given, the provincial member, was sick, so I went to his house and talked it over with him. I said: "There is only one thing to do, and that is to call a meeting in some central place." This we did. We went there that night, and the hall was packed with farmers. After we appointed a chairman and discussed this thing I said to the chairman: "Let us have a show of hands; in fact you had better ask them to stand up-tell them

The Budget-Mr. Loucks
that only actual farmers who know they cannot get repairs, cannot buy twine, cannot go to the bank and get a dollar, are to stand." Do you know, there was not a man there but rose? One happened to be a brother-inlaw of mine, and I thought I knew his financial standing; so when the meeting was over I went to him and asked him: "Why did you stand up, a man with the holdings you have? What do you mean by it?" He said: "You don't know the story at all; I went to the bank the other day and could not borrow $40." Now let me tell you the standing of that man. He has ten quarter sections of land clear that I know of, thirty as fine Belgian horses as you ever looked at, a threshing machine, five good binders, a barn that cost over $5,000, 120 feet long, and buildings in accordance; and he is not one of these men who is just growing grain, he had a good herd of cattle as well. He said: "What would be the use of my going back when I could not get $40?" I said, "Charlie, do you owe the bank anything?" "Oh, yes," he said, "about $2,200." The barn alone had over $5,000 invested in it, to say nothing of the land; there was a crop of wheat ready for the binders, and yet the bank was afraid to let him have any money. The manager said: "I will have to write to the head office." These managers of branch banks are scared stiff; they would not lend the best man in the country any money to-day. Now I say it is time there was an investigation made.
Another resolution, moved by A. Currie, seconded by A. Kirch, is as follows:
That the Canadian currency be inflated to a parity with the British pound or less.
That was the feeling of our meeting, comprising over 200 farmers. They said: We cannot go on in this way; we cannot sell wheat at this price and live; you will have to do something. So if we do not get results from the world economic conference I am prepared to say: Let us inflate our money. In connection with Australia, do not forget that our wheat is superior to Australian wheat, but even at that Australia is getting more for her wheat-that is in her own money-although ours is away above it in quality and would naturally have the preference in the market.
Here is another resolution, moved by Dennis Pattison, seconded by A. Kirch:
That the banks be nationalized and that we have a managed currency.
Well, I do not think there is anything very serious about that. I have another that will probably shock some hon. members. Moved by A. Currie, seconded by J. Durham:
That the producers of wheat receive a price of $1.35 a bushel for wheat milled for consumption in Canada.
I do not think there is anything very shocking about that either. We could well afford to pay the farmers of western Canada $1.35 a bushel for the wheat that is consumed at home. I do not think it would hurt the bread eater a bit; in fact I do not think it would make a bit of difference in the price of bread. Someone who lives in Montreal told' me he had never paid less than ten cents a loaf for bread there. If that is the case, do you think it would make any difference at all if we paid $1.35 for the wheat? This would help to the extent of forty or fifty million bushels. I do not think Canada would suffer or that the consumer of bread would suffer. That audience was not radical at all. I submitted this resolution to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) when it first came down-


Charles Benjamin Howard: What did he eay?


William John Loucks: He could not endorse the
resolution as submitted.


William Richard Motherwell: Did he come across?


William John Loucks: He is a farmer in western
Canada and he knows our need. We know the criticisms that formerly came from the other side of the house, but we are not hearing them so much now. The manufacturers want to be subsidized, but the conviction is now becoming general that neither the manufacturer nor the professional man can get anywhere until the farmer does. I have spoken with lawyers and doctors and they all realize that they will never prosper until the farmer has some money. My hon. friend the other day said that Saskatchewan alone had produced $6,000,000,000. You had no depression down here when we were shipping millions and millions of bushels of wheat and sending 'the money here-not only millions but the Prime Minister said billions at one time. The manufacturer was getting along nicely then. I know we were accused of being extravagant, but after all I have not much use for the hoarder; it is the man who puts his money in circulation who keeps the wheels turning, not 'the one who wants to live in a shack. When I think of what I went through in that western country when I lived in a shack, I cannot imagine that anyone would find fault because I put up a good house when I was able to do so. Why shouldn't I? Is there any condemnation of me because I bought an automobile, and put a radio in the house to keep the boys there? I think it is the best place for them. We talk about the
Questions

boys going to the city; whait is the reason? Because we have not given them the home life that we should. My hoys are well satisfied to stay on the farm; there are three of them, but they say that something must be done; we must lift the price of commodities. As far as I am concerned they have the place and they are doing the best they can. I hope that before long prices will go up and we farmers will have our proper share of purchasing power, and then, sir, I can see the wheels beginning to turn, with benefit to every industry in this country.
On motion of Mr. Macdougall the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the 'house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 6, 1933