1934-05-07

Hon. R. J. M ANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house the report of George A. Touche and Company, chartered accountants, on their audit of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways for the year ending December 31, 1933, which is required to be made annually to parliament under the provisions of the bill passed last year. This report is in English and in French and will be submitted to the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.



' BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. SPEAKER:: When the house adjourns to-night at eleven o'clock by mutual consent
it will remain adjourned until to-morrow afternoon at four o'clock.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DORION:: 1.	How long has Canada been a member of the League of Nations?
. 2- What has been the cost for each year including the year ended March 31, 1934, oi: Canada's membership therein?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Canada has been a member of the League of Nations since 1919.
2.	Cost of Canada's membership in League of Nations, including Canada's contribution to the League of Nations-maintenance of office of Canadian advisory officer-expenses delegates to assembly, international labour conference, and other league conferences-cost of publications and grant to Canadian League of Nations Society-
1919-	20..
1920-	21..
1921-	22..
1922-	23..
1923-	24..
1924-	25..
1925-	26..
1926-	27..
1927-	28..
1928-	29..
1929-	30..
1930-	31..
1931-	32..
1932-	33..
1933-	34..
. .$	87,728	58..	226,459	13..	209,690	27..	223,177	66[DOT] [DOT]	200,356	66..	193,771	74..	195,345	83..	190,268	08..	204,213	77..	219,526	76..	234,808	96..	245,674	97..	289,062	46..	278,018	29..	262,471	80


*JACQUES CARTIER COMPANY
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: . ^^s . the government undertaking any inquiry into the Jacques Cartier Company?
. 2- If so, will the report resulting from such inquiry be tabled in the house?


Mr. BENNETT:: The answer to that question, so far as the present is concerned, is no.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. GAGNON:: For a copy of all the correspondence, letters, telegrams, schedules, accounts and any other documents exchanged between the federal government, the Minister of Labour, the deputy minister, and all employees of the said department, and the Quebec provincial government, especially with the Quebec Prime
Trade with Japan

Minister, the Quebec Minister of Public Works, the Quebec Minister of Labour, the deputy minister of the said Quebec department, and other Quebec provincial employees, with respect to relief work carried on in the county of Dorchester, under the relief unemployment act of the years 1932-1933.


DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR EMPLOYEES
Mr. HANBURY (for Mr. Ahearn):: For a return showing:-
1.	The total number of employees of the Department of the Interior retired since the 7th August, 1930.
2.	The number of such employees who were on the permanent inside service at Ottawa.
3.	The number of such employees who were permanent and employed outside of Ottawa.
4.	The number of such employees who were temporary and employed at Ottawa.
5.	The number of such employees who were temporary and employed outside of Ottawa.
6.	The total amount of the superannuation allowances being paid to such employees who were employed at Ottawa.
7.	The total amount of superannuation allowances being paid to such employees employed outside of Ottawa.
8.	The total number of the retired permanent
employees at Ottawa who have obtained permanent positions in other departments at same salaries.	.
9.	The total amount of the annuities now being paid, under superannuation acts, to civil employees of the federal government, who were required, since 7th August, 1930, to accept superannuation, before they had reached the age of compulsory retirement which, under the present superannuation act, is 70 years.


TRADE WITH JAPAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the press gives emphasis to a dispatch from Great Britain to the effect that the British government has announced that in certain eventualities restrictions will be placed upon Japanese goods coming into all parts of the empire, and that this policy has been decided upon as the result of agreement with the colonies and of consultation with the dominions. Personally I assume that the report is not accurate, but I think it should be corrected immediately and therefore I would ask the Prime Minister if there has been any correspondence with the British government pertaining to the restriction of Japanese trade with Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been none of which I am aware. I thank the right hon. gentleman for directing attention to the matter, because the words of the message would indicate that who-

ever wrote it had an entirely erroneous understanding of the situation as far as Canada is concerned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask the Prime Minister again, with regard to the further legislation to be introduced, if any progress has been made with the elections act. There was one unmentionable act, or at least one that could not previously be referred to. I wonder if the Prime Minister is in a position to enlighten us to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no untouchable legislation in this country as yet. I have gone over the draft of the proposed elections act with some care, and I think a proof will be ready tomorrow, in which event I will be able at least to afford the right hon. gentleman an opportunity of seeing it. The legislation to which reference was made is hardly properly described in the terms used by my right hon. friend, but I will make an announcement with respect to it one day this week. In the meantime I may say that in the last few days I have carefully read the proposed legislation.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 30, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston, and the subamendment of Mr. Spencer.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to a point of order concerning the amendment to the amendment moved on April 30, by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). As Your Honour is aware an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) which appears at page 2445 of Hansard as follows:
This house regrets that the proposals of the Minister of Finance give no indication of the intention of the government to abandon the policies of economic nationalism which have proved so disastrous to Canada's trade.
It is of the opinion that the immediate substitution therefor of policies which will promote export trade throughout the world is essential to any permanent improvement of

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
conditions in Canada, and to the successful application of other policies respecting credit and employment designed to effect this end.
Then the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River is to be found at page 2676 of Hansard as follows:
That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after "that" and substituting therefore the following:
This house regrets that there is no indication in the budget that the government intends to take any action to put an end to the unnecessary suffering of our people arising out of the policy of financial deflation, unwise and inequitable tariff policies and economies which inevitably lead to restrictions on the production and distribution of wealth. Such policies are responsible for the present condition of poverty in the midst of plenty.
And' further, that this house is of the opinion that the control of national credit, which by the constitution is vested in this parliament, should be exercised immediately by the government so as to:
Provide sufficient purchasing power to enable our people to "loosen their belts," and to take full advantage, as consumers, of their ability to produce;
Then follow four or five other paragraphs in the amendment to the amendment.
First of all I should like to draw the attention of the house to the votes and proceedings for January 31, 1934, when the following resolution was moved by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) and seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer).
Whereas, the provision of an adequate medium of exchange through the issue and control of currency, is a fuction inherent in the state, and one which is wholly within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, and
Whereas, the transfer of this function to private interests to be used as a means of profit, rather than as a public service, has enabled those controlling finance to dominate every phase in the industrial and economic life of the nation, and
Whereas, the depressed and chaotic conditions which now prevail would indicate that this financial control, as at present exercised has proved itself detrimental to the best interests of the people of this country;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the reassumption of this responsibility, and the creation of a national system of credit and finance, to be controlled in the interests of all the people, and under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.
I recall that upon that occasion the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) rose to a point of order, stating that the entire question had been referred in the present session to the standing committee on banking and commerce. He used the following words:
As we shall have to debate these matters later, why should we prolong this discussion in view of what has been said, when we know 74726-180
that when these bills reach this house they will be discussed, and when they reach the committee be discussed again at still greater length.
So, while I find myself to a very substantial degree in sympathy with the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River sitting to my left, I wish to raise this point of order: In the first place, in the amendment to the amendment I find these words: "suffering of our people arising out of the policy of financial deflation." That question has been specifically referred to the banking and commerce committee, as the result of a resolution by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power).
In the second place there is a reference to "unwise and inequitable tariff policies." That question is covered in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth.
The remaining part of the amendment to the amendment deals with the question of national credit, and I submit that question is at the present time being discussed by the standing committee on banking and commerce. Inasmuch as the substance of the amendment to the amendment is now before the committee on banking and commerce, the only other reference in regard to "inequitable tariff policies" I submit is embraced in the mention of "genuine nationalism" in the amendment itself.
For these reasons I therefore submit that as a result of the deliberations of the committee on banking and commerce ample opportunities will be afforded to the house to discuss in every detail the questions of national credit, because that question has been definitely submitted to the banking and commerce committee. For those reasons I submit with all respect that the present amendment to the amendment is not in order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If no other hon. member
wishes to speak to the point of order, I shall give my ruling. I am of the opinion that the objection to the subamendment is properly raised, as it seeks to deal with a matter already discussed at this session, and one which is at the present time referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce. I therefore find the subamendment to be out of opler.


Mr. DUFF:: Quite right.


Mr. SPENCER:: Mr. Speaker, I am very
sorry, but I shall have to appeal against your ruling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did you decide it was
out of order in whole or in part?

The Budget-Speaker's Ruling


Pierre Édouard Blondin: A part being out of order I hold that the whole of it is out of order. That is my impression, on such short consideration. If the house would like me to reserve my decision, I shall do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Otherwise I see no reason to alter it.


Mr. McDADE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was paired with the
hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Toronto-High Park (Mr. Anderson). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BOWMAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I paired with the
hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. HURTUBISE:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cot-nam). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Mackenzie):: I was
paired with the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. RENNIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Mac-Nicol). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.

The Budget-Mr. Bradette


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: I was paired
with the hon. member for 1'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timis-kaming):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with my remarks I beg you to allow me to present to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) in my name and that of the Liberal party in this house our most heartfelt sentiments of sympathy in his great bereavement. May the depth and sincerity of our feelings lighten to some extent, if possible, the sorrowfulness of his deep mourning.
When I adjourned the debate the other evening I was asking a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I was going to ask him about the statement which he made in speaking on the budget on April 23, 1934, as reported at page 2446 of Hansard:
Personally I think that if gold is as necessary in the carrying on of our trade as everyone seems to imagine, the only permanent solution would be for the government to take over the gold mines. They could then keep the miners at work on a reasonable wage scale; they would then be able to collect this fortuitous gain instead of turning it over to private individuals.
The question I would ask my hon. friend is how is he going to proceed with the expropriation of our gold mines? I have studied very impartially the platform of the C.C.F. party and I observe that one of the main planks of their platform is the nationalization of our industries. But there are certain details of that policy of which it is only right that this house and the country should be seized, and especially when the leader of that party picks out a particular industry and says that he would nationalize it for certain reasons. What would be his procedure in nationalizing this particular industry? Would he nationalize only the mines that are on a dividend basis, or only those that are not paying their way at the present time or the whole of them.
He should also tell the house of the conflict that there might be between federal and provincial authorities if this question ever became an issue. The leader of the C.C.F. party must surely be aware of the fact that all the gold mines and for that matter all the mines of this country are primarily owned by the provinces, and that all the grants have been made and all the prospecting has been done or regulated by the provinces. What would 74726-1804
be the attitude of the provinces on the nationalization of the gold mines of this country? It is a well-known fact that more good money has been spent in promoting gold mines than has ever been made out of them. What would be the procedure of the leader of the C.C.F. party then? Would he have this country embark upon an enterprise in which in a great many cases there would be failure before it ever got started. That is one of the things which this house and the country at large has a right to know.
The hon. gentleman must also be aware of the fact that even with the high price of gold to-day only fifteen or sixteen mines in this country are on a paying basis. If his party were in office and he were in power would he propound the expropriation of the gold mines and the nationalization of the gold mining industry? What would be his procedure? What attitude would he take to the mine owner, and on what basis would he award compensation to the owner and shareholders? These are things which the people have a right to know when such a statement is made in this house by an hon. member occupying such a high position in his party. As I stated a few moments ago, I have studied from an impartial standpoint the policies and planks of the platform of the C.C.F. party and I believe that the hon. member owes it to himself and to parliament to state definitely what mode of procedure he would take in expropriating the gold mines.
Did the hon. member ever visualize, so far as gold mining is concerned-I am speaking of only that one industry-that practically everything that has been done in connection with our gold mines has been done on the personal initiative of the Canadian people, by prospectors and promoters and people who have developed these mines? Does the hon. member wish to create the impression that the government is more capable of running these mines than those who have had charge of them in the past? I would ask the hon. member to answer these questions on the next occasion when he speaks of this matter because, Mr. Speaker, this house and the country have a right to know what procedure the hon. member would adopt in respect to our gold mines, and if he is going to single out one particular industry, one part of our national life for nationalization, why not widen the scope of his policy and nationalize every single industry?
When I adjourned the debate on the budget the other evening I was speaking on the gold tax. I had said that I was in harmony with
previous speakers, even on the government

The Bridget-Mr. Bradette
ment the critical position, of the industry, I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite to consider the views that have been put forward 'by members of parliament as well as by other *people to show how absolutely unfair and onerous this tax is. The hon. member for Nelson pointed this out, and other members of parliament have urged the government to recognize the unfairness of this taxation on one industry.
The Prime Minister suggested that the agitation against this taxation was started iby the populace. Well, the sentiment of the people in this regard has been voiced by the newspapers, and the popular sentiment has been unanimous against this tax, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In other words, no one could help being familiar with the situation, so that the government had to give way. I want to be fair to the government, but I want the government to be sincere. I am sure that had they given this whole question that careful analysis which it deserved, instead of trying to raise $10,000,000 from one industry alone, had they studied the question of taxation a little further, their attitude would have been different. Suppose they had remained adamant in the application of this tax, what would have happened? As we pointed out, it would have meant the destruction of at least 80 per cent of the gold mining activities of Canada.
In this regard I should like to quote briefly from an editorial which has appeared in a newspaper sympathetic to this government, a weekly paper published in the Timmins district, and fully conversant with the whole subject and also sympathetic to the federal Minister of Mines.


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


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: With the consent of
the house, may I be allowed to quote the following from the Porcupine Advance of Timmins:
Most people are aware of the fact that the dominion Minister of Mines, Hon. W. A. Gordon, and the Ontario Minister of Mines, Hon. Chas. McCrea, have been giving their best efforts to secure a fair deal for the mines and the people. They have helped materially in securing what has been achieved, but it has not been enough. There should be a continuation of the fight for a complete square deal for mining.
Incidentally, it may be noted that the tax on gold production promises to be the most unpopular act of the Bennett administration. There is a report to the effect that this gold tax matter may eventually result in the withdrawal of Hon. W. A. Gordon from the government ranks. Hon. Mr. Gordon is recognized as one of the most capable and most admired members of the dominion cabinet. His retire-

ment would be a serious loss to Canada and a veritable calamity for the Bennett government. Hon. W. A. Gordon, however, knows the details of his departments, and he also knows the general situation in Canada. It would appear to be the part of wisdom for the Bennett government to still further amend the proposed gold tax legislation so that the mining industry should be helped, not hindered, and the Bennett cabinet should retain one of its strongest and most popular members.


Mr. J. EARL LAWSON (West York):: It is with deep regret that I learned of the death of the wife of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), and as the first member on this side of the house to address you this afternoon, sir, I take this opportunity, on behalf of the members on this side as well as of myself, of extending our most sincere sympathy to him in his bereavement.
The hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), the official critic of the official opposition, in his address on this budget adopted an expedient which is not at all unfamiliar to lawyers, namely, the setting up of some straw men in order to knock them down. Hence, though it was no part of the budget at all, he endeavoured to set up the problem of bimetallism and a turnover tax because, I suggest, he lacked the ability to make a strong, sound and logical criticism of the proposals which were contained in that budget. He concluded that criticism by moving a resolution, and in that resolution he was indeed more definite than in his criticism, because we find in the resolution one condemnation of this government for what was alleged to be its policy. In amendment, he moved:
This house regrets that the proposals of the Minister of Finance give no indication of the intention of the government to abandon the policies of economic nationalism which have proved so disastrous to Canada's trade.
For a few moments I wish to consider the question whether the policy of this government is one of economic nationalism. When this government came into power in 1930 the world was already in the sweep of a vast depression and unemployment was rife not only in other countries but in Canada as well. In every country in the world there was a vast surplus of production of which it was desirous to dispose; and shortly before this government came into power Italy, the United States, France, Germany and other countries had increased their tariffs, so that Canada could not sell her exportable surplus in any of those markets. Each of these countries in turn had large exportable surpluses which they wished to sell in any market in the world, which they were willing to sell, not at prices representative of cost of production, but at

The Budget-Mr. Lawson
any price which could be obtained. The result was that Canada at that time was a fair field in which they might dump their surplus products.
Faced with these conditions this government did immediately increase its tariff and it increased the tariff not, as our opponents would desire to lead the electorate to believe, for the purpose of developing trade but for the purpose of using that tariff as a defensive instrument in the protection of Canada. Now, having taken a defensive measure, this government set about negotiating trade treaties in order that our trade might be increased. Treaties were negotiated with the component parts of the British Empire, and also with Austria, France and, if my recollection serves me rightly, with Germany. As a result of those treaties Canada has increased her trade and also the amount of employment. It is all very well for the hon. member for Shel-bume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) to compare Canada's trade in 1929 with her trade in 1933, but I suggest that a fairer comparison would be to compare Canada's trade in 1929 with world trade in 1929 and to compare Canada's trade in 1933 with world trade in 1933. If we make the comparison on that basis, this is what we find: World trade in 1929 amounted to $68,641,000,000 while in 1933 the world trade estimated, as the figures for all countries are not quite complete, is $22,000,000,000. In other words, world trade dropped 68 per cent between 1929 and 1933. If we turn to our great neighbour to the south we find that their total trade in 1929 was around $9,500,000,000 while in 1933 it was $3,381,000,000, or a drop of 65 per cent. If we take Canada's trade for the year 1929 we find that it was about $2,481,000,000 while in 1933 it amounted to $932,963,000, or a drop of only 62 per cent.
If during a period when world trade dropped 68 per cent and when the trade of our neighbour dropped 65 per cent, Canada's trade dropped only 62 per cent and if economic nationalism, so-called, is the cause of that favourable position for Canada, then I am in favour of that policy of economic nationalism. If when you add to that the fact that since 1933 Canada under the policies of this government has advanced from the position of a nation with an adverse balance of trade in excess of $100,000,000 to that of a nation with a favourable balance of trade in excess of $100,000,000, I say again that if that be economic nationalism, then I favour economic nationalism.
The hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette), who preceded -me, spoke of the gold tax. His utterances in many instances were extreme. He reminded me of some of the hysteria that was published in some Canadian papers in connection with the gold tax. I only trust that in the next election all Liberal members on the opposite side of the house will invite the hon. member for North Timiskaming into their constituencies to tell the people that he and the party which he supports favoured the tax on sugar-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Oh, no.
Mr. LAWSON; -as one which makes all people realize the necessity for taxation more than a tax on gold would do.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Do not be too smart. Be your own self.


James Earl Lawson: Any effort on my part to appear smart after following the hon. gentleman will seem very futile. Many wild statements have been made concerning the effect of the gold tax. The Northern Miner, probably admitted to be the mouthpiece of the gold mining industry, was certainly guilty of wild outbursts in the issue following the proposal contained in the budget, I do not think the hon. member for North Timiskaming would suggest that the criticism contained in that journal was either fair or in the interests of the gold mining industry.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In the interests of the people.


James Earl Lawson: Such an outburst only stimulates any tendency there might have been on the part of shareholders to liquidate their stock with losses to the selling shareholders. It is indeed with strange inconsistency that while the Northern Miner was roundly condemning this government for the great injury it was doing to the gold mining industry of this country, that same paper was carrying the most glowing advertisements for the sale of shares in gold mining companies, one of them in particular advising the public that gold shares had indeed "very attractive possibilities." One caption especially caught my eye; it said:
"How shareholders will be hit." "Dividend cuts coming."
If you then read -the article you would find that it went on to tell how Hollinger, one of the gold -mines, would lose an amount equal to seven of its periodical five-cent dividends and so would its shareholders. Let
The Budget-Mr. Lawson

us examine the situation in respect to that very mine. Hollinger has been in the habit for years of paying a dividend of five cents a month per share with a bonus of five cents a share in the twelfth month, or alternatively a dividend equal to five cents per share every four weeks. The public were led to believe that by the imposition of this tax seven of those dividends in succession would be cut off. What are the facts? In 1933 the Hollinger mine produced 481,279 ounces of gold and they sold that gold at an average price of $28.60 an ounce. Let me assume that in the year 1934 the number of ounces produced is the same. The price for gold having now advanced to $35 an ounce, they would sell every ounce of it, even after deducting the tax as originally proposed, at $31.50 an ounce, or after deducting the tax as now amended, at $31.42 an ounce. In view of prices this year, the same production would return to the Hollinger mine, after deduction of the tax, an extra $1,395,000. This would increase the earning of that mine from $1.16 to $1.45 a share or, in other words, a difference of twenty-nine cents a share. Therefore, instead of this tax having the effect of cutting off seven consecutive dividends from the shareholders of the Hollinger mines the truth is that with the same production that mine will be able to pay six more consecutive dividends of five cents per share in the year 1934. If you make a similar calculation in respect to the production of the Lake Shore mine, at the end of 1934, even after paying its tax, that mine should have an additional amount of seventy-two cents per share to distribute among its shareholders.
Under the amendment some exemption is made for low grade producers. Some of the wildest and most extravagant statements have been made with respect to the effect on low grade producers; a circular I have before me, issued by one brokerage house, says one hundred thousand men will be put out of work. If I understood the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) correctly, I think he put the figure at eighty thousand.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I never mentioned eighty thousand.


James Earl Lawson: Then I withdraw the statement; I thought I understood the hon. gentleman to say that this measure would cause unemployment in the mines affecting about eighty thousand men. I say this, sir: I challenge anyone to give concrete evidence proving that, even had the tax remained on low

grade producers, it would have put one-half of one hundred thousand or one-quarter of one hundred thousand men out of work in this country.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


James Earl Lawson: No, if you please; I did not interrupt you. I have an argument I wish to make. I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker, that it is economically sound to help these low grade producers, so called, to continue to endeavour to get into production unless they have a reasonable expectancy of ore that will enable them to operate profitably at $26 an ounce for gold at least, if not at $20.67. What was the reason for the advance in the price of gold? If I understand it correctly it was because certain nations of the world accepted, temporarily at least, an economic theory,- that theory being that if you increased the price of gold you deflated or devalued your currency based on gold, and that in turn if you devalued your currency you increased the prices of commodities.
The acceptance of that economic theory,-[DOT] plus another theory so far as the United States was concerned,-caused that country and some other nations of the world to increase the price of gold. If that economic theory is sound obviously when we get back to the days of prosperity the price of gold should be reduced by every country of the world, presumably by Canada as well. At that rate, sir, as soon as we get back to prosperity, down will go the price of gold and then, I ask, what will become of the shareholders who have been induced, by promoters desirous of selling stocks, to invest their money in low grade producers that cannot possibly exist except upon a very much enhanced value for gold? In view of that situation, sir, I am not at all convinced that it is economically sound to encourage these low grade producers to greater production, but out of consideration for the shareholders who have been induced to invest their money in them I support the amendment suggested by the Prime Minister in connection with the low grade producers.
Now, sir, I wish to deal with another aspect of this amendment. After declaring this government guilty of economic nationalism the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) proceeds:
It is of the opinion that the immediate substitution therefor of policies which will promote export trade throughout the world is essential to any permanent improvement of conditions in Canada, and to the successful application of other policies respecting credit-

The Budget-Mr. Lawson
I must confess, sir, that I am a little at a loss to know just what the other policies respecting credit may be, unless the utterance of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) to-day, in which he informed our friends in the far corner that he was in sympathy with the provisions of their amendment to the amendment, indicates that the old Liberal party is trying now somehow to crawl on the bandwaggon of inflation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are on it now; $35,000,000 last year.


James Earl Lawson: It is quite apparent from the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that his idea of inflation and mine vary widely, but I will come to that in a moment. In considering the progress Canada has made under this government I think sometimes it is well to ascertain what is 'being said by people not resident in Canada, who cannot be accused of having a biased mind. A short time ago I noticed an article in the Saturday Evening Post by Mr. Isaac F. Mar-cosson. In comparing Canada's progress with that of our great neighbour to the south Mr. Marcosson said:
-the index of the physical volume of Canadian business-the economic pulse of the nation -advanced by thirty-two per cent between February and November, 1933 that industrial production increased forty-three per cent in the same period-that purchasing power is up twelve per cent-
If this resolution, so far as it relates to some new credit system, involved what I anticipate it does, having regard to some of the speeches that have been made in this house, I should like to offer some views with respect thereto. Inflation, as I understand it, means the issuing of new money beyond the metal coverage now required by the Canadian statute or formerly required by international practice, and the use and distribution of that money by payment for public services. If we embark upon any vast scheme of the distribution of currency in excess of that which is available, of necessity we must print money without reference to metal coverage as a controlling factor or base, and if you do that I say you have uncontrolled inflation. Can inflation be controlled? In my opinion it can be controlled only in one of two ways. It can never be controlled by the agency of government so long as it may be affected by the whim of government. In my opinion it can be controlled only by a metal coverage or base internationally recognized or by t'he setting up of a sinking fund into which annually an amount of money raised by taxation is poured for the purpose of meeting the issued currency upon demand and at
likely maturity. Inflation, Mr. Speaker, has been the last desperate effort of nearly all countries in distress; they have seized it as a drowning man grasps at a straw, but it has never saved any nation that has tried1 it. It has ruined commercially and economically every nation in the world that has been seduced by its charm.
I am one of those who admit that the present monetary unit, which is expressed in dollars, varies in purchasing power in relation to the value of commodities. I will admit, further, that in my opinion any monetary unit that varies in its relative value to prices of other commodities imposes in times of depression a burden upon debtors. An ideal monetary system would be one in which the monetary unit always held comparatively the same relative value to commodities. But the wit of man has not as yet devised such a monetary unit, and in this House of Commons I have not heard one suggested which in my opinion has those qualifications. I will further admit that I would be in favour of a reflationary policy if you could reflate and still have your reflation under control. But as I previously outlined I do not believe it can be controlled, except by the two methods I indicated. And the moment, sir, that you endeavour to put into effect any policy of inflation or reflation which is not automatically controlled, then I suggest you are getting away from the principle of sound money.
I have deliberately used the term "sound" in reference to money. I have used it because so much has been said about "sound" money. Some hon. member in this house has said that sound money is wholly unsound. What is sound money? Money is not like flowers, plants or animals of which one may have several species. There are only two kinds of money, sound and unsound. There is safe money and there is unsafe money. In my opinion sound money is safe money. One of my colleagues, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) stated in this House of Commons that sound money has been sweet sounding for the receivers of interest, but that it has meant fury to the masses of Canadians. Mr. Speaker, with that statement I absolutely disagree. If sound money is safe money, then in my opinion it is sweet sounding to every man and woman in Canada who is in receipt of a fixed income, irrespective of Whether that income be by way of wages, by way of dividends, by way of interest or by way of profits. Sound money to my mind should be sweet sounding to every wage earner in Canada. Sound money should be sweet sounding to every man in this country in receipt of a pension.
The Budget-Mr. Lawson

Sound money should be sweet sounding to every woman in Canada who is in receipt of a mother's allowance to help maintain herself and her children. Sound money should be sweet sounding to every aged person unable longer to work, and who is in receipt of an old age pension. Sound money, sir should be sweet sounding to every person in Canada who is in receipt of a fixed income, because that person knows that when he is in receipt of one of those sound dollars he can exchange it for a very reasonable quantity of other commodities, and that he will not have to have a thousand of those dollars to exchange for a loaf of bread.
Considerable has been said about the policy adopted by our great neighbour to the south. It has been stated that they have done very well through a policy of inflation, and that the steps they have taken constitute an inflation policy. That I cannot see. If I have appreciated it correctly, the Roosevelt policy in the United States has introduced into the monetary system two new principles. The first is the nationalization of gold and the second is the revaluation of gold. Neither of those steps amounts to inflation. The United States has about seven billion dollars in gold. On the presently accepted international standard of metal coverage of 25 per cent they could have currency in circulation up to twenty-eight billions of dollars. The fact is that the United States has not one-half of twenty-eight billions of dollars in currency circulation. I ask hon. members this question: How can you have a green back with a gold backing? In resolutions which have been discussed we have heard a great deal about the policy of this government being deflationary, about the value of the dollars being increased and thereby pressing down the prices of commodities. But surely, sir, the record of the relative value of our currency to those of other countries is a complete answer to that allegation. Let me point out that when the United States was on a gold dollar basis, the basis which formerly was internationally recognized, the highest average premium at which their currency ever stood was of 17 per cent. For a few days it did touch 21 per cent, but the average stood at 17 per cent. To-day we have had the government of that country tell us that the American dollar is worth only 59-4 per cent of what it was when it was the so-called gold dollar. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the difference in its value should be about 40 per cent. If their money was at a premium of 17 per cent over ours at a time when they had a gold dollar, and it is now worth 40 per cent or 40 cents less, then to-

day the Canadian dollar should be at a premium of 23 per cent, if this government in turn had not been alive to the movements of the times, and if this government had been carrying out a policy of deflation of our dollar.
Then the suggestion is made in this house that arbitrarily we should cut interest rates. One hon. member has suggested that we should pass a statute whereby the interest rates on all our bonds should be cut by one-third, that the rates on bonds of corporations in Canada should be cut by the same amount, and that at the tail end of that statute we should have a provision whereby such changes would not come into effect until the government passed an order in council. Then, armed with this blunt instrument of a statute of repudiation to be propelled by the force of an order in council the Canadian people would go forth into foreign lands to wage economic war. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what success we would have under such a system. Repudiation-and I say this in all kindness to the gentleman who advocated it -is to my mind nothing but a stupid remedy for a primitive nation. Gullible indeed would be the man who would lend money to this country unless he believed that the bargain for repayment would be carried out. Yet it is suggested that we should go to our bondholders outside this country and say to them, "If you do not accept bonds from us with your interest rate cut one-third, then we will pass this order in council." What chance do you think we would ever have to borrow money again from those people? Do you think they would accept our story, at a time when we might go back into a foreign market to get more money which is so necessary for the development of this country, if we said, "Well, we were bad little boys. True, we repudiated once, but if you will just lend us some money again we will be good little boys and never repudiate again." What a nice position for Canada.
Let me consider it from the standpoint of our domestic situation. Most of the advocacy of repudiation of our interest rates is espoused by those who go throughout this country and endeavour to paint a picture of vast corporations that have made enormous profits by grinding down the ordinary man, commonly called the poor; but let us see what we would do to these vast corporations if we should pass this statute of repudiation. The private corporations of this country have payable in this year 1934, $132,563,994, of which $115,278,081 is interest. So if we pass this statute of repudiation the first people

The Budget-Mr. Reid
on whom we will confer a benefit will be these vast corporations, and to the extent of one-third of their interest of $115,000,000 odd, or something like a benefit of $41,000,000. That would hardly put much benefit into the hands of the individual holders who have invested their money in the bonds of these corporations. I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that if I were to be governed solely by the emotions of my heart, and not by the thoughts of my head, I might at times be inclined to favour a measure of repudiation especially when I go about the riding I represent and see the deprivation and want among many of the people. I am reminded that a great divine, I think it was Henry Ward Beecher, once wrote, "Where you find religion of the heart you have a fanatic. Where you find religion of the head you have a heretic. Where you find religion which is a combination of heart and head you have a Christian." I believe, sir, that if we are going to solve the problems of this country we must use our heads, as well as our hearts, and the solution in my opinion never will lie in repudiation.
May I ask one question: What man has ever improved his standing in his own community, even among his fellow-debtors, by repudiation? Not one. Now this nation is nothing but an aggregate of the individuals in this country, and just as no man can improve his standing in his own community by repudiation, neither can this nation, by repudiation, improve its standing among the nations of the world.
Something has been said as to why Canada has not adopted the policies in economic matters which have been adopted by the United States. Well, in the first place, sir, it must be realized that in international affairs Canada is not a pivotal nation. Unlike the United States, we are a debtor, not a creditor, nation. Unlike the United States, we have very little more gold than is required under the former international standard to back our currency. If, instead of shipping out of this country vast quantities of gold as was done by the Minister of Finance in the former Liberal government in 1927, 1928 and 1929, to meet our unfavourable trade balances of those years, we had been able to hold that gold in this country, I am sure that we could have gratified the desires even of our friends in the extreme comer by the additional amount of currency that could have been issued as safe and sound money. But Canada not being a pivotal nation in international affairs, being as we are affected to a large
extent by conditions in the United States, being also affected as we are by conditions in the United Kingdom, we must at all times maintain our dollar within reasonable limits of the American dollar and the British pound sterling. Consequently, we have been very much in the position of a boy who sits in the middle of a teeter-totter. We have not had the pleasure, by enacting new monetary measures, of bobbing up and down on either end and obtaining that thrill, but nevertheless we have had a much more stable position, and when the game is over we are much more likely to have a settled stomach. Now in view of the fact that we must maintain the value of our currency relative to that of the United States and the United Kingdom it cannot be fixed by this government until some relative value is attained between the American dollar and the pound sterling.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that those who are shrewd observers will agree that in the first few years after confederation a great Conservative leader, Sir John A. Macdonald, made Canada, and history I think will record, that in the last few years of depression a masterful leader of the Conservative party, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, saved Canada.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the budget I would first of all like to join with others in expressing my regrets at the sudden loss sustained by the 'hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). I believe most members will agree with me that he is one of the best liked ministers in the house.
Within the limited time at my disposal it will not be possible for me to deal with all the matters brought down in the budget, and dealt with in the budget speech of the Finance minister, but before proceeding to deal with some of the points may I refer to a statement that was made in the debate by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Shaver) who a few days ago twitted me with advocating that white Canadian seamen be employed on the ships subsidized by this country, and also advocating a reduction in freight rates, while not agreeing with the policies advocated by this government. I have not the time at my disposal to go into that, Mr. Speaker, except to say that I can see no relation whatever between the proposals that I put before the house in regard to white seamen being employed, the question of freight rates, and not supporting the policies of this government under which the textile companies in this country have received
The Budget-Mr. Reid


Robert James Manion: As a matter of information, would my hon. friend mind telling me where he got that information?


Thomas Reid: I got it from a gentleman whose name I do not care to disclose. He gave me that information and that is why I placed a

The Budget-Mr. Reid
question on the order paper as to who held the bonds. I think we should have this information and if my statement is not correct, it should be corrected.


Robert James Manion: The bonds of the Canadian National Railways; like other bonds of the Dominion of Canada, are held to a large extent by various investors in the United States. About three-quarters of the bonds are held in the United States by insurance companies, banks and individuals.


Thomas Reid: My information was that the railroad companies had purchased large blocks of bonds.


Robert James Manion: Most of the railroad companies in the United States have not been able to pay the interest on their own bonds.


Thomas Reid: But like our own railways, they have certain investments. Our own railways have investments in United States railroads, and, likewise, United States railroads have placed their funds in other investments.
I should like to refer for a few moments to another serious matter confronting the country, that of unemployment which has been steadily increasing since 1930. According to the official figures brought down in the house not long ago, in January, 1931, the total unemployed amounted to 132i,000; this figure had increased to 355,806 in 1932; to 1,244,536 in
1933.	The figures Showed a slight decrease in
1934.	there being 1,228,246 individuals receiving relief. I am not one of those who believe that unemployment as we know it to-day is something which will not be with us always. Machinery has displaced men to such a degree during the past twenty-five years that the great masses of our people can never hope to be engaged in industry. Until our government recognizes that unemployment is permanent I do not believe we will arrive at any solution of the matter. One of the most serious aspects of this matter is the question of our youth. I was surprised to learn that there are some 600,000 youths in Canada between the ages of nineteen and twenty-five. The greater proportion of these young people have no great outlook in life and I believe that most of them are to-day in idleness. To my mind that is one of the most serious aspects of the matter. We sometimes say that this is a war on unemployment. We spent in the last war many millions of dollars destroying life and surely it is not too much to expect that we could spend a great deal more to save life, in this one I think that is something well worth considering, especially from the point of view of saving the youth of the country.
I wish now to speak for a few moments regarding the debts of Canada. Every hon. member must be aware of the great burden of debt which is hanging over this country. When one realizes that the total value of our agricultural wealth for the last year was not sufficient to pay the interest charges in Canada, it is very striking indeed; and when we have reached the point where we are borrowing many millions to pay interest charges -not principal but interest charges-one must ask oneself-When will the end of this be? Personally I believe our debts will never be paid, and the sooner we realize that the better. I listened a few moments ago to the hon. member for West York who spoke about repudiation. It is no repudiation to call in those to whom you owe money and make a plain statement of the state of affairs in the country. I am not unmindful of what transpired in a country like Great Britain. After telling the people to tighten their belts she did not stop there altogether, but in good fashion went after the bondholders. In 1931 Viscount Snowden warned the country of the grave danger facing it, and after he had warned the people from his place in the House of Lords, the nation took stock and set to work to retrieve its position. Among other things it is interesting to know that Great Britain converted $10,000,000,000, more than the total debt of Canada, from a 5 per cent issue down to a 3-i per cent; yet we have hon. members in this house talking about repudiation if anyone gets up and suggests cutting the interest rate.
In my opinion the people are tired of being told to tighten their belts until such time as the bondholders and others are gone after. It surely is not repudiation if you call in the people who own the bonds and notify them that you can no longer pay because it is sapping the life blood of the country, and say to them, "We are either willing to give you your money back or give you 3| per cent." If something of that kind is not done I am afraid the whole thing will be wiped out and they will be in danger of losing all.
I have not the time to go as far as I should like with regard to the debt situation because in most of my remarks I wish to deal with trade. But I believe that we should adopt the policies that have been adopted in at least eight or ten countries which, in setting their houses in order, have practically told bondholders that they will have to accept less. If we are to follow the example of any country, surely it is not amiss to suggest that we should emulate a country like Great Britain where, it is well to note, the bond-
The Budget-Mr. Reid

holders, in good spirit, agreed to accept 3i per cent. So that I cannot agree with my hon. friend when he talks about repudiation. Repudiation means wiping the whole slate clean and calling the debt off, and I am one of those who does not accept that suggestion. I do maintain however that the common citizens of the country are tired of being told to tighten their belts, because if some of them tighten their belts much more, both parts of the belt might meet. Many have been tightening their belts for the last three or four years and are now of the opinion that others who have not borne the brunt should come forward and show their true citizenship by agreeing at this time to accept a much lower rate of interest.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Was there not a very
distinct difference between calling in the British war loan of 5 per cent and issuing it subsequently at 3| per cent and a reduction of interest on the bonds of the Canadian National Railways or of government bonds? The British war loan, I think my hon. friend will agree, was callable any year. It was issued on a certain basis, a certain interest for a certain number of years, and after the lapse of that time it was then callable any year. That was one of the conditions.


Mr. REED:: the balance of our grains going abroad. If it is any comfort to the farmers of this country,
I notice in the trade report that we sold to Great Britain 872,000 pounds of rice, which if percentages are used is an increase of 800 per cent over 1930 in our trade in rice with Great Britain. That is very interesting, as we do not grow any.
But let me come to what is more important.
I refer to what has taken place regarding agriculture in Great Britain and the effect it is having and will have there. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) practically denied that Great Britain was our greatest market for dairy products; at least, When speaking in the house not very long ago, he would not admit it. These are his exact words:
Mr. Weir (Melfort): Did the hon. member say I stated this afternoon that the United Kingdom was the best market for our dairy products?
Mr. Parent: I understood the minister to say that.
Mr. Weir (Melfort): I did not say that.
It may be admitted then that Great Britain is not the best market for our dairy products. Some hon. members have stated, both in and out of this house, that the right hon. Prime Minister has changed the fiscal policy of Great Britain. He certainly has done so, and the marked changes that are being made in Great Britain may well prove a terrible tragedy to the agriculturists of this country. When the Ottawa agreements were under consideration the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was the member in the house who tried to point out that the gates would close against our agricultural products, and they are closing in Great Britain. Our eggs and apples have been mentioned, and we are being told that Great Britain will not allow us to dump our apples there as we have done in other years. And, Mr. Speaker-I would like to place this on record because I think it is of vital interest- the agriculturists of Canada should be told what the change in policy in Britain will mean to Canada. Major Elliot, the British Minister of Agriculture, is out to make Great Britain self-sustaining so far as agricultural products are concerned, if that be possible; he has stated that Great Britain will reduce her imports of agricultural products by a billion dollars, and what will that mean to this country? Will we be put on quotas with regard to eggs, apples, wheat and everything we grow? The effect of such a reduction in imports will be terrible so far as the agriculturist is concerned.

If I had time I should like to develop this further, because I think the country should be made cognizant of the actual conditions which face us in regard to agriculture. Lord De la Warre, when asked with regard to the marketing schemes in Great Britain, intimated to the House of Lords that Great Britain was endeavouring to make herself self-sustaining with regard to all agricultural products, and, what is important, he said that agricultural policy started at the Ottawa conference. Perhaps the Prime Minister thought he put it over the old country people when he practically forced them to sign on the dotted line two days before they left Canada, but the old country has now instituted a policy that is going to be very detrimental to the agricultural interests of this country. Our markets there will be greatly curtailed.
A great deal has been said with regard to bacon and hogs in this country; the Prime Minister stated that we could ship up to 2,500,000 hundredweights per year. We might do that, if we had that amount, but just until the agreements come up for review, for Great Britain has recently created establishments in the old country to take care of 4,000,000 hundredweights of hams and bacon annually, and the British dealers have guaranteed
2.000.	000 hogs this year, or the equivalent of
2.000.	000 hundredweights. The total imports of hams and bacon into Great Britain last year amounted to about 10,000,000 hundredweights, and now Great Britain is prepared to produce and take care of almost half her requirements. Great Britain has gone further likewise with regard to wheat; this year the acreage has been greatly increased and a surplus of 30,000,000 bushels is - expected. They want also to put a quota on butter and cream products entering that country, as well as on almost every other agricultural product. So we find that the British agriculturist is now coming into his own, and before long Great Britain will not be the great market outlined by the Prime Minister in 1932. I should not be at all surprised if the election came on before the agreements expire in 1935, because in my opinion the longer they go on the worse the condition, will become.
I would not have taken up the time of the house with these statements, Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the boastful statements that were made and the finger of scorn that was pointed at some of us on this side when we ventured to disagree with the government. Something has been started in Great Britain, however, and I suppose we can give the Prime Minister full credit for it. It is no wonder that

The Budget-Mr. Plunkett
we hear rumours that the right hon. gentleman is to be mentioned in the King's birthday honours. I hope he does not leave this country before the next election; it would be too bad if he did not wait to hear what the Canadian people will say when they have a chance to speak. Personally I hope the election will come this year, but if the Prime Minister is so honoured by Great Britain he can leave Canada and say to the British agriculturists, "I did it; I changed your fiscal policy," but what about the poor agriculturists in this land? The Prime Minister will not use the boastful language with which he concluded that previous speech, when he said, "Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set." Perhaps he intends going to Great Britain to set the bounds for British trade.
I believe the situation is very serious, so much so that only last week both Australia and New Zealand intimated to Great Britain that if she would remove the quota restrictions from their agricultural products they would allow British goods free entry. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would follow the lead of those two countries and make a similar offer. With regard to our wheat I think Canada should have a greater quota than was given either Australia or New Zealand, because those countries have a market in Great Britain for both mutton and wool to the extent of some $300,000,000. I believe the Prime Minister has failed because, instead of keeping agriculture to the fore as our primary industry, he has endeavoured to make industry first. We are a great agricultural nation, and our whole policy should be built with that idea in mind. We cannot be a leading industrial nation and at the same time a leading agricultural nation.
Mr. D'ARCY B. PLUNKETT (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it was rather amusing to listen to the last speaker (Mr. Reid). The hon. gentleman is not very consistent as between his speeches and his votes. He condemns the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) because he has ruined the agriculturists of this country, yet we find the hon. gentleman voting for the marketing bill, which is designed to assist agriculture in Canada. I wonder if he will dare deny that bill on third reading; certainly he did not have the courage to vote against it on second reading.
With reference to the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), I think the discussion has been so full that I need make very little comment at this time.
I have but one statement to make in that regard. The Minister of Finance has met existing conditions in this country with courage; he has given a complete statement of our financial position and he has exhibited the same resourceful strength that he showed last year when he delivered the previous budget.
There are many policies that are being enunciated by this government; perhaps there never has been a government in the history of Canada which has brought in so many policies designed to benefit the people. In all the criticism that has been offered we do not find much said as to the courage of the government; we do not find any reasonable suggestions to replace any of the measures they have offered, but we do find the usual criticism offered by the Liberal party. I sometimes wonder if they have joined the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. They usually criticize; they are like those who appear before the banking and commerce committee and present theories, talks and readings from professors and economists. The Liberal party is following along that line. Should they join, this House of Commons will be delighted to hear those theories of economy, not one of which has been tried out, and not one of which they are sure about.
May I congratulate the government in its intention to bring down some provision for public buildings throughout Canada. I believe they should attend to government buildings first, and then direct their attention to any road work which might help Canada as a nation to take care of tourist traffic. It was estimated that in 1933 the tourist traffic brought Canada $117,000,000. We must endeavour to continue to secure that trade, and with the improved conditions throughout the world there is no reason why this country, with its great physical resources and scenic attractions, should not be able to command a great part of tourist travel.
The government is to be congratulated upon the tremendous saving in controllable expenditures made in the last three years, amounting, we are informed, to $83,000,000. This figure would seem to give positive evidence of the government's intention to relieve the taxpayers of Canada of their heavy burdens. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) who has just taken his seat, made the surprising statement that there had been no reduction in unemployment in Canada. In this connection I should like to read into the record a statement which appears in the Vic-



The Budget-Mr. Plunkett
toria Daily Times, that Liberal pillar of goodness. It is as follows:
Relief Lists 14,000 Lower
Reduction of more than ten per cent in province since February, 1933.
Reduction of 14,000 in the number of people receiving relief in British Columbia in February as compared with the same month last year is 3hown in figures released to-day by the provincial relief department.
I might suggest that does not include the present premier of British Columbia and his relief activities. The hon. member made another statement to the effect that in Great Britain the gates had been closed against the agricultural products of this country. I quote again from the Victoria Daily Times:
Lumber Trade With Empire Headed for High Record Figure
Shipments to United Kingdom in first quarter exceed any full year's business prior to 1933; total water-borne trade of province more than doubles.
British Columbia's empire lumber trade is definitely headed for a record year, according to statistics on exports for the first quarter just released by P. Z. Caverhill, chief forester of the British Columbia government forestry branch.
Significant figures of the trade are: In the first three months the province did more lumber business with the United Kingdom than in the full twelve months of any previous year except 1933, and has already reached nearly half the 1933 total.
Shipments to Great Britain jumped by close to 100,000,000 feet, or nearly 400 per cent over the same period last year. Exports to Australia advanced almost 30 per cent over 1933.
At the same time the province more than doubled its foreign export business and multiplied shipments to eastern Canada fourfold in the same period as compared with last year.
I believe these two statements should refute the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster. When Canada is leading other nations in recovery it is not fair that hon. members in this House of Commons should endeavour to belittle the efforts of our government.
May I speak further upon the building construction program? Before I became a member of this house I was interested in construction, and I believe I understand some of the difficulties and troubles with which those interested in building construction activities have had to contend during the last four years. Building construction was the first to feel the business depression, and has been the last to respond to conditions which are more favourable or which more nearly approach those of normal times. Building permits issued by sixty-one cities in December, 1933, represented construction work

valued at $1,957,855, as compared with $1,609,874 in November, 1933, and $1,569,255 in December, 1932. There was, therefore, an increase of $365,981, or 22-7 per cent in December as compared with the preceding month, and of $406,600, or 25-9 per cent, as compared with the same month of 1932. The December, 1933 figure was the lowest for the month in any year since 1920, except 1932.
When we consider the amount of money that has been paid all over the country by the dominion government in rentals for office and other space in buildings which they do not own, I can see no reason why a campaign looking to the erection of government buildings in cities and towns where they are required should be opposed. The time has passed when the government should be held up by people who ask high rentals and exorbitant prices. I do not wish to go into details in this connection, but hon. members well know that many of the rentals charged the dominion government are not fair. In the larger cities we find that the dominion government offices are scattered; the city of Ottawa is a good example. Hon. members wishing to do business with a government department sometimes have to visit six or eight buildings. These offices should be under one roof. In many instances the government is paying excessive rates. The buildings should be centralized, not scattered all across the city. The experience hon. members had in the past winter was surely enough to antagonize hon. members against the present system.
We continually hear about, and our sympathetic attention is drawn to the farmers, railway employees, automobile industry workers and others, but we seldom hear anything said on behalf of the great mass of artisans and mechanics who by their work in creating new buildings and homes have done so much to build up our cities, and who have for the most part invested in homes for themselves, thereby ensuring their continued residence and citizenship in their respective cities.
Very little depreciation has to be written off public buildings built under the modern system, therefore they are a much more valuable contribution to the public welfare than is money spent upon good roads and beautification schemes which involve a big outlay of money and entail a large expense for upkeep. Building construction takes in a more varied line of endeavour and more separate branches of industry than any other commercial or industrial activity. Its ramifications run into and involve the steel industry, lumber and woodworking plants, cement and brick in-

The Budget-Mr. Plunkett
dustries, metal work, interior furnishings and the work of all craftsmen necessary to complete first class modern buildings.
Many of the mechanics and artisans employed in the erection and completion of such buildings have, through taxation and unemployment, lost their homes. Yet I believe that particularly in the cities organized labour, during the last three years of depression, has contributed more than any other section of our people to sound citizenship. They have done this through sacrifice and by their endeavour to distribute equally among their association members all labour which was offered. And so, by the creation of a community spiiit, they have been a help and benefit one to another. In the city of Victoria, British Columbia, the typographical union has divided hours of employment so that by each man taking one or two days off from his labour a division is made whereby all may have a fair and just opportunity to work. The money spent in construction work reaches every class of our citizenship and is distributed throughout the whole community for the benefit of all. It affects all lines of skilled as well as unskilled labour. The great majority of mechanics spend their money freely, with a resulting favourable effect upon the city and municipal life of our country.
In presenting these facts I would ask the government earnestly to consider adopting this plan in many cities and towns throughout Canada. I am sure the money would be well spent and would bring splendid results.
It has been intimated that in the near future there may be changes made in the British North America Act. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that in this suggestion we are starting at the right place. I think that in this dominion we have too much government,
. and conditions are such that some restrictions should be put upon our provinces. I see no reason why the three western provinces, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, should not have a change made in their system of government. Their interests are one and the same, and unless some effort is made to eliminate the cost of government in these western provinces we shall continually have them coming to Ottawa and knocking at the doors of parliament for more money. I do not see, Mr. Speaker, how the western provinces can be relieved from their present financial condition unless some such assertive action as I indicate be taken.
It might be suggested that British Columbia join with the three prairie provinces, but from its geographical position its interests are not
identical with those of the three prairie provinces. But why not start at the foothills? 'Let British Columbia manage its own affairs, and let the three prairie provinces join together and eliminate some of this cost of government which is so ruinous. The interests of British Columbia are considerably different from theirs. British Columbia has its big lumbering industry and its great fishing interests, whch are not of the same interests as those of the prairie provinces.
I would not for a moment venture to suggest anything along that line in regard to the maritime provinces. Their representatives in this house are so assertive that it would be very difficult to suggest that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island should join together, but geographically, looking at the map, it would not seem out of place, and I rather fancy it could be done if its representatives would only consider it.
In regard to the financial condition of British Columbia, before the recent election there we heard nothing but "work and wages." Well,, the legislature was called together, and the premier congratulated its members upon being the finest looking body, both mentally and physically, that he had ever seen. They got through the session and as soon as the session was over it was no longer work and wages; it was "On to Ottawa." But while these legislators were performing their duties as legislators for the province the cost of education in British Columbia was increased by $50,000 being voted to the university of British Columbia. Provision was also made for higher salaries for school teachers-high school teachers I think. They even created one additional member for the legislature; this legislature was composed of such a fine body of men that they had to have one more to complete the circle. Is it fair for any provincial government to come to this parliament or to the Prime Minister and ask for a lean of $8,000,000 when they have not put their own house in order, when they have not shown the least sign of curtailment of extravagance, and then expect this government to keep the civil servants on a lower rate of pay while lending money to British Columbia to spend? These are questions which I would ask this government to consider. Let there be no misunderstanding; I want this government to help British Columbia if it is at all possible. This government will have to help British Columbia, but I think they should ask British Columbia to say what they are going to do with the money, and to what extent they are going to curtail the

The Budget-Air. Plunkett
extra expenditures which they are imposing on the taxpayers of that province. Have they any right to shift the burden of taxation from the provincial to the dominion taxpayers?-for that is what it amounts to. The money has to be got, and it is simply a question of shifting the burden of taxation from one set of shoulders to another. But so long as the province shows no evidence of retrenchment I think it is better that the money should not be loaned.
Out in British Columbia they have created an economic council, a brain trust; they have an industrial relations board, and special private advisers. Does that help at all in creating throughout that province the feeling that it is going to pull out of its difficulties? Why should this legislative assembly of men and women, which was so good looking a body, have to create an economic council and an industrial relations board to help them out in their legislative work?
I wish I could persuade some of the members from the maritime provinces to come out to British Columbia and live. I am sure that if we had their spirit we would get many of the things that we are asking for. One thing I am sure will not be denied by any person who has listened to the representatives of the maritime provinces in this house making known the wants of their constituencies, and that is that if they should ever -travel extensively and visit Jerusalem, they -will surely qualify for a position at -the wailing wall. May I suggest that their representations have not been without result? In looking at the estimates for 1935 I find that the following items are to be applied specifically to the maritime provinces.
Besides the benefits to be derived from the Washington treaty there are the advantages gained through the Duncan report-all, I suppose, part of maritime rights, which I sometimes consider more or less as special rights or favours. On .April 11 last the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) at page 2058 of Hansard made a very direct appeal for the sum of $15,000 to be expended for the relief of the fishermen of the town of Canso. I must compliment him for his ample representations on behalf of the fishermen of the town of Canso, even if I cannot commend his modesty.
Then there is vote No. 169, to provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for a grant to maritime fishermen of $4,050. There is also an amount of $160,000 authorized by statute, payable as fishing bounty. Then there is vote No. 154, for fisheries, to assist in the conservation

and development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish, $85,000. Of this amount some $46,000 is to be spent in the maritime provinces, and even the town of Canso receives a percentage of the votes I have mentioned.
That brings me to another question which I think has never been fairly dealt with, and which is of great importance to the city I represent. I refer to the Pelagic Sealing treaty. Daily during the session and at the end of every session when I go home to Victoria I have from one to a dozen requests made -to me by private individuals, committees and deputations, to bring 'before this government the Pelagic Sealing treaty with a view to having some better arrangements made. This is perhaps one of the most unfortunate things that former -Canadian governments have done. They took away from the working man his means of making a living; they did the same thing with those involved in the business but no satisfactory reimbursement has been made. It is said that these men have been reimbursed, but I intend to show just how they have been reimbursed and leave it to hon. members from the maritimes to say whether they think what was done is satisfactory.
When the pelagic sealing on the Pacific was stopped by treaty, the number of claims for payment were 1,605 involving an aggregate amount of slightly over $9,200,000. The number of claims allowed was 142, the number disallowed being 1,463. I do not intend to criticize the legal judgments of the commissioner, who was a very capable gentleman, but I should like to present the human side of this matter. Unless it is cleared up by the appointment of another commission, there will always be regret and disappointment and a feeling of failure on the part of all the sealers who were in the business. In 1912 the approximate number of seals in the herd was 215,940. In 1932 the approximate number was 1,219,961. The total cost of the judicial inquiry by Mr. Justice Audette was $35,546.93 and the total sum paid to claimants was $60,663.75. Under the terms of this treaty Canada has received from the United States, $1,074,030.58; from Japan, $11,805.17 and from Russia, $5,308.97. Although this huge total has been placed in the consolidated revenue fund, only the miserable total of $60,663 has been paid out to the sealers.
When the learned commissioner delivered his findings and awards, compensation was allowed only to those who were actively engaged in the sealing industry during the year 1911. All those who were not so engaged

The Budget-Mr. Plunkett
during that year were totally excluded from any compensation. Is it fair or just to exclude all those who were not sealing during 1911? They might have been active during all the previous years and might have been prevented from operating during 1911 by sickness or other causes. I should like to quote a statement made by Lord Herschell as reported in Hansard debates of the House of Lords on June 24, 1912. He made this statement:
Compensation is to be paid to the Canadian sealers who lose their occupation owing to the provisions of the treaty.
Can it be said that that has been carried out when to-day distress exists and many families have been broken up? This is something like the famous case in Dickens of Jamdyce versus Jarndyce; they are still hoping something will be done. Successive governments have come and gone; the Liberal government was in for nine years while the present government was in power before, yet nothing has been done. The people of Victoria will never be satisfied until some further restitution is made. The whole civic life of Victoria was affected by this industry. Boats were provisioned and supplies purchased there, and people who were not directly engaged in the industry have suffered. Compensation has been paid to some boat owners but in many cases nothing has been done for those who carried on this dangerous vocation of going down to the sea in order to earn a livelihood by sealing. I should like to quote the judgment of Baron Alderson in Moon versus Burden, (1848) volume 2, Exchequer Report, 22, page 40. He stated:
It is contrary to the first principles of justice to punish those who have offended against no law. and surely to take away existing rights without compensation is in the nature of punishment.
Surely that is the law of this country. I submit that these sealers have not been properly compensated. Their rights have been taken away; they have not erred or offended any law, yet they have been punished by not receiving just and adequate compensation.
This treaty remains in force until twelve months after written notice has been given by one or more of the parties to all the others of the desire to terminate it. It is also provided that following such notice, on the request of any one of the high contracting parties a conference shall be held to consider and. if possible, to agree upon a further extension of the convention with such additions or modifications, if any, as may be found desirable. We have on the Pacific coast a herd of over one million seals which is preying upon the halibut and salmon fisheries. The government has endeavoured to make treaties with the United States for the conservation of our fisheries, but could there be any greater menace to the fishing interests of the Pacific coast than the allowing of thi3 herd to exist? Is this to be done and the fishermen receive no further remuneration? This herd has been allowed to increase and yet the government is attempting to make a treaty to help the halibut and salmon fisheries. What should be done is to curtail the number of these seals and pay proper compensation to these fishermen on the Pacific coast. Business firms throughout Canada are advertising the sale of seal skins. They are stamped with a maple leaf, but I wonder if the purchasers know the price paid by some families in my city? I wonder if they know of the efforts made to place before the different governments the need of some redress? I think their claim is a just one. All they ask is that another commission be appointed. I suggest that this commission should consist of a member of the exchequer court, an admiralty judge from British Columbia and a layman who understands fishing and sea life. 'If another hearing is held and only one person is found to be deserving, the government will have done its duty and the people will be satisfied. There are those who feel they have been discriminated against and not treated fairly. To show just how Victoria has been affected, I should like to read a letter addressed to me by the clerk of the municipal council of Victoria. This is dated April 22, 1933, and reads:
Re ex-sealers now inmates of Aged Men's Home, Victoria
Dear Sir:
I beg to inform you that the Victoria city council, at its meeting held yesterday afternoon. passed the following resolution, namely:
"Whereas three Victoria men, namely, James McGill, William Dawson and George Louis Chapman, formerly engaged as pelagic sealers on the Pacific coast are now being maintained by and at the expense of the city of Victoria in its home for the aged and infirm;
"And whereas by international agreement the dominion government is in possession of accumulated annual payments over a long period of years in trust for the distinct purpose of compensating Canadian sealers for the loss of their industry and their property;
"Therefore be it resolved by the Victoria city council that the dominion government be asked to take immediate steps to provide for compensation to the sealers and their families out of the said fund accumulated for that purpose; and that copies of this resolution be

The Budget-Mr. Plunkett
forwarded to the Eight Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada and Mr. D. B. Plunkett, M.P., for Victoria."
This was the resolution passed asking that justice be done in this matter.
Let me quote from Hansard, 1912-13, at page 12046, a statement made by Mr. Hazen:
My hon. friend knows that in 1910 a treaty was entered into between Great Britain Japan, the United' States and Russia, under which all pelagic sealing on the part of these countries was abolished, and under which it was agreed that Canada should be paid fifteen per cent of the catch of the United States at the Pribiloff islands, fifteen per cent of the catch at the Japanese islands, and ten per cent of the catch at the Russian islands, and that an advance payment of $200,000 should be made to Canada on account.
Just think of that, Mr. Speaker. Here was a government that did not create this business, a business that would not have been created had it not been for the hardihood and the spirit of adventure of these men who went to sea; yet that government demands $200,000 and gets it-the United States pays it.
That $200,000 has been paid, and claims have been made on the part of those who, in consequence of this treaty, and of the regulations in the Treaty of Paris have had to cease making a living by pelagic sealing. It has been determined to appoint a commission to inquire into the validity of those claims,-
Obviously they took a wrong point of view. They were not sure that the sealers had a valid claim. They did not say that they would look the whole thing over and see what could be done, but they decided to inquire whether the claim was valid or not.

and an order in council has been passed appointing Judge Audette, assistant judge of the exchequer court, as commissioner. Judge Audette will give notice to all interested, and will hold his first court in Victoria on the 15th of July. It may also be necessary

And this is where the maritime members come in. I did not know that they engaged in sealing down there.
-to hold a court in Nova Scotia, as several claims have been put in by people at Halifax who contend that they were engaged in the sealing business and that they are entitled to compensation. This vote is to cover the expenses of that commission.
The vote was:
To provide for costs of proceedings before the International Joint Commission, $10,000.
According to a later Hansard it appears that they had to get more money. The government of that day seemed to think that this was a little affair, something of no account; but under the terms of the treaty there has been paid into the dominion treasury the sum of $1,091,144.72. In Hansard of 1914, at page 2372, Mr. Hazen is reported as follows:

My hon. friend is aware that under the treaty entered into with the United States, with Russia and Japan, pelagic sealing is done away with. Canada is paid fifteen per cent of the sealskins thrown up on the shore by the United States, fifteen per cent by Russia, and ten per cent by Japan. The United States has paid us $200,000 .as an advance payment. Pelagic sealing is now abolished.
That has been received. Claims were made by those who were engaged in the sealing business and in order to arrive at the amount which would be paid to those whose living and occupation have been interfered with, Judge Audette of the exchequer court was appointed a commissioner to investigate. Some 1,500 claims have been submitted. We had a sum placed in the estimates for the year ended March 31, of $10,000. Judge Audette has been proceeding with the work and it was found that the $10,000 was insufficient. Only a comparatively small amount will have to be voted in the supplementary estimates for the year commencing April 1, in order to finish the work which is now well under way and which will be finished during the summer. It is to make provision for this work that this amount is required.
It is unfortunate that east is east and west is west, but the fact is that we are so divided and there is such a vast distance across the country. If hon. members from eastern Canada could visit the west they would have a different conception of that country and would appreciate the glorious part in which the people there have played in building up that section. I appreciate the advice and the wisdom we get from the east and I earnestly hope that I shall be able to prevail on this government to do something to relieve the situation of the sealers, who feel that they have not had just compensation.
Mr. OSCAR-L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, like hon. members who have preceded me in this debate, I also deem it my duty to extend to the hon. Minister of Finance, on behalf of my constituents and myself, our sincerest and deepest sympathy in his bereavement.
At the same time, as the Canadian press informed us this morning of the decease of Mrs. Rhodes, it published the sad news of the death of a former member of parliament, Colonel O. E. Talbot. For about fifteen years he represented, in this house, the county which I have the honour to represent now. Some who are, at present, members of this house, were acquainted with him and will recall his qualities both of heart and soul which had won him the esteem and respect of his colleagues. May I, sir, as representative of the county of Bellechasse extend to Mrs. Talbot and family the expression of my deepest sympathy.

The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
I do not intend, sir, to review the entire budget statement of the hon. Minister of Finance. I will restrict myself to the analysis of one or two statements from the viewpoint which interests the group which I have the privilege of representing in the house. In his budget speech, after having referred to the violent and universal drop in the prices of farm products and the spread between the prices of raw materials and manufactured goods, at page 2269 of Hansard, the hon. Minister of Finance adds:
For this reason the government has consistently pursued a policy designed to stimulate a rise in prices by every sound means.
I wish to examine, sir, in the few minutes at my disposal, the question as to whether the general raising of prices is really the remedy which must be sought under the present circumstances.
I have very great doubts as to the efficiency of the remedy proposed and I do not think that a general enhancing of prices will cure the ills from which agriculture is dying, at present. What has caused the ruin of agriculture is not so much the drop in prices of farm products as the exaggerated spread between the prices at which farmers have to sell and purchase. That is an undeniable truth. Likewise a general rise in prices will in no way affect the situation. In raising the whole structure of prices all the various price levels are proportionally raised, the upper levels as well as the lower, and the same interval is maintained. In other words, the tune is not changed by raising the tone.
It is more a question of restoring the purchasing power of the farmer than promoting artificially a general raise in prices. In fact, agriculture would be prosperous if farm products could be bartered for an equivalent quantity of manufactured goods.
The reasons for the drop in the income, and purchasing power of the farmer are numerous. During the war when European nations were under arms and unable to produce food and other articles of prime necessity, the farmers of America as well as industries considerably increased their production. Once the war was over, European nations resumed their farming activities and reopened their factories, with the result that they ceased relying on America. Production should have then been reduced so as to adjust itself to the demand. The remedy was applied with fairly good results in connection with industries; however it is not such an easy matter to adjust farm products to market demand. That is why the prices of farm products dropped so considerably as to be out of proportion with the
prices of manufactured goods which the farmer is obliged to purchase.
The farmers endeavoured to reduce their expenditure in operating costs, hand labour, buildings, implements, material etc., however, they were unable to reduce their fixed charges, such as liabilities, interest and taxes, which have not decreased but rather increased in the post war period. As their returns decreased and their purchasing power dropped, they ceased being the clients of industries and dealers, and that brought about industrial unemployment in cities. Industry and commerce will not be prosperous so long as the purchasing power of farmers is not restored. This may be done by reducing the spread between the prices of farm products and those of industry.
A few figures taken from official publications of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics will prove that the drop in prices of farm products, during the crisis, was out of proportion with the drop of those of manufactured goods and that the unreasonable spread which resulted is the cause of the depression in agriculture. Incidentally, these figures will perhaps explain how it happens that, while the farmers receive from the sale of the their milk, tobacco, and their animals less than the cost of production, the magnates of the dairy industry, cigarette manufacturers and packers accumulate enormous profits and vote themselves salaries that railway presidents enjoyed before the crisis, as certain investigations have shown.
The figures which I desire to submit establish a comparison between the years 1926 and 1933, the ratio figure 100 refers to 1926. One may see that, from 1926 to 1933, the price of farm products has dropped from 100 to 51, while the price of building materials has dropped from 100 to 78-3; the price of manufactured goods from 100 to 70-3 and the wholesale price, generally, from 100 to 67-2.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):: When the house rose, sir, I was quoting figures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics showing that from 1926 to 1933, the prices of farm products dropped, 49 per cent while in the same period, the price of manufactured goods only dropped 30 per cent, and building material 21 [DOT] 7 per cent.
If we now compare the prices of last year with those of 1926, but especially with the

The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
prices of 1913, the year preceding the war, one will note,-and this will astonish many-that the prices of farm products are lower than they were in 1913, and, moreover, that the prices-of all other products are higher in 1933 -the year which is considered as the worst of the crisis-than they were before the declaration of war. For instance, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the index price of all products being 100 in 1913, was in 1933. quoted at 105. The household equipment and supplies, which were at 100, in 1913, rose to 124-6 in 1933. The building material which was at 100, in 1913, rose to 119-5, in 1933. Textiles which were at 100, in 1913, increased to 119-9, in 1933. Food, beverage and tobacco rated at 100 in 1913, increased to 103-5, in 1933. Farm products passed from the index figure of 100, in 1913, to 80, in 1933, after having been as low as 75-1, in 1932 and at 86-1, in 1931. Apart from farm products, there is but one exception-it may amaze many in the house-it is gasoline which, according to these statistics sold cheaper in 1933 than in 1913. The index price for gasoline being then 100 dropped to 71-6 in 1933.
I shall now continue the comparison which I established before six o'clock, between the prices of 1926 and those of 1033. The price of steers on the hoof, from 1926 to 1933, on the Winnipeg market, fell from 100 to 60-8 while the price of beefsteak cuts from the same steer only fell to 76-4. The same situation exists for sheep: from 1926 to 1933, the price paid to farmers, on the Toronto market, dropped 60 per cent; however the retail price paid by the consumer, only dropped 39-4 per cent. The price paid for milk to the farmer, in Toronto, passes from the index number 100 to 65-5, while the price paid by the consumer did not go below 78-8 from 1926 to 1933. The price paid, in Toronto, to farmers for hogs dropped from 100 to 42-5, in 1926 to 1933, but the price of fresh pork only dropped to 50-6. The price of wool in Montreal, dropped from 100, in 1926, to 46-4, in 1933, however, the price of cloth and textiles only dropped to 63-3, within the same period. Wheat, at Port Arthur, from 1926 to 1933, dropped to 40-8, but the price of bread, in Toronto, only dropped to 91-8 during the same period.
These are sufficient examples to show that as long as such a spread exists between the prices of natural products and those of manufactured goods, and between the prices paid to producers and those paid by the consumer, the economic situation of our nation will not materially improve. It is this unbalanced state which must be adjusted and I repeat

that this will not be accomplished by a general raising of prices which will maintain the same disparity and spread between prices; this result will only be obtained by the decrease of this spread between the prices of natural products and those of manufactured goods, between the prices paid to producers and those paid by the consumers.
I have been informed by my constituents that the average earnings of the eastern farmer of Canada is not over 8400 per year. In most cases it is far from reaching this amount. Therefore, no one can afford to be ill among farmers, because he has not the means to pay for the doctor's services. Still less can he quarrel because he would be unable to pay a lawyer's fees. He cannot afford to give his children a higher education than the one received in the primary rural school. He can neither improve his buildings, nor replace his farm implements which fall to pieces, nor can he improve his land or live stock. As you may judge the farmer cannot make any outlay, thus trade and industry suffer from it.
What is the remedy? I hear hon. members opposite state: the Natural Products Marketing Board.
I admit that I have not much faith in this intricate and impracticable measure. I have neither faith in an army of budgetivorous officials saddled on our finances in order to tell farmers what to do, force them to take out government licences, make out reports on the work performed on the farm and dispose of their products. I think the farmers are able to look after their own business better than the government can and with much less waste, disturbance and injustice. If this measure is such an excellent one, if the salvation of agriculture depends on this bill introduced with the flurry of drums and trumpets why did not the government introduce it three years ago?


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Hear,
hear 1


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Why does the government introduce it only after being in office three years, and just on the eve of an appeal to the people?
When speaking, just now, on the raising of prices on articles which the farmers must purchase, I forgot to quote the prices showing the increase on farm machines. I have just found on my desk a schedule establishing a comparison between the prices of certain farming machines in 1913 and in 1933. I think it would be useful to place these price comparison on Hansard.

2S67
The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
An ordinary plough sold $14.75, in January, 1913, and $20.35 in January, 1933; a machine known among our people as a "cultivator" a kind of harrow but more complicated than the ordinary disc harrow, sold in January, 1913, $81.50, and in January, 1933, $140; an ordinary rake sold $31, in 1913, and in 1933, $49.25; a 6 ft. harrow sold at $148, in 1913, and $217.75 in February, 1933; a mowing-machine 4i ft. by 6 ft. $53, in January, 1913, and $86.50 in February, 1933; an ordinary harrow, $16. in 1913 and $25.38 in February, 1933; the disc-harrow sold at $26, in 1913 and $49.75 in February, 1933; wagons $76.25, in 1913, and $144.25 in 1933. The prices which I have just quoted are the current prices in Ontario, however, these prices apply to all provinces and show that while the price of farm products dropped 20 per cent in 1913 to 1933, that of farm machinery during the same period, increased twofold.
I shall now refer to the marketing or state monopoly, if you prefer this term, of farm products. We are informed that the measure is similar to the one enacted a few years ago in Great Britain, and also somewhat similar to the new scheme of President Roosevelt, in the United States. The examples of leading nations are not always good to follow, in Canada. Conditions in Great Britain and the United States are not similar to ours. Great Britain imports natural products and exports manufactured goods in large quantities. We do the opposite; for instance 80 per cent of o\ir wheat is exported. The United States with an enormous population of 125,000,000 souls, and whose production, climate and requirements are most diversified, can practically support themselves. Conditions are different in Canada with a population of 10 to 11 million people, spread along a narrow strip of land from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. Therefore instead of concentrating agriculture under a board, instead of the state monopolizing our markets of farm products and organizing the dumping of our natural products, we should endeavour to increase our markets abroad, lower the tariff barriers, improve foreign trade relations and conclude reciprocal agreements and trade treaties with countries which wish to trade with us.
A Quebec newspaper "l'Bvenement" quoted on the subject Mr. Cordell Hull, secretary of commerce in the United States:
As minister of commerce in the United States, Mr. Hull sees but one way to restore the general activities of the American nation: reconquer foreign markets, partly lost through
an exaggerated policy of high protection. All authors who deal with this subject agree that as soon as tariff protection has fulfilled its object-the establishment and growth of national industries-wisdom requires that tariff duties be reduced, so as to prevent the fleecing of consumers and retaliation by foreign countries.
This feeling has become so wide spread in the United States that, recently, Mr. Ogden Mills, secretary of the treasury, in the ultraprotectionist administration of Mr. Hoover, stated practically the same thing:
We shall have to abandon our present policy of isolation and of intense nationalism, and, to a certain degree, amend our recent tariff policy. This opinion coming from an orthodox republican, may seem strange. However, I have never understood that, intelligently applied, a policy of sound protection, based on the spread existing between the cost of production here and abroad, should necessitate the erection of impassable tariff barriers, the annihilation of our trade with the rest of the world and the sacrifice of the efficient farmer to industrial inefficiency.
These are the views of this gentleman whom I might designate as a converted republican who thinks that the United States have had enough of this exaggerated high protection policy.
Instead of assuming the part of farmer, dealer, industrialist and undertaking to regulate the markets and openings for our natural products, the government should endeavour to find markets abroad for the exportable surplus of our products and thus decrease the cost of articles farmers have to purchase. That is the greatest service which the government could render to the farming class.
It is not a matter of increasing all prices, as a whole, but one of reducing the spread between prices. It is also a question of establishing a -more equitable proportion between the prices of necessaries bought by farmers and the prices at which they sell their products. To attain that purpose the government must use good common sense as regards their .tariff policy, it is unnecessary to monopolize production and the marketing of our natural products.
In the national field of activities, the government could equally help agriculture without having recourse to red tape and annoying paternalism with which we have been entertained in the house for the last two weeks. Why does not the government endeavour to establish better relations between the farmers and those who handle their products, dealers and distributors of national products, in order that, according to the expression in use, a greater proportion of the consumer's dollar

The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
finds its way into the pocket of the producer? After all, those who produce and distribute the natural products are bound by common interests and it is to their advantage to agree among themselves; and such an agreement would be possible if it were promoted and helped by the higher authorities, the State. The government, instead of substituting itself for them, could endeavour to promote a better co-operation among them and bring back to their social sense of justice and the realization of the higher interests of the nation those who might be inclined to fleece the people.
In other words, sir, before substituting itself to the farmer, the industrialist and the dealer, the government should enable these various groups of society to devise for themselves remedies for the ills from which they suffer. I found this idea in a work by Sir Alfred Salter, often quoted in the house as an economist of high standing. Sir Alfred Salter precisely states that governments should allow the initiative to the various groups stated above and substitute itself in the least possible measure to individuals in the various fields of activity. The following is what Sir Alfred Salter states. I regret that I have not the French translation, I therefore will quote the English text:
If we are to have a planned and directed system which is compatible with both political and economic freedom, the planning and control cannot be left to government alone. . . . It is inside the system itself that we must find those who will, in the main, plan and control- and they must do so through their own institutions. Those who occupy directing positions in every sphere must regard themselves as having not a single but a double responsibility. First, they must conduct their own business efficiently. Second they must construct, in cooperation with others engaged in similar activities, a framework of general policy and regulation w-hich will prevent the action of the individual in business from reacting destructively upon others or upon the general public interest.
The government should play the part of moderator, arbitrator and regulator instead of seeking to monopolize the commerce of natural products. The government could give us with that end in view a commercial code for instance, which does not yet exist in Canada as it exists in a great number of countries. If a commercial code is necessary to other nations, it should be useful and advantageous to Canada. With a commercial code regulating the trade relations between the various groups of society, we could have courts of commerce, as in other countries, to enforce this code and settle the difficulties which might, arise between people who are engaged in commerce and industry.

Why would the government not foster first the development of private enterprise and collective action among farmers, instead of telling them what to sow, obliging -them to forward annual reports, restricting them in their production and undertaking to remunerate certain people for destroying part of their products?
Purchasing and marketing co-operative societies would -no doubt help farmers to obtain cheaper what they require and receive better prices for the marketing of their products. Loan co-operative societies by uniting the borrowing power of classes or groups of producers, would -promote the establishing of an intermediate credit which is lacking and yet necessary so as to help the farmers to bring their crops to maturity and to raise and fatten their live stock.
I have been informed -that a too narrow and shabby interpretation of section 88 of the Bank Act prevented the banks granting to farmers this intermediate credit, namely, the credit which is intermediate between the ordinary commercial one and the -long term credit. Heretofore banks have always refused farmers this intermediate credit.
I stated just now that it is not always wise to follow the example of the United States; however, I think that the government would be well advised to study the intermediate credit system inaugurated by the Roosevelt administration.
The system is based on the co-operation of debtors and also on the institution of land banks. The system is an excellent one and is worth looking into. The government might establish an institution, perhaps, not exactly the same but on similar lines, which would permit farmers, by pooling their borrowing power and resorting to cooperation, to obtain this intermediate credit which has hitherto been lacking to Canada.
As to long term credit, the government could also be of some service to the farmer by reducing the rate of interest on loans granted by the Canadian farm loan commission. At present the rate of interest charged to farmers is 6J per cent. It is true that the Quebec provincial government contributes one per cent of this rate of interest, so that in Quebec the farmer only actually pays, thanks to the cooperation of the provincial government, 5\ per cent interest. It is, however, a fact that the dominion government or rather the Canadian farm loan commission receives 6J per cent interest on loans granted to farmers. The Minister of Finance takes pride, and deservingly, in having sue-

The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
ceeded in raising his last loan at 4J per cent interest. If the Canadian government can borrow this money at 4i per cent, it should grant loans to farmers at the same rate of interest and bear, as a service to the public, the cost and risks which fall upon the farm loan commission, instead of passing it on to the borrowers. I read in the Journal this morning that Nova Scotia, one of the smallest provinces of Canada, but probably one of the best administered, especially since the change of government, succeeded in negotiating a loan, these last days, at per cent interest.
If I have time, sir, I shall refer briefly to another part of the budget, the statement relating to the decrease of the burden of liabilities and interest which fall upon the farmers. At page 2270, the. Minister of Finance states:
I have referred to the steps which have been taken to promote a lowering of interest rates. Interest is one of the rigid factors in our price structure and the burden of fixed charges caused by the extravagant borrowing of the war and post-war years, aggravated enormously as it has been by the fall in prices, and for public bodies also by the necessarily large expenditures for unemployment relief during the depression, has been too far frequently discussed in this house to need elaboration here. For certain individual debtors the burden has become unbearable and the government pi'O-poses to bring down at an early stage legislation designed to provide machinery whereby farmers who find themselves unable to pay the fixed charges on their outstanding debts will be able by an expeditious and inexpensive process to work out compromises with their creditors and to obtain new working capital. The guiding principle of this legislation will be to secure for the farmer a simplified debt structure reduced in size to a point where the carrying charges will be within the capacity of the farm enterprise to pay.
A little further at page 2271 the Minister adds:
I have already discussed the question of raising the price level which automatically serves to reduce the real burden of debt. A second factor which works both directly and indirectly is the gradual lowering of interest rates.
The minister does not state how this lowering in the interest rates will take place and how the debtors will transact with the creditors. He simply states that a bill will be introduced this session. Will the government purchase, discount or guarantee the mortgages of farmers? Will they extend the maturity of notes and take over the interests at the reduced rates? Will they encourage the transfer of these mortgages to the farm loan commission and allow the latter to grant to farmers a wider margin of credit and on easier terms? We do not know and there can only be conjectures.
However, I trust that, although favouring the reduction of the liabilities of farmers- on which we all agree-the government will not attempt to force the creditors to bear a loss either of capital or interest. This procedure would not remedy the evil. In fact it would only mean robbing Peter to pay Paul, despoiling one class of people for the benefit of another and would not be of a nature 1" increase much the general welfare of the nation. We have heard the Prime Minister referring to the sacredness of contracts in connection with the country's debts; the mortgage contract which the farmer signs with his neighbours is as sacred as the contract the government signs in connection with loans. I wish to point out to the Minister of Finance another angle of the question. In my province, it often happens, when farmers become old they transfer their property to one of 'their sons in consideration of a life annuity or they sell it to a neighbour who pays him the interest on the sale price, payable at fixed periods. Often our retired farmer has nothing else but this annuity or interest to live upon for the remainder of his days. The Minister of Finance would cause much harm to these people were he to reduce this annuity. However, I am certain that he does not intend to do so, and I equally feel sure he will reduce the burden of liabilities which weigh upon farmers, it is an urgent and necessary step, but in no way must it affect the rights of anyone.
In closing my remarks, sir, may I suggest to the hon. Minister of Finance that, before making too radical a change in our economic and financial system, he should take the advice of those who, in the house or cabinet, represent the views of the older settlers among Canadians, namely, the descendants of pioneers who founded this country and who have fought for the liberties we enjoy to-day. One, perhaps, too readily listens to radical suggestion-coming from persons recently settled, who know nothing of our history and traditions.
I therefore trust, sir, that before listening to the requests, suggestions and unreasonable demands of Canadians who have more recently settled here, the hon. Minister of Finance will inquire as to the feelings and views of those who, in the house represent the older Canadians.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible at this time for one to rise to say a word about the budget without feeling the shadow of the great tragedy which came into the home and the private life of the hon. gentleman (Mr. COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
Rhodes) who but a few days ago stood in his place in this House of Commons and delivered the budget speech. It is one of those situations which cause a man to feel how utterly impotent he is to say any word which might carry consolation to the heart and soul of the man who suffers. We can with confidence say only this, that he himself knows as well as any' other hon. member in this house the source from which genuine consolation can come. We may however extend to him our very deepest sympathy, and speaking for myself and for hon. members around me I should like so to do.
In the manner of its presentation and in the material it furnished to hon. members and to the country the budget has given splendid evidence of the tasks this government has undertaken and the problems it has been meeting during the last four years. It gives equally splendid evidence of the care with which the tasks have been undertaken. Having all the circumstances in mind, the country and the house have reason to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) and the government upon the presentation they were able to make.
I wish very briefly to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), to whom for the time being the responsibility has been given of acting in the capacity of official opposition critic. The amendment moved by the hon. member is quoted at page 2445 of Hansard as follows:-
This house regrets that the proposals of the Minister of Finance give no indication of the intention of the government to abandon the policies of economic nationalism which have proved so disastrous to Canada's trade.
It is of the opinion that the immediate substitution therefor of policies which wdll promote export trade throughout the worUl is essential to any permanent improvement of conditions in Canada, and to the successful application of other policies respecting credit and employment designed to effect this end.
As one reads and ponders these words I am sure he must reach the conclusion that the hon. member missed his calling. As a matter of fact he has lived too late; he should have been engaged in European diplomacy during the middle and last parts of the nineteenth century, a time when to clothe one's thoughts in words which could not be understood was to reach the highest attainment in that exalted profession. It would be interesting to have the hon. member analyze and show just what is meant by the last paragraph of that resolution. For my part I do not intend to attempt to do it, but I wish to refer to the first paragraph in which

he intimates that a policy of economic nationalism is being followed by this government.
I shall not quote my hon. friend verbatim, because my time is not unlimited like his was; but he indicated that the policies of this government since 1930 had brought about conditions throughout the .world that made it difficult for nations to sell goods to other nations-a policy of economic nationalism as illustrated by national tariffs. I cannot help wondering what the hon. gentleman and his friends were doing from 1921 to 1930, because if ever there was a period in this world's history when economic nationalism was emphasized, that was the period. The countries to which we sold goods had every one of them raised tariff barriers from fifty to five hundred per cent against Canadian goods, and in my search of the records I cannot find a single instance in which anything was done by the government of which my hon. friend was a member to alleviate the conditions or break down those barriers, particularly against the natural products of this country.
My hon. friend also referred to the trade agreements between Canada and other parts of the British Empire, and particularly between Canada and the United Kingdom. As my hon. friend did in relation to this budget, on October 20, 1932, he moved a sweeping resolution condemning every phase of the trade agreement entered into between Canada and the United Kingdom, and specifically mentioned two products, apples and lumber, to which I shall refer a little later. The apple growers in the Annapolis valley in Nova Scotia, from which province my hon. friend comes, were not going to profit in the slightest degree from this trade agreement, nor were the lumbermen in the maritime provinces going to profit in the slightest degree; as a matter of fact, no lumber producer anywhere in Canada was going to profit from it, according to my hon. friend, who levelled his criticism particularly against article 21 of the trade agreement, by which the government of the United Kingdom undertook to implement the preferences entered into in the agreement in the event of any other country attempting by government action to create what might be called illegitimate competition, or state-aid dumping, if you will. That part of the agreement came in for very special denunciation by my hon. friend. Speaking on the budget again this year he referred particularly to one or two of these commodities, especially lumber.
Let me point out what has happened as the direct result of the trade agreements in the

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
case of three products only. The list is too long and the range too wide for me to attempt in the time at my disposal to cover all the articles, and I think these three will suffice, two of them being commodities to which my hon. friend particularly referred.
I take first apples. For the year ended March 31, 1932, we exported to the United Kingdom 1,422,603 barrels of apples valued at S5,577,339, and for the year ending March 31, 1934, 3,057,897 barrels valued at $11,368,385. That represented an increase of more than one hundred per cent in both volume and value. Yet that was one of the products which my hon. friend said could not profit in the slightest degree under the trade agreements.
I take another product of particular importance to Ontario, Quebec and the middle west-bacon and ham. For the year ended March 31, 1932, we exported to the United Kingdom 150,276 hundredweight valued at $1,751,231, and for the year ending March 31, 1934,	945,597 hundredweight valued at
812,366.426. representing an increase in volume of about six hundred per cent, and an increase in value of over seven hundred per cent. Yet my hon. friend and those around him stand up in this house and condemn the trade agreements between Canada and the United Kingdom and other parts of the empire, day in and day out, both in this house and out of it.
I come now to lumber. I have some personal knowledge of the lumber industry. I took some humble part in the efforts to bring about the arrangements by which the door into the United Kingdom market was opened to Canadian lumber products. My hon. friend stated and restated that the lumberman in the maritime provinces could not benefit from the agreements in relation to lumber. I do not know whether he is acquainted with what is going on in the maritime provinces, but I say to him that if he would consult the present premier of Nova Scotia, the premier of New Brunswick or the minister of lands and forests of either province, he would then be in a position to tell me that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are not able to fill the demands for lumber for export to the United Kingdom. Practically every available board and plank of sawn lumber in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the eastern part of Quebec was shipped out during the season of 1933. Firm contracts were entered into by exporters in Canada and importers in the United Kingdom to such an extent that it is extremely doubtful if these provinces will be able to meet the demand in 1934.
In the year ended March 31, 1932, Canada exported to the United Kingdom 117,051,000 feet of sawn lumber, valued at $3,252,621. By Marcfh 31, 1934, the first full year after the agreements had been in effect, the exports of sawn lumber amounted to 595,647,000 feet valued at $10,302,495. There was an increase of just five hundred per cent during the first year the trade agreements were in operation, and yet my hon. friend stands up in this house in April, 1934, and says that these trade agreements are of no value to the Canadian lumberman, the man who works in the lumbering industry, the farmer who produces bacon hogs or the man in Nova Scotia, Ontario or British Columbia who cultivates an apple crop.
I should like to direct the attention of the house to the manner in which increased exports of lumber affect the economic life of this country. In the brief presented by the Canadian lumber industry, in connection with which the lumber producers in every province in Canada were concerned, this statement is made-


Mr. MUNN:: Would the hon. member state whether the figures he gave were those for the whole of Canada, or just for Quebec?


George Brecken Nicholson: They were for the whole dominion. Let me repeat that during the first year the trade agreements were in operation, our exports of lumber to the United Kingdom increased to 595,000,000 feet. The following statement was made in the brief:
The production of 1,000 million board feet of lumber furnishes direct employment to between 30,000 and 35,000 men per annum, and in addition the industry purchases, on a general average, supplies, equipment, et cetera, as set out in section 5 of the attached memoranda, to an amount equal to the total of its payrolls or the equivalent of the wage bill for an additional 30,000 to 35,000 men.
The marketing of 1,000 million feet of lumber furnishes traffic to Canadian railroads amounting to between 55,000 and 60,000 carloads, meaning a substantial increase in the employment provided for railroad men.
To summarize: the direct effect of the maintenance of an employed population in Canada for each 1,000 million board feet of lumber produced means wages to not less than 60,000 u>
65,000 men.
There is no industry in Canada which means so much to the employment of labour and the circulation of money as the forest products industry. If any hon. member desires them, additional figures are available in this brief, but I shall not tire the house by reading them. However, I should like to give the figures in connection with our foreign trade. In 1931 the forest products industry had the second largest volume of

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
export trade in money value, it being $184,641,000 as against $209,000,000 for agriculture and vegetable products combined. In 1931 the favourable balance of trade in the forest products industry was $163,261,000. I think this is important in the light of the efforts being made to misrepresent, belittle, and if possible destroy the effect and influence which these trade agreements have had upon the forest products industry, particularly the sawn lumber industry.
The aim and effort of the economic committees of the governments of the lumber and timber producing provinces-in their discussions with the British representatives they made it quite clear-was to have the exports of sawn lumber from Canada to the United Kingdom brought up to a thousand million feet. There have been times in the history of Canada when these exports amounted to fifteen hundred million feet, but it was felt that if our exports could be brought up to a thousand million feet, the industry would be so stimulated that it would be again in a position to play a very important part in the industrial life of this country. Certain hon. gentlemen and certain sections of the press consistently belittle these trade agreements and by means of insidious propaganda endeavour to create a feeling which would lead the British importers to believe that we are not playing fair with the British people. In a moment I shall refer to another aspect of this inter-empire trade which I think deserves some attention. In the meantime, I will point out certain indications of the influence which these trade agreements have. I ask the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan), who is constantly berating the government for neglecting the part of the province from which he comes, northern Ontario, to note this. As a result of these trade agreements there is to-day a vessel finding her way up the St. Lawrence river, through the St. Lawrence canals, and into the great lakes to load lumber for Liverpool at the port of Little Current. This means the opening up of northern Ontario and the northwestern part of Quebec and provides an opportunity for stimulation of the lumber trade which it is impossible to exaggerate. This is not the only one, as others will follow during the season. This is something which has never happened before and which could not have happened but for these trade agreements.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, speaking on this matter, says: You must buy if you want to sell. That is perhaps true, but on the other hand, you must sell if you are

going to buy and keep at it very long. The first thing we have to think of is selling something. The Canadian lumberman, the Canadian pulp and paper manufacturer and the Canadian wheat farmer cannot buy very much if they cannot sell their products.
Turning for a moment to the things which we might purchase from the United Kingdom: I have heard it stated so many times that I have become sick of listening to it-I have seen it stated in sections of the Canadian press which is distinctly anti-British Empire-that we in Canada are putting it over on the British Empire in that we are not purchasing the goods we should and that we made no efforts to open up avenues of trade during the conference at Ottawa by which the exporters of the United Kingdom could get their quid pro quo, as the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth stated. Well, in this document which was designed, whether it did or not, to play some small part in the working out of these trade agreements there are five and a half closely typewritten pages setting out goods which the Canadian lumber industry as an industry buys, and specifically listing hundreds of articles purchased by the Canadian lumber trade in the woods and saw milling operations and in the pulp mills as well, goods which are imported into this country and which the British manufacturers themselves produce. There is something to be said for the necessity of the British manufacturer selling his goods to the Canadian purchaser. The Canadian lumbermen have to sell their goods to British importers and it is necessary that the goods be manufactured to suit the particular requirements of the British trade, a different standard of manufacture entirely from that prevailing in Canada or in the United States, our alternative market to some degree.
Now the question I ask is this. Why should it not be the business of the British trade commission right here in Canada to ascertain what these goods are and why it is that the British manufacturers are not selling them in this country? Why should the British steel manufacturers, in Sheffield or in any other part of England, not sell to the Canadian saw manufacturers steel plates out of which the Canadian saw manufacturers make saws? That is one item that comes to my mind, but there are hundreds of them, and more particularly in the type of logging canned on in the lumber industry in British Columbia. I grant at once that I am not so familiar with the industry in British Columbia as I am with it in eastern Canada, but I do know from a consultation we had

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
during the working up of the brief that there is a vast variety of mechanical appliances imported by British Columbia lumbermen, not manufactured in Canada but in the United Kingdom, though, strange to say, imported from foreign countries. I submit that first for the consideration of the Department of Trade and Commerce in this country and secondly for the British trade commission itself.
I do not want to take up too much time with regard to an industry with which I am personally connected, although I will repeat that there is no industry, certainly none in Ontario or Quebec, that can play so important a part in bringing this country back to normal conditions and providing profitable employment for Canadian workmen, and to some extent markets for the produce of the farm, as the lumber industry.
I wish now to refer for a few minutes to the devastating attacks made upon the government in relation to the tax on gold mines, and in order that I may make myself perfectly clear in this regard I may say that I come from a section of Canada which has as vital an interest and concern in gold mining as any other part of the dominion, although I submit without question that every part of Canada should be interested in the subject. During this period of depression gold mining has been of the greatest value to the country and will continue to be as time goes on, because in reality we have just begun to scratch the surface.
The policy which this country should follow with regard to gold mines-and I refer particularly to the position taken by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth)-is this, that there should not be left in the ground in any mine a single ton of rock, which can be taken out and from which gold can be extracted and sold at the world price of gold. We cannot as a nation afford the economic waste involved in any policy that will force any mine to leave so called low grade ore in the ground. But it does not follow from that that mines producing enormous wealth, mines that have been successful, should not be taxed. The people operating the mines do not expect it. I have received many letters since the discussion took place with regard to this tax, and I am of the opinion that the matter would have been worked out sooner than it has been if it had not been for the unwise and prejudicial statements that appeared in certain sections of the press with regard to what the government was trying to do. The Minister of Finance has been criticized because he did not bring down a perfect scheme of taxation
of gold mines. I challenge any member to point to a single new tax that any minister of finance has ever brought down that did not meet with criticism and was not subject to subsequent revision. It is necessary; it is natural. I submit that it was impossible for the Minister of Finance to disclose his plans to experts in the mining industry, and all that sort of thing, and as it finally works out it is the profits of the mines that are able to pay these taxes that are being imposed. Presidents of mining companies, and people interested in large mining companies, are ready to say to-day and have said that the provisions now made by the Minister of Finance are for the time being absolutely fair.
I am inclined to think that this subject having been brought to light in the manner in which it has is probably a good thing for the country and for the mining industry because it makes it possible for those who are interested in it and who perhaps know something about it to put before the public what the actual situation is. When you speak to men who are looking only at the returns from a few large mines they always refer to Lake Shore and Harry Oakes and Hollinger and Noah Timmins and these men. They lose sight altogether of the weeks and months and years that these men tramped the trails of northern Ontario in the effort to find these mines. And what they lose sight of to a greater degree is the fact that, as my hon. friend from North Timiskaming (Mr. Brad-ette) said to-day, for every dollar that has so far been taken out of the claims in this country a dollar and a half or two dollars has gone into the ground in the effort to find gold. I cannot give a better illustration than to read something that appeared in day before yesterday's issue of Saturday Night, in reference to one gold mine in northern Ontario:
Kirkland Lake has never paid a dividend, although having carried work to 5,500 feet in depth. This is pointed to in mining circles as evidence of the great courage displayed by those who finance mining enterprises, and as an illustration of why the shareholders of mining companies should not be taxed unduly at such times as they have the good fortune to back a winner. It is twenty years since the representative of Saturday Night first went over the McKane claims, then the nucleus of the Kirkland Lake mine-two decades of patient waiting by a courageous band of shareholders.
And yet those men under competent engineers, backed by the advice of the best geologists we have in this country-and we have some of the best in the world-aire going down, down and down, spending their own
The Budget-Mr. Nicholson

money, supported by their conviction that ultimately they will get gold in substantial, paying values.
Just one further illustration, because my time is limited. I have watched for four consecutive years the development of a gold area or what it is hoped will be a gold area. In 1928 a group of men, ready to venture all the money they themselves had in the world and their own time as well, started out on a prospecting campaign; they staked many claims and spent a tremendous amount of money, but in 1930 their prospectors came across a field that looked so promising that they staked some claims and began to work. For four long years not only that group but another group of men, with very substantial sums of money put into the enterprise by Canadian investors who were willing to stake claims, first, in the hope of getting some gold for themselves and, second, in their anxiety to develop this country, worked first on the surface, then by diamond drilling and later by sinking shafts. One of those properties is to-day so far developed that if you go down five hundred feet in shaft number one, travel through all the underground workings walking as rapidly as you can, and come out at shaft number two, 1,850 feet away, on the surface, it will take you four hours to do the walking. Yet, if you asked them to-day they would say that they do not know so far whether they have a mine, but to back up their efforts they have the conviction that something worth [DOT]while will ultimately be found. That is just a single illustration of what is taking place over all this great country.
May I repeat that this gold tax as ultimately placed is fair and equitable and is felt so to be by those in the best position to know; yet the general policy of this country should be to do everything possible to encourage and not to discourage new ventures in gold mining, because it will ultimately become the greatest asset this country has.
Just a word in conclusion. Beginning with the middle of last year, a consistent, constant, gradual improvement in business has been, generally speaking, going on across Canada. More men are being employed; more goods are moving; railway traffic is increasing and everything indicates a general rise, the best kind of rise that we can have. I am not for a moment going to suggest that we are by any means out of the woods; we have ahead of us difficulties, external and internal. My opinion is that the greatest shadow that overhangs the continued improvement of business in this country comes

from outside the dominion altogether, from what may happen in other countries. But we still have internal problems, the first and greatest of which is perhaps our debts, debts of every character, personal, corporate, municipal, provincial and federal, debts created first during the war period and then in the inflationary period following the war. By care, by sound thinking, we can get out of these debt difficulties. We cannot get out of them by the application of any patent formula. I am in the timber business; I have been taking out pulpwood this very year to manufacture paper, but you cannot get out of the difficulty by setting paper mills at work making paper and printing presses to print money on that paper; that is utterly impossible. It can be done only by hard work and the application of sound business principles. Regardless of what anybody else may say, that is my conviction. You might as well expect that a man could take his whole life's savings, whatever they might 'be, his house, clothes and everything else 'he has and make a bonfire of them and then feel he was going to be as materially well off as before, as to expect that this world can get away from the destruction of the period from 1914 to 1918 and the inflationary gambling period from 1921 to 1930 without having to work hard in order to climb the hill. What we require in Canada is patience, cooperation, in order to do that, and if we exercise those traits, we shall do it.
Another important problem and one that must give serious minded mem everywhere food for thought is that of our great' central west. The three prairie provinces-I am speaking as an outsider looking in but as one who has traversed them more than once- built up their material and social life principally around one great product, wheat. In the last five years the aspect of the wheat marketing possibilities has completely changed. Wheat is being grown in almost every country in the temperate zone, and European countries, where our great market formerly was, have in many cases practically closed their doors against us and are growing their own wheat. We cannot overcome that situation until they are ready to open these doors. Following that, perhaps the greatest difficulty is the menace of drought and insects in large parts of western Canada. For four years in succession a large section of that great area has been overtaken by drought. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth will blame the government for that, and maybe it is responsible; perhaps through the omnipotence with which it is credited, it could have overcome that but did not. This

The Budget-Mr. Hurtubise
year, if reports are correct, there is just as great a menace in the insect pests. My final word is this, that the condition of the central western provinces is a challenge to every right thinking man in this country. Some solution for these problems must be worked out, and they must. be worked out not by factious quarrelling as to methods and particular aspects of the matter but by cooperative effort on the part of all the Canadian people. If we apply ourselves in that way we shall ultimately succeed, overcome our difficulties and make Canada what we hope and always have hoped its destiny should be.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to join the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) in offering my heartfelt sympathy to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) in his great bereavement.
It is not my intention to deal at length with the financial situation at present under discussion. Others have already brought forth many arguments which are of a constructive nature but which will be considered by some to be of a destructive nature. I believe in frank discussion where everyone can express his opinion, because something good and practical always comes out of it. It is from this point of view that I appreciate the privilege of saying a few words with regard to some matters that I have particularly at heart.
First, I want to join the hon. member who preceded me in congratulating the Minister of Finance on the noble effort he has made to frame a balanced budget and to convince the Canadian people that the depression is a thing of the past. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister of Finance; I know he has been working under great difficulties, but in my humble opinion he never will be able to balance his budget by only reducing his expenditures and imposing new taxes. Our national debt, including federal, provincial and municipal debts, has reached such a height that we cannot expect to meet our obligations and reduce our debts unless we adopt some radical means. The figures in regard to our national debt are as follows:
1930		 $2,177,763,959
1931		 2,261,611,937
1932		 2,375.346,172
1933		 2.599,089,000
1934		 2,789,152,000
In four years, therefore, we had an increase in our national debt of $596,000,000, and the debts of the provincial governments have increased in proportion. The gross debenture 74726-1S2
debt of municipalities of over 4.200, by provinces, as of December 31, 1931, was as follows:
Alberta	$	78,679,570
British Columbia	 129,913,890
Manitoba	 116,864,937
Ontario	 499,002,074
Nova Scotia	 31,386,025
New Brunswick	 21,477,521
Prince Edward Island.. ..	1,863,211
Quebec	 362,132,334
Saskatchewan	 47,488,595

Other liabilities, consisting of temporary loans, overdrafts on banks, accounts payable and so on, amount to $295,223,318. Interest payments on municipal bonded debts total about $63,000,000. While the figures for public debt can be obtained with approximate completeness, those having to do with private indebtedness can cover the field only partially. Out of a total of 654,297 owned and partly owned farms in the dominion, 244,201 were mortgaged to the extent of $677,564,100, and it should be pointed out that this figure refers only to the debt secured by mortgage or an equivalent legal instrument, on lands and buildings, and these figures include owned farms. It is estimated that the urban mortgages held by corporate lenders amount to about $765,000,000. Some estimate the general national debt at ten billion dollars, while others place it at twelve billion dollars.
This is a very discouraging situation, and I regret to be obliged to present such a dismal picture of conditions, but are we to sit content and listen to optimistic speeches while we refuse to heed the alarms that are being sounded to show that we are heading for disaster? In the last few years we have been advised by great authorities in economics that unless some radical change is made our social and economic system is doomed. We are crushed by debts, and just here I should like to quote a humorous article published two years ago which expresses very well the situation in which the people find themselves to-day. A man was asked to make a payment on his note, and here is his reply:
In reply to_ your recent requests to send you a cheque, I wish to inform you that the present shattered condition of my bank account makes it impossible for me to take your requests seriously.
My present financial condition is due to the effect of dominion laws, provincial laws, municipal laws, country laws, corporation laws, liquor laws, traffic laws, by-laws, brother-inlaws, sister-in-laws, mother-in-laws and outlaws, all of which have been foisted' upon an unsuspecting public.

The Budget-Mr. Hurtubise

Through these laws I am compelled to pay a business tax, sales tax, amusement tax, gas tax, school tax, water tax, excess tax, auto tax, hydro tax and syn-tax.
In addition to these irritating taxes I am forced by the strong arm of the law to get a permit for this thing and a permit for that thing. I am required to get a business licence, a city licence, a provincial licence, a sign licence, a dog licence, a motor licence, a radio licence, a liquor licence-not to mention my marriage licence.
I am also requested and required to contribute to every society and organization which the inventive genius of man is capable of bringing into life.
For my own safety, I am required to carry life insurance, liability insurance, fire insurance, compensation insurance, accident insurance, collision insurance, rain insurance, hail insurance and business insurance.
The government has now so governed my business that it is no easy matter for me to find out whq owns it. I am inspected, expected, introspected, suspected, disrespected, examined, reexamined, informed, required, summoned, fined, commanded and compelled, and simply because I refused to donate to each and all, and to go out and beg or borrow or steal money to give away, I am cussed, discussed, boycotted, talked to, talked about, lied to, lied about, held up, held down and robbed until I am nearly ruined.
This is a picture of the Canadian taxpayer to-day, and I do not know how long he will last. I have listened to three budget speeches; each time I was led to expect that at least we would balance our budget, but at the end of each fiscal year we had to face increasing deficits. I do not believe we will ever succeed in paying our debts so long as we have to borrow money to pay interest. We are in a queer situation; we all want prosperity, yet we have nothing but poverty; we want peace, but we have unrest. Since 1930 all kinds of palliatives have been tried in an attempt to cure the situation. All conceivable powers were given the government to cope with the difficulties confronting the country, but what did the people get under the unemployment relief acts in comparison with what they were promised so emphatically in 1930? They were given temporary relief and palliatives which to date have cost this country $112,000,000. We were all in favour of some kind of relief, and if at any session we opposed the relief act it was because the blank cheque was contrary to the principle of responsible government and to the control of parliament over legislation and expenditures. For the same reason we have opposed other legislations. In 1931 a program of public works was begun, but in 1932 and 1933 that program was replaced by a system of direct relief or dole which has been the curse of the country, even to the Tory party. Then, in 1934, on the eve of an election, we

are advised that a great construction program is to be started. We are told to cany on in the expectation that general conditions will improve and that matters will in time adjust themselves. In the meantime, however, the great mass of unemployed, the small town proprietors and the farmers are in a sad predicament. Many of them are being dispossessed. All have been waiting for the solution promised by the government and a great many are now so utterly discouraged that they do not care what the outcome may be. The panaceas advocated and adopted have proved to be altogether inadequate. Protection and high tariff are now repudiated by all economists, bankers and even by prominent Tory politicians. The intraempire trade is far from bringing the results which were expected. On the eve of an election the government has instituted a committee to investigate price spreads and mass buying. I would not be surprised if it were followed by the same effects which have followed other investigations. The Canadian people are anxiously watching these dillydallying operations and they are asking themselves if a remedy is going to be offered for the situation which is dragging us down to disaster. We must realize we are passing through a period of evolution. There are signs everywhere that the structure of national and international finance has permanently broken down and cannot be reconstructed along old lines. The government is doing little or nothing to cope with that situation.
Science and mechanization have made such progress that the whole economic system has been thrown out of balance. Agriculture, which has always been the basic fabric of our economic welfare, which has kept our capital active and has provided employment for the greater part of our population, has given place to science and to machinery. The use of machinery has displaced human labour and brought about the centralization of capital followed by unemployment and the freezing up of capital. On the other hand our assets have not diminished; they are the same as they were. Our means of production have increased and, as has been said, we are starving in the midst of plenty.
I believe the time has come when the government should consider drastic legislation for the reduction of our capital obligations and for the alleviation of the mortgage burden carried by the farmers and labourers who are making every effort to save their homes. Under the policies followed by the present government we will have some day to face one of three things: First, a substantial reduction in or

The Budget-Mr. Hurtubise
total suspension of all interest and compound interest on our capital debt, whether we like it or not; second,-and this is the course which most of us fear-the reduction or cancellation of part of certain capital debts, or, third, liquidation in the near future. I may be considered a pessimist, but when I make these statements I merely repeat what has been said by many national and international authorities in economics.
Following these general considerations I wish to refer to the budget speech. First may I direct my observations to the ten per cent tax which originally was imposed on the gross gold production. Some short time ago a change in that proposal, which will be much more acceptable to the country generally, was communicated to the house. The ten per cent tax on gross production would have been quite unjustifiable; it would have meant the closing down of many mines, and a death blow to prospectors who have made discoveries which have been the pride of the different provinces, and chiefly the province of Ontario. It would have meant unemployment for thousands of people either directly connected with or indirectly affected by mining.
Very shortly after the budget was published I received telegrams and letters from boards of trade in different cities and towns. I refer particularly to Sudbury and North Bay where there was a keen realization of the far- reaching effects of such a tax. The day following the delivery of the budget I received the following communication from the Sudbury board of trade:
Sudbury board of trade strongly protests the tax budget speech proposes placing upon gold production which will mean extinction of many small and low- grade producers now under development with consequent serious loss of employment in mines and in industrial and mercantile establishments catering to the industry.
Then, the board of trade of North Bay sent the following letter:
The North Bay board of trade strongly express the hope that the federal government in reconsidering the proposed tax upon gold production, will see that every consideration is given to the many small and low grade producers of gold in northern Ontario. Industrial and mercantile interests as well as the great body of men engaged in the industry of mining should be given consideration in such a manner that will tend to keep the wheels of progress in motion in this great area of mineral possibilities.
Representations have been made from all parts of the country, and I am pleased to note that the government reconsidered its blunder and has taken a wiser step. Even people far
74726-182^
away from the mining industry have made protests. Here is one:
The Minister of Mines in the Bennett government comes from Haileybury and his constituency embraces the rich Kirkland lake area, which mines about half of Ontario's annual gold production of $70,000,000.
If anyone in the government should know anything about the mining situation in Ontario, Mr. Gordon ought to be the one. But Mr. Gordon knew nothing whatever of the plan to put a ten per cent tax on gold until the day before Hon. E. N. Rhodes, Minister of Finance brought down the budget on Wednesday. Mr. Gordon was not even consulted and he happened to find out because the cabinet ministers were allowed a peek at the budget a few hours before it was delivered. In fact at Easter Mr. Gordon assured mining men there would be no tax levied on gold.
The question crops up: Why have a Minister of Mines, and why have a member from the mining district as minister? Mr. Gordon may have been proud of the post, but the present situation	makes	his	portfolio	look	like an
empty title and puts him in a foolish light.
I think the government realized its blunder when it received protests from all parts of the country interested, and as a result the Prime Minister last Thursday gave notice of the amendment to the gold tax proposal. The position of the Minister of Mines Was so ridiculous that it would have been only logical that he should have resigned his portfolio as Minister of Mines had there been no amendment	to	the gold	tax	proposal.But while the tax has been amended to the satisfaction of the Canadian people, I believe a discrimination still exists. Why discriminate against the mining industry when other industries make as big if not bigger profits? As has been well said this afternoon, there are big monopolies in this country in tobacco, in gasoline and other commodities, the profits of which	are as	big	as those	in the mining:industry,	if not	bigger. The	gold	tax does
discriminate against one particular industry, and the people of Canada I believe see the injustice of it on that ground.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) said that he would like to go a little further than placing a ten per cent tax on the gross production of gold; he wanted to nationalize the whole mining industry. Does he really want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? What we want is to regulate her diet, not to starve or kill her.
As to the other taxes proposed in this budget, they are of very little importance. The sugar tax has been reduced from two cents to one cent a pound, and. there is a reduction on beer, ale, porter, champagne and postal notes, from three cents to one cent, but these are of very little importance.
The Budget-Mr. Lucas

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that a time has come for a change in the fiscal policy of this country. I agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) that we are passing through a period of great evolution, but it is not with the shibboleths, as he calls them, with which we have been supplied for the last four years, that we shall be able to cope with the situation. Let us be frank and honest. Let us rid ourselves of this narrow national and imperial protectionist policy. Let us have economic policies which will decentralize and thaw frozen capital, and bring about a better distribution of our production, that will relieve unemployment and bring back, if not prosperity, at least peace and contentment to the great mass of the people.


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members in this part of the house may I first be permitted to offer our sincere and deepest sympathy in the very sudden and great bereavement sustained by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes).
The budget, Mr. Speaker, as presented by the hon. Minister of Finance on April 18 last sets forth in very clear detail a financial picture of Canada. When one realizes the ever growing debt structure and increasing interest payments, not only is the picture not a pleasant one, but one wonders how long a population of ten million people can struggle along under such a burden.
The budget follows along the well beaten track of all budgets since confederation, and offers little hope to the struggling masses of any great measure of relief. As an orthodox budget there is very little to criticize, for the changes in taxation, while few and small in extent, are at least downwards, and likewise the tariff changes.
The reduction in the sugar tax to one cent a pound will no doubt be welcomed by the Canadian people and the substitution of a tax on gold to make up for the loss of revenue occasioned by the reduction in the sugar tax will on the whole be well received. The recent announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that adjustments are to be made in the gold tax as originally brought down so as to exempt the low grade mines from the operation of the tax should stop any controversy so far as they are concerned. The others in my opinion can well afford to pay, and I trust that the revenue to be derived from the industry will in no way be diminished by the change. It is the one industry that has prospered throughout the whole of this depression, first because of the fixed value of gold by law, and again by

its revaluation upwards by approximately seventy-five per cent. Also in my opinion the industry has paid less taxation in proportion to its means than any other industry, because it is allowed fifty per cent for depletion, and shareholders are allowed an exemption of fifty per cent on dividends for income tax purposes. But now that the government proposes to put a tax of ten per cent on the industry, its cry goes up to high heaven. Well, Mr. Speaker, my sympathies are all with those people who can ill afford to pay the sugar tax, and if the government had decided to wipe out the sugar tax entirely and make up that loss in revenue by an added tax on gold it would have received my support.
The Prime Minister a few days ago made the statement that generally speaking in the search for and mining of gold there was more money put into the ground than was taken out. If that is true, and I believe it is, we might have saved ourselves a great deal of energy and the hardship entailed in digging for this gold, and been just as well off in the end. In fact, we might have found ourselves in a much happier condition if we could have rid our minds of this gold superstition, and allowed our people to consume according to their ability to produce rather than have their consumption curtailed according to their ability to find gold, which is now no longer used in the everyday business of the country. It is generally recognized that superstition is the sign of ignorance, and that as education advances, superstition tends to disappear. Like the medicine men of Indian tribes who held their privileged position by cant and the fear which they instilled into the minds of the innocent members of their tribe, so the money changers of to-day hold their privileged position and power by the superstition and fear instilled into the minds of the people that unless their medium of exchange is based on gold they would all surely starve. It is an encouraging sign to note that there is a growing number of people throughout the world who at last are ridding their minds of such nonsense. Here might I be permitted to quote from a letter to the editor of the London Times by a body of business men in England asking for a parliamentary investigation into the workings of our money system: The modern paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty was the subject of a challenging passage in the speech of His Majesty the King at the opening of the world economic conference last year. His Majesty said:-
It cannot be beyond the power of man so to use the vast resources of the world as to ensure the material progress of civilization. No diminution in these resources has taken

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
place. On the contrary, discovery, invention, and organization have multiplied their possibilities to such an extent that abundance of production has itself created new problems.
Under modern scientifiie conditions the capacity of industry to produce is unlimited, and the continued existence of destitution, poverty, and unemployment throughout a large portion of the population demonstrates the fact that the present monetary system, the proper function of which is to facilitate the production of goods and their distribution to consumers as required, has broken down, both in its national and international aspects. The system is obsolete and has become a hindrance to the effective distribution of goods.
The object of production is consumption, and with approximately 90.000,000 people destitute or on the verge of destitution in the advanced nations which keep statistics, it cannot be suggested that the desire to consume is not present. Both these primary functions of the economic body-production and consumption- are frustrated, and' what should be a healthy and vigorous organism is paralyzed in peacetime by the failure of the monetary system of distribution.
The monetary system is man-made and can be altered; there is nothing sacrosanct about it.
We, the undersigned, in common with a large and rapidly growing body of citizens who are genuinely concerned at existing conditions, have come to the conclusion that gold is not essential as the basis for the issue of national money, and that nations should not be under obligation to make payments internationally with gold. A system must, in our view, be established under which the issue and recall of currency and credit will be regulated on a rational, national, and scientific basis, so that the correct number of money-tokens shall be available to consumers to enable them to enjoy the output of production.
We appeal, through your columns, for an immediate investigation by parliament of the fundamental principles which should govern our monetary system with a view to its reform in the interests of both producers and consumers.
There is, in our opinion, no need to wait for international agreement, since if Great Britain gives the lead, other countries will, we believe, find it in their own interests to follow.	.
This letter is signed by:
G. R. Clarke, Robert James, Maurice Jenks, Stanley Mackin, James Martin, A. G. Pape, Reginald Rowe, Semphill, A. Verdon-Roe, Vincent C. Vickers.
If any hon. member will take the trouble to look up the standing of those gentlemen he will find that they are all outstanding in the business life of Great Britain. I believe one of them was a former governor of the Bank of England.
The statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) at page 2270 of Hansard to the effect that the government proposes to bring down legislation to deal with farm debts will be well received by a great
many people throughout the country. He stated;
For certain individual debtors the burden has become unbearable and the government proposes to bring down at an early stage legislation designed to provide machinery whereby farmers who find themselves unable to pay the fixed charges on their outstanding debts will be able by an expeditious and inexpensive process to work out compromises with their creditors and to obtain new working capital. The guiding principle of this legislation will be to secure for the. farmer a simplified debt structure reduced in size to a point where the carrying charges will be within the capacity of the farm enterprise to pay.
That is all that is necessary to quote for my purpose. It sounds very good and I congratulate the government on their intention to introduce legislation along this muoh-needed line. I trust it will be as far-reaching in its powers as the marketing legislation now before the house. It is generally recognized that the farmers cannot pay their debt in full. If we are going to keep them on the. land and give them hope, some measure must be introduced to meet their conditions.
In his lengthy criticism of the budget, the financial critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) certainly offered no hope to the people of Canada, should his party come into office, that they would leave the beaten track. I wish to congratulate him on the able manner in which he handled the subject, yet in my opinion his criticism was well described by an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen as negative criticism. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth ridiculed the Minister of Finance for not having left the beaten track, and he then quoted from a speech delivered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) in a previous debate, as follows:
In this country, as in other countries, people have been staggering along under conditions that have been difficult, and have been clamouring for something out of the ordinary. Peoples all over the world have been very restive with governments because governments have been slow to depart from the beaten track.
May I pause here to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for having made that statement. It would appear that he at least has a grasp of present day conditions. Let me quote again the last part of this statement:
Peoples all over the world have been very restive with governments because governments have been slow to depart from the beatn track.
What has been the result of governments being slow to depart from the beaten track?
28S0

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
Look over the world to-day and what will you find? Democratic institutions which have been built up through the centuries are falling like tenpins, and why? In my opinion the Minister of Trade and Commerce placed his finger upon the very crux of the situation. People all over the world are not destroying democratic institutions just for the sake of setting up another form of government; they are doing it because these institutions have refused to leave the old beaten track and keep pace with the forward march pointed out by science and education. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth took about fifteen minutes of his two hour speech to criticize the budget because there were no signs that it was leaving the beaten track.
I agree with him in that criticism, but he harped so long upon that point that I think the house was led to believe that the Liberal party was going to offer something which would show that they were leaving the beaten track which has brought us to poverty and hardship and were going to blaze a new trail into the promised land. That would not have required much effort. The road would not need to be very long, because plenty is at our doorstep. However, apparently the wraiths and mists of Liberal principles [beclouded the vision of the hon. member, 'because after labouring for over two hours he found that the beaten track was worn so deep that he was not only unable to get out of it ;fout apparently was unable to see over the -sides what was going on about him; and we Iheard him shout from the depths the usual historic Liberal amendment. We in this corner of the house were disappointed in that amendment. Another hope was shattered. It was again the old story of the mountain labouring and bringing forth a mouse. The people of Canada now know what the Liberal party has to offer. Here is their amendment:
This house regrets that the proposals of the Minister of Finance give no indication of the intention of the government to abandon the policies of economic nationalism which have proved so disastrous to Canada s trade.
Not very much in that. Just regrets. It continues:
It is of the opinion that the immediate substitution therefor of policies which will promote export trade throughout the world is essential to any permanent improvement of conditions in Canada, and to the successful application of other policies respecting credit and employment resigned to effect this end.
The first part of the amendment is a criticism of government policy which is not unexpected from the opposition. The second

part refers to some mysterious policies which are not disclosed. What are those policies? Time and again I have heard hon. members of the Liberal party state that what was needed to get back to normal was the Liberal policies of 1930. If my memory serves me aright, part of those policies referred to countervailing duties; in other words, a brick for brick policy-you put your tariff up and we will put ours up just as high; and every hon. member of the Liberal party voted for that policy. The Liberal tariff policy was in effect for nine years prior to 1930, but what happened? We lost completely our cattle market in the United States, and if any hon. member will look up Hansard of February 15, starting at page 542, he will see what the rest of the world was doing during those years. The rules of the house prevent me from quoting from any previous debate of this session but I would advise hon. gentlemen to look up Hansard and study those facts, which cannot very well be disputed. It will be found that while most of our exports enjoyed almost free entiy into world markets in 1922, by 1929 and the first part of 1930 almost prohibitive tariffs were imposed against us. I do not blame the Liberal party or its policies for what happened in the rest of the world, but I would point out what took place elsewhere when that party was in office. And I would ask them, if that happened under the old Liberal policy, what new policies do they propose to put into effect in order to induce the rest of the world to change its course? If they have any new policies, the people of the country should know what they are. During those years when they were in power Great Britain was still on a free trade basis, but free trade did not save Great Britain from the effects of the terrible depression. In fact, I think I am right in saying that unemployment was never so widespread there as during that period. Here in cold print is what we may expect, as set out in the last part of the amendment:
It is of the opinion that the immediate substitution therefor of policies which will promote export trade throughout the world is essential to any permanent improvement of conditions in Canada, and to the successful application of other policies respecting credit and employment designed to effect this end.
What does it mean? It means that until the Liberal party can change world tariffs and thus promote world trade it will be impossible to have improvement in Canada, or to apply successfully other policies respecting credit and employment. Is not that a rather hopeless picture? Unless the rest of the

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
world trades with us we are all to sit here and starve. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to subscribe to any such doctrine. Of course, it would be an ideal situation if we had a world brotherhood, but unfortunately we have not and so we 'must govern ourselves accordingly. In my opinion the quickest way to bring about world brotherhood is for Canada, for example, to assume national sovereignity over our medium of exchange and to detach herself from the control and domination of a world financial dictatorship, thus giving a lead to the rest of the world, showing them how to free themselves from the most insidious form of slavery that has ever existed in the history of the human race.
I wish to quote a few lines from a sermon delivered by the Very Rev. C. E. Riley, B.A., D.D., of Hamilton, Dean of Niagara. Speaking at the annual service of St. George's Society this year he said in part:
"I'm no economist, and God forbid that I should propose nonsense from this pulpit in the way of theories. Remember that you are but applying the palliative, but the cure is far more important. As members of an intelligent society, it is your duty to investigate the causes, to find something rotten in the state of Denmark. To find the dragon.
Why is there this poverty in the midst of plenty? Find the solution and solve it with your ballot.
Tell me why in a country, in a world of plenty, there is any need of starvation.
Is it honest to destroy goods? Is it right? Why?"
"It's a damned blasphemy and I use these words advisedly," stated Very Rev. C. E. Riley, B.A., D.D., Dean of Niagara, in a trenchant attack on the present system of distribution before a large congregation at the 92nd annual service of St. George's Society of Hamilton, at Christ Church Cathedral last night. The dean electrified a large congregation by his address and warned that if constitutional reforms were not put into effect, other means would be used.
Such a statement, coming from a high dignitary of the Anglican church, cannot be brushed aside with contempt, and therefore I appeal to hon. gentlemen to realize that we are sitting on a volcano that may erupt at any moment. We have already seen democratic institutions going down in many countries, and I make this prediction, that unless those that remain show by their action that they are capable of accommodating themselves to the new conditions, then it is only a matter of time until they all disappear. In other words, they must find the dragon and conquer him, and in my humble opinion that dragon is money power.
Let me say with all the emphasis at my command that I am opposed to high tariffs; but just as emphatically I say that in my
opinion these barriers cannot be removed until we first remove the cause. Listen to what Lloyd George, a staunch old Liberal, a real Liberal, has to say. Lloyd George is a Liberal who is living to-day, dealing with things as they are and not with conditions that existed in the dim and distant past. Speaking in a radio broadcast in Great Britain he said in part:
I do not propose to enter into the respective merits of free trade and protection. I am bound to accept the fact that we have become a highly protected country and that there is no prospect in the immediate future of persuading the nation to revert to free trade. I base my survey and suggestions on that assumption. These barriers undoubtedly aggravate some of the worst evils from which we are now suffering, but the causes of our economic troubles lie deeper. Whether under tariffs or under free trade plenty has produced universal poverty. The essential paradox of the world's economic trouble, including our own, is that under our existing economic system the exuberance of the earth's gifts has resulted in creating a famine in millions of households. The economic system under which we work has been shown up by the world crisis to be a pretentious fraud which has robbed humanity of its fair share of the good things which science has produced in abundance for the benefit of mankind.
I appeal to the Liberal party to wake up and realize that old shibboleths and party slogans will no longer satisfy a hungry and suffering humanity. The hopelessness of securing a world agreement was well exemplified at the world conference held in London last year. Repeated efforts were made to reach agreement, but without avail, and finally the representatives of the various nations were firmly convinced that the only thing left to do was to go home and put their own houses in order. Let us face the facts. If we cannot agree any better among ourselves than we exemplify in this house alone, how can we expect a conglomeration of peoples of the world, of different races and speaking various tongues, many of them filled with hatred and jealousies engendered through centuries of time, to meet and work out a satisfactory agreement?
The United Farmers of Alberta have been advocating for some time a system of planned economy. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Spealcman) on two occasions introduced in this house resolutions proposing that a council of social and economic research be set up to study such a plan. His resolution was finally adopted by the house. The very first plank of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation platform deals with planning and reads:
The establishment of a planned, socialized, economic order to make possible the most
The Budget-Mr. Lucas

efficient development of the national resources and the most equitable distribution of the national income.
If that plank of the platform is put into effect it means that a plan will be evolved for the development of the national resources and the equitable distribution of the national income. When such a plan is set up, will the nations of the world be allowed to dump their goods into this country and upset the plan? There would be little use in setting up a plan if it were to be knocked down so easily. As a matter of fact it is proposed, by even more effective methods than tariffs, namely, import and export boards and licences to regulate trade, and so we have a form of economic nationalism.
Let me quote from A. R. Orage, editor of the New English Weekly, his definition of economic nationalism. He said in part:
My own conception of economic nationalism can be defined as the coordination of the economic activities of a politically sovereign territory by a money system valid throughout the defined area, and designed for one purpose alone; that purpose being the increase of the prosperity of every member of the community, up to the point of utilizing, if required, the entire collective ability of the community to deliver goods and services.
That does not sound so terrible. Economic nationalism, as I understand it, will not prevent world trade but it first recognizes that the most important market is the home one and that our exports should consist only of the overspill after the home market has been fully supplied. Think what a market that would be if the people could only satisfy their wants from the abundance which surrounds them! What we want to do away with is the type of economic internationalism which we have to-day, which means the control of domestic economies by international money changers. This is the dragon we must destroy, and we must substitute for it an economic nationalism whereby the very lifeblood of the nation, finance, will be under the control of the nation for the welfare of the people. The mad rush for export markets is one of the greatest causes leading to war. Each country is short of home purchasing power, and so each one tries its best to get some from the other one. In reality, if the people of one country cannot buy their own goods which they have in abundance, how can they hope to buy from anyone else? If we had a proper money system which would enable the peoples of the world to make use of the abundance which surrounds them, world trade would then consist largely of countries exchanging fairly with one another their surpluses of domestic production for the surpluses of other countries

which produce those things which the former lack. We see the folly of present world trade, in Japan shipping textiles right into the British Isles, the mother of the textile trade. It is this fierce competition among the nations of the world to secure the others' purchasing power, without which to-day people cannot live, that sooner or later leads to war.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce in his very able speech pointed out the great changes which have been taking place in the past fifteen years. I would say that those changes have been in a developing process over many years, but they have become more noticeable in the past fifteen. Most of us can remember when a man learned a trade and then by his individual initiative produced something by his own efforts, thus making a living. That, as we all know, has largely changed; to-day a man makes little by his own efforts but produces mostly by association with his fellow man. A good example of this is the motor car industry. If you will take a trip through one of our large motor car factories you will see there thousands of men at work, each doing a special bit of werk toward making a car as it passes along a continuously moving platform. While each one contributes his bit in making the ear, not one of them is competent to make a car by himself, and so it is with most of our production to-day. The same thing is taking place on the farm. Under our power machine age man has become simply a cog in the wheel and every cog has to play its part to turn out the finished article. But science is developing that wheel to such an extent that it is getting along with fewer and fewer cogs and so we have more and more unemployment. By this cooperative effort between man and the power machine we have tremendously increased our productive capacity and have created an enormous pool of wealth but the trouble is that all are not able to draw from that pool equal to the amount they have contributed.
The pool is now so full it is running over and wasting. An example of this is the destruction of various commodities, and instead of using our brains and allowing this wealth to be used for what it was created, we are now planning every known device, for instance, by curtailment of production, to prevent goods from going into the pool. When amidst so much suffering of the people we see on the one hand destruction of commodities and the steps which are being taken to curtail production, and when on the other we are told that our only salvation is to work harder, which means greater production, and then to tighten our belts and be more thrifty, which

The Budget-Mr. Lucas
means less consumption, can one very much blame the people if they are losing faith in democratic institutions?
The amendment which was moved from this corner of the house is well worthy of consideration. It offers a way out; it is a departure from the beaten track, and I regret very much that it was declared out of order. But even that does not prevent it from expressing our viewpoint and I am convinced that the suggestions contained in that amendment will be widely endorsed by the thinking people of Canada.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, if we are to save civilization we must face the future with an entirely new outlook. Just as we discarded the ox cart for the motor car, so we must discard an outworn, privately owned money system, based on a condition of scarcity, for a national control of credit based on our ability to produce and the needs of the people. Major Douglas and Mr. MoGeer gave members of the banking committee somthing to think about by the evidence they gave before it recently and also by their public utterances, and while these two men differ somewhat in detail they are agreed on many points. Mr. McGeer showed commendable breadth of mind, when asked whether he understood Major Douglas' proposals, in saying that he understood them but that he saw difficulty in putting them into statutory form. He finished by saying:
Mind you, I do not want it to be taken from that, that I conclude that it cannot be done, because I have learned a long time ago that merely because I do not see a thing, that is not proof that it is not there.
Such an attitude is at least encouraging, but I am sorry to say that it appears to be in direct conflict with that evidenced by many members of this house. A 'lesson might well be taken from Japan, which has shown what may be accomplished when a people are prepared to face issues and to break with old traditions. When Japan decided to move forward not many years ago-that is, not many in the life of a nation'-she sent her experts on a tour of the world to learn what was being done. These experts found that Great Britain had the best navy, and so they decided to copy that, they found that France had the best and most efficient land army and so they decided to copy that, and so forth. Hon. members will agree that the advance made by the Japanese nation within a very short period from the inferior position which they occupied at that time to the rank of one of the first nations, is reckoned as one of the marvels of the world. Later on, when
the Japanese heard about the Douglas proposals they sent their experts to London to study them. They then invited Major Douglas to Japan, and instead of trying to belittle and to discredit his proposals, they sought to obtain all the information they could get, with the result that they have adapted at least part of his plan in using the national credit to subsidize the export of goods. And they have done this to such good purpose that last year they increased their export trade by fifty-three per cent.
While Major Douglas and Mr. McGeer both agree on national control and issue of credit, Mr. McGeer would have it distributed to the people as it is at present, that is through the old channels of production. Major Douglas differs; he points out that the amount of money so distributed through salaries, wages and dividends in a given period is never sufficient to purchase the total production, the result being our present situation. I was pleased to note that the Ottawa Journal, which always speaks with such assurance, endorses what Major Douglas has to say on this point. I quote in part from an editorial of April 2, 1934, entitled The Upturn in Wages, as follows:
The old cure for deflation was more deflation. People strangely had the notion that the way to cure a condition under which people weren't buying goods-a depression-was to make it harder for them to buy goods. To cut their wages.
Now there are conditions and cases where wage cuts are inescapable. Normally, however, as a general rule, wage cuts retard recovery, cannot do anything else. It is hard enough to work out a scheme of economics under which wages and salaries will always permit people to buy the whole of industrial and agricultural production; because the total of wages and salaries can never equal the total value of production. But what must be thought of the notion-all too common-that there can be anything like consumption of the total of production under low wages? The thing doesn't make sense.
So it is not only a question of raising wages, as the Journal points out. In my opinion President Roosevelt apparently has not yet grasped this point. He is issuing almost unlimited quantities of credit, but is using the old channels, overlooking the fact that until purchasing power is placed in the hands of the people no real prosperity is possible. In a speech recently made over the radio President Roosevelt stated that eighty-five per cent of the business of the United States is done by people receiving salaries of $2,000 a year or less. I think it is safe to say that one of our greatest difficulties to-day is due to the fact that a great majority of the people, who by
The Budget-Mr. Penas

their cooperative efforts have created such a vast pool of wealth that it is now running over, never have received sufficient purchasing power to enable them to buy back the goods they have produced. Major Douglas would remedy this by the issuance of social credit from the national pool direct to the people in order to make up this difference, and the evils of inflation would be overcome by the operation of the just price. Of course this would be a departure from the beaten track, but so is the marketing bill now before the house. Surely with the evils of the present system so painfully apparent it is not asking too much to say that we should give serious consideration to such proposals. At least that would show that we were doing our best to find a much needed solution of our problems.


Fizalam-William Perras: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to extend my sympathy to hon. gentlemen opposite on the death of Mr. Lennox, whose sudden demise was very lamentable, as well as to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) on the sudden death of his wife.
The budget that was presented to this house on April 18, Mr. Speaker, is the fourth and perhaps the last of the present administration. Like those which preceded it, this budget contains a story of sadness, and seems to say, "He did the best he could with a bad job." The election of 1930 is not so distant that we cannot remember the attitude of the then opposition with respect to the administration then in power. The oncoming crisis was not at that time a world crisis, according to hon. gentlemen opposite; crises were not possible under good government, they said. "Put us into power and there will be no crisis," they said. Well, those who followed their advice and voted in that way have deeply regretted their action in the last four years. The crisis hit Canada hard and is still hitting it. The old Canadian ship of state is riding a rough sea; its crew are none too confident of weathering the storm and the captain is none too sure of reaching a certain port.
I listened with great interest to the budget speech of the Minister of Finance; I have read and re-read that speech, and it seems like going over the inventory of a bankrupt concern which, under good management, once was a thriving industry. The administration of to-day, in common with other Conservative administrations, has not been very fortunate in the way of raising revenues but has proved very successful in raising taxes. So, as the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) pointed out, this year all taxes have been maintained with the exception of the

sugar tax, which has been cut in half. We need not be grateful for the fact that no new taxes have been imposed, because it is not due to generosity. If we have no new taxes it is because we are no longer taxable, or rather because we could be taxed but the tax could not be collected, since we are unable to pay it. During the last fiscal year we collected less taxes than were collected in the previous year, but let no one be led into error by that fact. In 1929-30 we collected in taxes $378,551,000; in 1930-31 that dropped to $296,276,000, and in 1932-33 it dropped still further to $275,054,000. In connection with customs and excise duties and war tax revenues it is interesting to note the fluctuations of the sales tax, which in 1929-30 produced roughly $44,000,000. In 1930-31 we reduced that to $20000,000, but when the present administration came into office the sales tax was increased to six per cent, so that in 1931-32 it produced about $41,000,000 and in 1932-33 about $56,000,000. Under the Libera;! regime we reduced the sales tax and produced surpluses, because our international and external trade was flourishing for the reason that our fiscal policies were directed towards free and expanding trade.
I should like to quote some figures to indicate how our debt has continually increased since this government came into office. In round figures our debt has increased as follows:
1928		 $2,677,000,000
1929		 2,647,000,000
1930		 2,544,000,000
1931		 2,610,000,000
1932		 2,831,000,000
1933		 2,966,000,000
When the present administration took office they scrambled their fiscal policy and for that reason had to pile on the sales tax. For the same reason our revenues have gone down. Of course when we say that, immediately the objection is thrown out that the country is facing a general crisis. Let us admit that. But we were told that no crisis can exist under good government. We said there was a coming crisis in 1929 and 1930. We were preparing for it; we were trying to enlarge our markets, we were endeavouring to expand trade, but we were told it was foolish.
Well, in 1933, Great Britain imported 1,300,000 hundredweight less wheat from Canada than in 1932, but got 2,500,000 hundredweight more from Russia than she did the year before, 4,000,000 hundredweight more from the Argentine, and 5,000,000 hundredweight more from Australia. In 1933 Great Britain bought 1,200,000 hundredweight more barley from Russia than in 1932; 3,000,000 hundredweight

The Budget-Mr. Penas
more from Roumania; 2,500,000 hundredweight more from the United States, but she bought 2,000,000 hundredweight less from Canada. In 1933 Great Britain bought 600,000 hundredweight more oats from Russia than she did in the year before, 220,000 hundredweight more from Germany, but a million hundredweight less from Canada. She bought 324,000 hundredweight more of bacon from Canada than she did in the year before. So that taken all in all, our trade may be said to be on the hog.
Let me now place on Hansard some figures showing our revenue. The following table will serve to illustrate the situation:
1929-	30	
$446,000,0001930-	31	
356,000,0001931-	32	
333,000,0001932-	33	
311,000,000
These figures indicate a steady decrease year by year instead of the benefits which have been so loudly proclaimed, and which it was said we would derive from blasting our way into the markets of the world.
I can readily imagine the feelings of the Minister of Finance when at page 2283 of Hansard he had to admit that the debt had increased, as I have already said, by some $135,000,000. And I can quite readily understand his situation when he had to admit, as it is reported on the same page of Hansard, that the deficit on ordinary account would be $24,000,000. Again I can imagine his state of mind when, as appears at page 2275 of Hansard, he stated that the failure to reach the estimated revenue by some $33,000,000 has naturally been disappointing. Indeed, it is sad, but we have been accustomed to very little else. The British budget is being called the sunshine budget. We have had Robb and Dunning budgets which indicated prosperity. Then, we have had Rhodes budgets, but none of these roads has yet led us out of misery.
The situation becomes more distressing, and we find that we are still voting in blank millions upon millions for relief purposes. We had been told that unemployment would be stopped at once. It is still rampant, and the sums we spend are appalling. I do not think that the Canadian people really know the amounts being spent for relief, and they do not realize that those sums must all come from them. We are sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul, but this cannot be carried on much longer. Some proportionate return should result from the money spent on relief. We cannot continue spending at that rate. We are heaping millions upon millions of dollars upon the large industrial centres and other portions of western Canada, but what has
been done to help agriculturists in other parts of Canada out of their troubles? The minister said that the expenditures made since 1930 by the dominion for unemployment relief have reached a total of $115,500,000, to which may be added the cost of the wheat bonus in 1931, amounting to $12,700,000, and $2,400,000 advanced for employment in railway shops, making a total of $130,600,000, The expenditure for relief in the year 1933-34 is estimated at $36,000,000. These figures are staggering when we realize the very little that is being done for the eastern farmers.
It is my privilege to represent in this honourable house a constituency which is largely rural. In the few urban sections of that county relief has 'been given out, but in other sections of it conditions are deplorable. Farm products have been at bottom prices for the last two years, and there are no immediate signs of betterment. Many farms have been let go. The index price of farm products in 1930 averaged 82-3. In December of this year it was 53-3, indicating a fall of 46 per cent.
Let us now consider the pulp industry. In 1932 we produced $57,943,419 worth less pulp and $71,751,802 worth less paper products than we produced in 1930. In my constituency that was a fearful blow to a large percentage of the population. As I have said, there are some centres in which the whole population is engaged in farming, but there are many villages and rural communities in my constituency where people are working either as daily manual labourers or as jobbers. These people, and they are quite numerous, depended for their existence for years upon the wood and pulp industry, and for the last three years most of them have been on the verge of starvation.
These trade agreements, and the new market openings which were promised, did not help us much. In 1933 we exported of paper and manufactures of paper $66,134,111 worth less than in 1930, and $15,705,342 less of pulp; $5,130,401 less of cheese, $416,369 less of butter, $18,523,737 less of wheat flour, $63,373,340 less of wheat, $5,504,758 less of potatoes, $672,534 less of dressed beef; and I could quote many other similar figures.
Let me point out that the price' of bacon and hams in 1930 was $24 per hundredweight, and only $11 in 1933. The price of butter was 30 cents per pound in 1930 and only 17 cents in 1933.
Now I will summarize our total trade:
Total imports
Year-	and exports
1929	  $2,654,575,166
1930		 2,600,000.000
I933;;	 887,000,000
28S6
The Budget-Mr. Penas