1934-05-14

EVIDENCE OF MR. WALTER M. STEWART REQUEST BY PRIME MINISTER THAT WITNESS BE RECALLED BY COMMITTEE ON PRICE SPREADS AND MASS BUYING

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I avail myself of the very first opportunity to speak to this chamber about a matter that affects the privileges of this house.
On Saturday last I had an opportunity of reading with a little care the evidence given by one Walter M. Stewart before the special committee on price spreads and mass buying on the 10th instant, whereupon I wrote a letter to my colleague, the chairman of the committee, in the following terms:
Ottawa, May 12, 1934. Honourable H. H. Stevens, M.P.,
Chairman,
Special Committee on Price Spreads and Mass Buying,
Ottawa.
M.v Dear Colleague:
I have had an opportunity to look through the evidence given by Mr. Walter D. Stewart before the special committee on price spreads and mass buying on the 10th instant.
[Mr. MacLean.l
It appears to me that, while at the end his evidence is somewhat uncertain, nevertheless it is quite clear that he insinuated that the government, or some members thereof, have given advance information to his competitors regarding pending changes in the excise taxes on tobacco and cigarettes. May I ask you to be good enough to have him recalled for the purpose of naming the cabinet ministers whom he desired to examine and giving all information in his possession with respect to his allegations that ministers of the crown have been unfaithful to their trust.
Yours faithfully,
R. B. Bennett.
This afternoon my colleague, the chairman of the committee, who had been engaged with the committee during the morning, handed me a letter which had been received by Mr. Norman Sommerville, K.C., counsel for the committee, dated at Montreal and reading as follows:
P.O. Box 1929, Montreal, Que.,
May 11, 1934.
Norman Sommerville, Esq., K.C.,
Price Spreads and Mass Buying Committee, House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
I told you after my examination yesterday that I was sorry for some of the things I had said. I would have liked to have asked the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Excise and the Montreal minister, Mr. Cahan, if they could tell why other manufacturers had advance information of the changes in excise duty.
I should' not have said what I did about buying governments and commissions. I wish to retract it. I was exasperated by what seemed an unwarranted intrusion into my own affairs and somewhat bewildered by unusual surroundings. I ask you to convey my apologies to the committee. I do not wish to impugn the motives or the conduct of any member of the government.
You may read this letter to the committee and make it public if you choose.
The two statements which I said would be sent to the committee are being prepared; they will be finished to-morrow when I shall enclose them.
I am interested in the growers receiving as high prices as possible but the draft agreement you submitted to me is not sufficiently definite to insure fair treatment to all. I have therefore hesitated to sign.
Yours truly,
Walter M. Stewart.
This letter bears date Montreal, Quebec, May 11, 1934. I received it only during the last hour but, notwithstanding the contents of the letter, in view of the reflections upon members of this chamber my request to the chairman of the committee still stands.

Questions



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 77, for the relief Aileen Marie Thompson Robb.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Doris Jones Earp.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Jean Gordon Worden Ellis.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Mary Alice Beatrice Featherston Moxon.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Ethel Irene Probert.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

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

Mr MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways received a resolution adopted by the county council of the county of Bonaven-ture, concluding as follows:-"That we, the members of this county council for the county of Bonaventure, in regular session at New Carlisle, and representing divers interests in every municipality throughout the county, place ourselves on record as being opposed to the removal from this county and province, of the railway shops at New Carlisle and terminal operations at Matapedia, or anywhere else, the removal of which would be detrimental to our communities, county and province, and do hereby urge the railway management the necessity of reestablishing as Boon as possible all works and terminal operations that have been removed?
2.	If so, what answer has been given to this request, if any?


Mr MANION:: 1.	Resolution in question received by Minister of Railways and Canals.
2.	County council of Bonaventure was advised in reply that matter referred to was one coming entirely under the control of the railway management, and that representations were, in consequence, being brought to the attention of the management.


NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Has the National Gallery of Canada acquired paintings of one Ward C. Pitfield, of Montreal ?
2.	If so, through whom was this deal negotiated?
3.	How much was paid for the said paintings?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROBERGE:: What amount did the federal government contribute during the years 1933, 1934 in the form of direct relief to the following provinces, without the provinces or municipalities being required to contribute: (a) Ontario; (b) Manitoba; (c) Saskatchewan; (d) Alberta; (e) Yukon territory; (f) New Brunswick; (g) Nova Scotia; (h) Prince Edward Island; (i) Quebec ?


NICKEL EXPORT STATISTICS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What are the figures of the volume of export of nickel for March, 1934?
2.	Why are these omitted from the monthly returns (E.T.P.B. No. 129, March, 1934) of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for March?


Mr. STEVENS:: Return tabled herewith.


ILOTS NEWPORT RIVER, GASPE, PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	What is the name of each person who supplied stone and lumber in connection with works carried out at Ilots Newport river, county of Gaspe, in 1933, under the direction of Alphonse Boucher, foreman?
2.	What quantity of such building materials was supplied by each person, and what amount was paid to each person?
3.	What is the name of each person who worked as a day labourer in 1933, at Ilots Newport river, and what is the name of each person who supplied lumber and stone for the said works carried out under the direction of Baptiste Grenier, foreman?
4.	What amount was paid to each such person ?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BROWN:: For a copy of all letters passing between ex-Judge Stubbs, or anyone writing on his behalf, and the Minister of Justice, or any of the officials of his department, with reference to a pension for the said ex-Judge Stubbs, either before or since his dismissal from the bench.



LA MALBAIE-GRAND FONDS, QUE., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and documents exchanged between the Post Office Department at Ottawa, the post office inspector at Quebec and any other persons, with respect to the contract for carrying the mail from La Malbaie to Grand Fonds, in the county of Charlevoix, from January 1, 1934, to date.
Motions jor Papers



VAL D'AMOUR, N.B., POSTMASTER

Mr. MICHAUD:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and orders in council, relating to postmaster at Val d'Amour, Restigouche-Madawaswa county, New Brunswick, between January 1, 1933, and May 1, 1931.



NACMINE, ALTA., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents from September, 1933, to date, in connection with the dismissal of postmaster T. B. Lett, Nacmine, Alberta, and the appointment of Mrs. Molyneux to the position.



TIMBER CUTTING ON INDIAN RESERVES

Mr. IRVINE:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, or other documents exchanged between the dominion government, the Minister of the Interior, or any other minister, or any officer or employee of bis department and Mr. C. W. Cox, or C. W. Cox, Limited, regarding timber cut on Indian reserves.


William Irvine: For a copy of all timber licences issued authorizing the cutting of timber of all kinds on the following Indian reserves, all of which are in the province of Ontario: Long Lac, Chapleau, and Lac Seul; also the names of all the licensees granted authority to cut timber on the said reservations. Also for returns showing:-
1.	The estimates of the total amount of timber made by government cruisers on all reserves, and' names of the cruisers and dates of cruises.
2.	The amounts bid for all kinds of timber by those who made offers.
3.	The amount of timber of all kinds, cut by the authority of present licensees from the date of the issuing of their licences up to the end of April, 1934.
4.	The amounts which may be due the government from licensees and the names of such licensees.
5.	Lists of other reservations in the dominion on which C. W. Cox, or C. W. Cox, Limited, holds licences to cut timber.
6. Also a copy of contracts, if any, between Mr. C. W. Cox, or C. W. Cox, Limited, and the Canadian National Railway, for railway ties for delivery in Orient Bay, Hudson and Lac Seul districts, with returns showing the prices paid and quantities delivered under such contracts.


Mr. MANION:: In regard to No. 6, I merely wish to say that the government has not any copies of these contracts. So far as I am concerned I have no objection to the motion passing subject to our being able to obtain them from the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Motion carried subject to the reservation of the Minister of Railways.
[Mr. Casgram.l



LES EBOULEMENTS, QUE., LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all documents, letters, correspondence, and telegrams, exchanged between the Department of Marine at Ottawa and any persons, respecting the resignation of Mr. Charles Tremblay (Georges), as lighthouse keeper at the wharf at Les Eboulements, and the appointment of Mr. Hector Tremblay as his successor, from January 1, 1934, to date.



L'ANSE AUX CANARDS, GASPE, RANGE LIGHT

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all correspondence addressed to the Department of Marine, respecting the range light located at L'Anse _aux Canards, county of Gaspe, and the position of such range light keeper, from August 1, 1930, to date.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-LAKE ST. JOHN-ROBERVAL

Mr. DUGUAY:: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, letters, work plans, accounts and other documents exchanged' between the federal government, the Minister of Labour, the deputy minister, and all employees of the said department, and the provincial government of Quebec, the Prime Minister of Quebec, the Minister of Public Works of Quebec, the Minister of Labour of Quebec, the deputy minister of such provincial department, and all other employees of the Quebec government, respecting relief works carried out in the county of Lake St. John-Roberval, under the terms of the acts of 1932 and 1933, relating to unemployment relief.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: There are two insurance bills before the house. Is it the intention to refer them to the standing committee on banking and commerce or to the committee of the whole?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not intended to refer them to the banking and commerce committee.



LEGISLATION PENDING

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Might I ask the Prime Minister again about the legislation for the remainder of the session, in particular the elections act, the program for construction of public works and one particular bill to which he has referred but the nature of which he has not as yet disclosed to the house? I would like to say to my right hon. friend that my purpose in pressing again for this

Business of the House-Legislation
information is that I believe if we had all the legislation before us, and an assurance that it was all, some arrangement might be come to between the different parts of the house with a view to expediting the work of the session. That I think would be in the interests of all concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Resolutions have been sent to the clerk of the house with respect to, first, the public works bill, second, the elections bill, third, the bill providing for arrangements between farmers and their creditors, fourth, the bill amending the Farm Loans Act. There are possibly three others that arise out of the Bank Act and the Bank of Canada Act that I cannot deal with until after they have been disposed of. There are amending sections to the criminal code which we usually bring down as late as possible because, as the right hon. gentleman knows, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is receiving all the time letters making suggestions. My thought is to try to get on the order paper by the end of the week an intimation of the legislation that we propose during this session. But there is a long bill, as perhaps this chamber knows, that has been disposed of by the Senate but not yet sent to this chamber. They have given a tremendous amount of time to it. I should say "another place," one of my colleagues suggests. It has been considered by the other house, it will reach here I think this week, perhaps to-morrow or the next day.
Then there is a bill consolidating the Excise Act, about which I spoke some weeks ago, but which is not being submitted to the house until such time as the resolutions being adopted under the budget are passed, so that the Consolidated Excise Act will not be brought down to-day. I do not think it will be disputatious, because the changes are very few. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman knows that a great many regulations have been issued under the provisions of the Excise Act and it is desirable to adopt the suggestion made the other day-perhaps not for that reason-to embody in that legislation what were regulations, so that the public may be able as far as possible to see them. I may' say that the present views of the right hon. gentleman in that regard were not his views at the time the consolidation of the Excise Act last took place, but we all change our views as occasion necessitates, and I think in the case of the Excise Act it is desirable that there should be every intimation to the public.
Beyond that I do not think there will be any legislation, but I shall give the house the fullest information with respect to that by the end of this week.
I am obliged to the right hon. gentleman, and those on this side of the house appreciate to the full his courtesy in suggesting that if the program of legislation is made known it might expedite the business of the house, but I think he will not regard it as unfair if I say that I think some legislation at least might have been hastened a little during the last ten days.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did I
understand the Prime Minister to say that the amendments to the Finance Act, the Dominion Notes Act and the Currency Act will not be introduced to the house until the Bank Act is disposed of?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should not have said
" disposed of." I did not mean that, I meant finally dealt with by this chamber, for the bill has to proceed to the other house and possibly it might be amended there in a manner that might affect these bills to which the hon. gentleman refers. Otherwise the three bills would have been introduced some time ago, but on looking into it it seems apparent that it is undesirable to waste the time of the chamber until the other bills are before the house and disposed of, I should have said, by this house.



RADIO STATION AT WINDSOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Some days ago in my absence the Prime Minister made some objection to answering a portion of a question which I have on the order paper with regard to the issuing of a radio licence in the city of Windsor. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can say now whether I may have a reply to the rest of the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no reason why every question asked by the hon. gentleman should not be answered except such as would mean the disclosure of the business of the commission in a way that a private enterprise would not do, in a way in which the hon. gentleman would not want his business exposed *to his competitors or the public. The same principle will be applied in this case, and if the hon. gentleman thinks the answer inadequate we shall see what can be done about his wishes.
Interim Supply Bill



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: (Leader of the Opposition): The Prime Minister was kind enough to say he would send me a draft of the election act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I sent it over Saturday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was communication with my office, but no document was received.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My secretary told me it was sent Saturday morning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall have another search made, but I have made further inquiry this afternoon and am told nothing has as yet been received.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall at once inquire.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

Right Hon.   S@: With the consent of the house I move that the house go into committee of supply merely for the purpose of considering some interim supply of which I hope the house will approve. If this motion is carried then I shall make a short statement regarding it.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I have a resolution here asking for interim supply. The main reasons why we have come to the house at this time are two: the House of Commons estimates, and the seasonal requirements of the various departments. Only one-sixth of the House of Commons estimates have been voted, and that money has been spent on account of the activities of the committees, and further money is required for that purpose, as hon. gentlemen will no doubt readily understand.
Then there are some items of public works which the department is anxious to get on with because this is the time of year when they are able to make the best progress. If there are any items which hon. gentlemen wish to discuss I shall try to give any explanations I can. But they are all brought up owing to the season of the year and the desirability of making as much progress as possible in the spring. Further, I may say that out of these various items there are only six which refer to estimates which have not

already been considered and passed by this house in their entirety. Of course the house will retain as usual the right to discuss these items as much as hon. gentlemen wish when they are brought before the house.
There is also schedule B to this resolution which refers to the Canadian National Steamships and the Maritime Freight Rates Act. That was not in the original estimate as printed, and no part of it has yet been voted. All I am asking for to-day is three-twelfths, the same as for the other estimates.
I have taken advantage of this opportunity to include in this resolution another one-twelfth of the main estimates. The reason for that is that the provision already made will expire at the end of this month, and so it seemed desirable to put in this bill another one-twelfth of the main estimates, which would carry us to the end of June, in the hope that before then the house will have prorogued.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. gentleman was kind enough to confer with the ex-Minister of Defence and with myself in regard to this interim supply. I think the house will find that the items are satisfactory, and it is appropriate that they should be passed at this time. There are one or two questions that we shall wish to ask in regard to some of the items, and perhaps they can be taken up as the items are called.
Resolved. that a sum not exceeding $15,036,735.93. being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted by parliament as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1935, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1935.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just one-twelfth covering all the estimates?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $2,237,789.69, being one-quarter of the amount for each of the several following items to be voted by parliament, set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, he granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935, namely:
Vote No. 36, for the House of Commons.
Vote No. 44, experimental farms.
Vote No. 67, pensions.
Vote No. 76, non-permanent active militia.
Vote No. 95, Saint John quarantine station.
Vote No. 97, Westmount armoury.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to ask a question-

Interim Supply


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton South):: There are more items.


Mr MACKENZIE KING:: If they are
called separately, we might pass them one at a time.


Finlay MacDonald: Very well; the first item is
Vote No 36, for the House of Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This includes
an amount for the expenses of committees and clerical assistance. I surmise that this item is largely necessary owing to the activities of the committee on price spreads and mass buying. Could the minister give us the details as to the amount that committee has spent, and what amount will probably be required to complete its work?


George Halsey Perley: The amounts
paid out in connection with the expenses of committees are as follows:
Price spreads and mass buying. .$ 6,126 94
Banking and commerce	 2,349 10
Radio	 403 10

The accounts outstanding are as follows:
Mass buying and price spreads-
Accountants	$14,887	96Counsel	
3,150	00Witnesses	
486	50Investigators	
1,618	59
Banking and Commerce-
Reporters	 174	70


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These are the amounts that have been expended up to date and the accounts outstanding. Could the minister give us an estimate of what the government expect will be further required in connection with the expenses of these committees before the conclusion of the session?


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry, but
I do not consider myself competent to give any such estimate. It depends altogether on how long the committees sit and how many witnesses from outside have to come here, whose expenses have to be paid.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend expect that the activities of the committees will increase or lessen? The amount either spent or already owing in connection with the price spreads committee totals over $25,000, as I have it here, and I assume that an equal amount, if not more, will be required before the session is concluded.


George Halsey Perley: I should think it very unlikely; I hope we are not going to have the committee sitting as many more weeks as they have sat already. If that is the case the house will be sitting for a long time.


Mr. MARCIL:: We could not very well hear what was said. Did I understand the minister to say that $25,000 has been expended already by the price spreads committee and that he does not know how much more will be required?


George Halsey Perley: That is correct. I have given the figures, and they will appear in Hansard.


Charles Marcil: Will any legislation result from this work, or is this money being expended to no purpose?


George Halsey Perley: I am sure the hon. gentleman will not think the money has been expended to no purpose, but whether or not legislation will result this session is another question which, so far as I know, has not been considered.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Can the minister tell us how many investigators are working throughout the country in connection with price spreads?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I could not answer that question offhand. Certain individuals have been retained to carry on investigations into details and report to the committee, in order to save the time of the committee and to avoid bringing more witnesses than is absolutely necessary. I may say that the amount of business and the demands made upon the committee have been so enormous that there is no possible hope of -covering all the ground. I think that is clear to everyone, whether or not they are members of the committee, but the committee is doing its best to carry out its very heavy task as expeditiously as possible.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the minister if he anticipates that the deliberations of the committee will be concluded before the end of the present session of parliament?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly, and a substantial report can be made as to the ground that has been covered, but it is easily seen that many phases of mercantile activity cannot possibly be covered by this committee or by any other body except over a very lengthy period.
REVISED EDITiort
Interim Supply


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it the intention of the administration to refer any questions to a royal commission or any other investigating body?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That question could not be answered by myself without consultation, of course, but I imagine that the report of the committee will contain some recommendation as to what disposition should be made of unfinished business,-shall I call it?


Charles Marcil: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has investigators at work with regard to the fisheries question, which was to be referred to this special committee. No witnesses have been heard in that regard, so far as I know, and I should like to ask whether this question is being looked into in the maritime provinces and especially in the province of Quebec.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A preliminary investigation is now being made in the maritime provinces. I may say that to cover the whole field would be quite impossible, but I hope we will be able to touch a few of the most essential points with regard to that industry.


Charles Marcil: Does the minister say he is going to omit Quebec entirely?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it is not so much that. Of course I am not within the rules of the house in discussing the details of the activities of a committee other than to give hon. gentlemen the information they require as fully as I can. To cover the whole ground in connection with fisheries during this session would be physically impossible, but I think we will touch a few of the most essential points.


Mr. VENIOT:: A start will be made, at any rate?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


James J. Donnelly: Can the minister tell us what the counsel fee is?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot say at the moment, but it is the same as the fee paid in connection with a similar committee previously.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister whether part 2 of the marketing bill, which deals with investigations, is intended to relate to the work of this committee, to serve the purpose of carrying on the kind of investigations the committee may wish to have made, or whether that part of the marketing bill is wholly apart from the work of the price spreads committee?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The provisions of any legislation now before the house did not emanate from any committee; that is clear. It is quite obvious, however, to any student of the situation that there is much in the marketing act, for example, that with intelligent anticipation might be declared to be useful in dealing with problems which may be dealt with by the committee. To what extent, of course, I cannot hazard any expression of opinion at this time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It seemed to
me on reading the bill that part 2 was the kind of measure which possibly the minister would have brought in after the report of the committee had been made, in other words, that he was anticipating the report to-day and giving us legislation in advance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman will note that the marketing bill deals largely with agricultural and natural products.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, natural
products as defined and investigation into a wide field of operations.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The price spreads and
mass buying committee deals with that, of course, but deals with mercantile business generally, which is much wider in its scope.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
ask the minister if any private investigations have been conducted in the city of Vancouver, and if so whether or not the minister intends calling witnesses from that city.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it will be unnecessary to call witnesses from Vancouver, other than those who have already appeared. The Retail Merchants Association sent witnesses from British Columbia and such investigations as were deemed necessary have been secured through the examination of statements by the auditors.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In other
words, they have a clean sheet.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Will any witnesses be called from the fishing industry of British Columbia?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That has not yet been
decided.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Has the
minister received representations asking him to investigate the textile industry, or has he arrived at a decision in that matter?

Interim Supply


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is known as the
needle workers trade is now being fully investigated. The question as to investigation of the textile industry has not as yet been decided by the committee.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Some weeks ago I
had some correspondence with the minister and at that time sent him a petition in regard to fertilizer. If my memory serves me correctly the minister said on that occasion that so many requests had been made he did not know at that time whether there would be time to take up the question of fertilizer. I should like to know now from him if there is any chance of a consideration of this matter later.


Henry Herbert Stevens: So far, representations
which have been made have been substantially those which could be dealt with by an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act. I do not think it is possible to say that we will investigate the fertilizer industry fully, but apart from that I think sufficient information will be obtained to answer the purposes of those agriculturists affected. I cannot promise, however, a full investigation.


Frederick George Sanderson: Probably the minister will recollect that the communication I forwarded to him was a request to have the matter come before the price spreads committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If we can possibly get
time I should be very glad to do so, but I am not able to make any definite promise.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Have
the department stores of British Columbia, and particularly those of the city of Vancouver made representations with regard to being heard before the committee?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Speaking from memory
-and my hon. friend will realize that we have so many communications I cannot be sure-I cannot recall it.


Mr. COOTE:: May I ask the minister
whether the committee purposes investigating the selling price of agricultural machinery. I have had several letters dealing with this matter, and I take it for granted the committee will give the matter some consideration.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is one of the subjects we hope to touch. It is before us, but again the question of time is, shall I say, the essence of the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
74726-190J
Experimental farms, including investigations concerning plant diseases, $1,815,000.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This is a large item, and although I like to see a vote for agriculture I should like to know what it is for. What does this mean? To what particular plant diseases does it refer?


George Halsey Perley: May I explain to the hon. member that this is simply a vote to enable spring activity on experimental farms. This item has not yet been before the house. In due course it will come before the house, and upon that occasion the Minister of Agriculture will, I am sure, be able to answer all questions.


James J. Donnelly: How much money is there in it?


George Halsey Perley: As a matter of fact, the proposal put before the house is this: two-twelfths have already been voted and we are asking for another twelfth to which the committee has already agreed, making a quarter. We are asking, in this particular item, for a further quarter which, altogether, gives a half of the whole estimate, such sum to be used as required. This item, which I believe has not been before the house, will be thoroughly discussed when the estimates for the Department of Agriculture are reached.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions payable to men on active service, Northwest Rebellion 1885, and general pensions, and civil flying $22,000.
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia, $1,994,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the Minister of National Defence state whether or not there is an item here for the Seaforth armoury at Vancouver?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not in the main estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Westmount - instalment on purchase of armoury and insurance, $13,600.
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers Nova Scotia
Blandford-breakwater wharf replacement, $4,500.
Black Point-harbour protection, $3,600.
Port Dufferin (John Vogler's shore) breakwater, $4,900.
Trout Cove - (Centreville) - breakwater
extension, $4,200.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $225,000.
Item agreed to.
Interim Supply
[Stage Direction]
Prince Edward' Island
Victoria - additional warehouse accomodation, $2,700.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $50,000-Total, $52,700.
Mr. POWER:: Why is it necessary in the appropriation bill to enumerate these particular items? A large number of them have already been voted in the estimates.


George Halsey Perley: I have already
explained, or endeavoured to explain, that nearly all of these items have been passed in their entirety by the house. In the old days it used to be the custom that when there was an interim supply bill all the items which had already been passed by the house should be put in-the whole of them. But of late years that has not been the custom. Therefore we are asking for an extra quarter in these particular items in order that the work may be proceeded with at this time of the year, a time most propitious for that purpose.


Charles Gavan Power: Why enumerate them
specifically? If I remember correctly it has always been the custom to come before the house and ask for one-twelfth or one-quarter, without going to the trouble of enumerating the particular works affected.


George Halsey Perley: The only reason for the items appearing is that we wish to proceed with the work and spend right away more than one-quarter of the money. Therefore all the items have not been put in, but I asked that in this interim supply bill a further quarter should be requested on all the items upon which work will be done before the end of June, so that money may be available.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it just in order to be
able to let contracts for these specific works? I see here a vote of SI,400 to complete wharf improvements at Anse aux Griffons. In the main estimates we have the same vote, and it has passed.


George Halsey Perley: It is the same


Charles Gavan Power: And then I see a vote for
widening a wharf in Bonaventure, $4,600. That also has been passed. Then there is a further amount of $300,000 for "Harbours and rivers generally, for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken." That has passed. I should like to know why we

have not had the item, " for public works, one-quarter" and lump the whole of them. Why specifically point out that the money is to be expended at Anse aux Griffons and at Bonaventure, and not on any of the other items?


George Halsey Perley: It seems to me
that all the items which have already passed [DOT]the house might very well have been put in this supply bill-the whole amount. As I say, years ago that used to be done, but of late years that has not been ithe custom. I asked that this list be made as reasonable as possible in the hope that it would meet with the approval of the house.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Are there any items of
public works here which have not been already passed?


George Halsey Perley: Only one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the minister has said I believe all the items on the first two pages with the exception of one item headed " miscellaneous," have passed. I refer to item 120. If that were agreed to, along with the others which have already been passed in committee of supply we might take up the four or five remaining items which as yet have not been discussed. There are five items altogether that have not been discussed as yet in committee of supply. We are prepared to agree to everything going through except those items which have not already been discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bonaventure-widening wharf, $4,600.
Mr. MARCH:: What does the minister intend to do this year with the $4,600 for Bonaventure?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: This item was before the house when I had all the information with me, and all the details were given. I am sorry I have not the information with me now, but what the house approved of then we propose to carry out.


Charles Marcil: If the minister gave the information, all right, but no information so far as I have been able to see was given as regards this expenditure at Bonaventure. I fail to find any information in Hansard about it. I would like to know what the minister intends doing at Bonaventure.

Ways and Means


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When I said the details had been given I meant to convey to the committee the fact that the item had been before committee of the whole and any information that was asked was furnished at the time. I cannot say now just what that item covers, but it was approved by the house.


Charles Marcil: If the particulars have not been furnished, will the minister send me a note saying what he intends doing at Bona-venture ?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that following the practice of the past any communication that he chooses to address to me will be answered and he will be given all the information that is available.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask when we may expect the supplementary estimates?


George Halsey Perley: They have not been prepared yet.


Finlay MacDonald: Shall all the items pass down to No. 117?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
National Revenue-salaries and travelling expenses of officers of the inspection, investigation, audit, and the preventive service undervaluation services, $916,698.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item has not been discussed previously. Is there any special reason for including it at this time? It is an item of nearly one million dollars. It would look as if the department were getting ready for something extensive in the way of further restrictions.


George Halsey Perley: This only provides for another twenty-five per cent. For some good reason they consider that they want to use more than the one-quarter which has already been voted. A full explanation will be given when the estimate comes before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Battlefields memorials, $90,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is this work not now more or less completed? Does
the government intend to have any celebration during the present year in connection with the unveiling of the Vimy memorial?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The Vimy memorial will not be finished till next year. No definite decision has yet been made as to the unveiling.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Finlay MacDonald: The third resolution reads:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $888,000 being one-fourth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted' set forth in estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1935, for Canadian National Steamships and Maritime Freight Rates Act, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1935.


George Halsey Perley: I might explain
that this item was not in the main estimates. All we are asking for now is one-quarter of the total amount to cover the months of April, May and June.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time, and concurred in.
George Halsey Perley: Mr. Speaker,
there is an item on the order paper for moving the house into committee of ways and means, with the amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston. Notwithstanding that, I would like the unanimous consent of the house to go into committee of ways and means now merely for the purpose of considering these resolutions.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By consent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This will enable us to return later in committee of ways and means to the motion as amended by Mr. Ralston as it stands on the order paper.


George Halsey Perley: Certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
George Halsey Perley: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of
3008	COMMONS
Dominion Companies-Mr. Cahan
certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1935, the sum of $18,162,525.62 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in. Sir George Perley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 82, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1935.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 64, respecting Dominion Companies.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CAHAN:: This bill is a revision of the acts relating to dominion companies and has been prepared with very considerable care. It is a bill which, I think, will not provoke any party or partisan discussion because it is an expression of a desire to provide such a consolidation and such amendments and modifications of the provisions of the Companies Act, now existing, as may be required to satisfy changes which inevitably take place from time to time in public opinion with regard to public companies.
I have had some forty years' experience in dealing with company legislation, and I can only assure the house that, after consideration of all the representations made to the Department of the Secretary of State during the past two years, this bill embodies what appears to me to be a just and comprehensive revision of that act.
So far as the policy and principle of the bill is concerned, that simply assumes, on voting for the second reading, that the house is in favour of a prospective consolidation and a prospective revision, and when the bill comes before the committee of the whole house, to which I shall move that it be referred, it will be open to full and detailed discussion.
My own experience is that it is very difficult indeed, in committee of the whole house, to prepare amendments during the discussion of a bill, because one has then in view a particular section or particular sections which are under discussion, without regard to the import and application of other sections of a complex measure. I remember that not long ago, in absolute good faith, I assured the 
right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), in discussion in the committee of the house, that an amendment which he suggested and which I then drew would fulfil all the requirements which he had indicated. I so stated in the utmost good faith. It has become necessary to grant a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision on that very issue, and I confess that when I was giving the right hon. gentleman that assurance there was one aspect of one section of an existing act to which my attention had not been directed and which, if my attention had been so directed, might have resulted in my making the proposed amendment more comprehensive and detailed than was the amendment which I then suggested and which carried.
If therefore I may now state my view, it is this. I should like this bill to be read the second time and the house to go into committee and perhaps pass the first and second sections-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why pass any?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, possibly not. Then I would invite from every member of the house suggestions as to any amendment or modification in this bill which he thinks ought to be made in order to carry out his own particular views, and I should like to consider such suggestions with any member or with a number of members who may participate in the same view, before the matter is submitted to the committee of the whole house, so that if possible I may meet the views of every member of the house. That, I suppose, is impossible but I should like to meet the serious views of the majority of the members of the house with regard to the modifications that should be made in the Companies Act.
With that in view, and with an assurance to the house of our desire to place this bill on such a basis that party or partisan discussion will not be necessary, but rather that we may seek to elicit a coordination of the views of the whole house with regard to the complex provisions of the bill, so far as possible, I now move the second reading.


Mr. BUTCHER:: If the bill is given second reading now, shall we be permitted to discuss on section 1 not only the principle of the bill but any suggested improvements?
' Mr. CAHAN: Let me make it clear that so far as the government is concerned, when the bill is in committee, not only particular amendments or modifications may be discussed, but also general principles or policies relating to the bill.

7'he Budget-Point oj Order


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the title.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Harry Butcher: Will the minister allow section 1 to stand?
Section stands.
Section 2 agreed to.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In accordance with the
understanding we reached, I move that the committee rise and report progress. A number of suggested amendments have been made dealing in a few cases with typographical errors and in two or three other cases with what appear to the members suggesting the changes to provide in certain sections clearer statements of their purpose. Those amendments, in order to expedite consideration by the committee of the whole house, I shall have printed in the proceedings in order that each member may consider what is proposed. If hon. gentlemen on either side have other amendments which they would suggest as proper, I am quite willing to consider them and possibly we might include them in the list of proposed amendments which I will submit in the votes and proceedings.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. gentleman had better take charge of the marketing bill.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not been able to discover in this bill the provision that I have been seeking for eight or ten years to have put into the Dominion Companies Act, namely, some control over the capital stock of the company. If there is such a provision I have not been able to find it. There is provision merely for the issue of the charter to the company at the capitalization suggested by themselves and from time to time they are given authority to increase that capitalization up to the maximum. It seems to me that some supervision of some sort should be taken in this connection. I just mention the matter to the minister. It is not provided for in the bill and I think it should be.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With regard to the issue of capital stock and the provision of the capital that is required this bill provides for the most complete disclosure of any act now in existence in, I think, any English speaking

country excepting, possibly, the proposed amendments to the Securities Act now before the United States congress. In the administration of the act there is left to the Secretary of State considerable discretion. I say to the hon. gentleman that for four years the Companies Act has been administered with the greatest care and, without reflecting upon my predecessors in office, I think, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the time, it has been more carefully administered recently than it had been in previous years. But if the hon. member has any suggested amendment I will be very glad to consider it because I would like so far as possible to reach a consensus of opinion among members as to the provisions of the bill in order that when it is finally placed upon the statute books of the country it may represent the matured opinion of the majority of the house irrespective of party or other affiliations.
Progress reported.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 11, 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.
William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I desire before the discussion is proceeded with, to rise to a point of order concerning the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) which appears at page 2445 of Hansard and reads 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 conditions in Canada, and to the successful application of other policies respecting credit and employment designed to effect this end.
I desire to take objection to the latter part of the amendment and to show that it is out of order inasmuch as it deals with matters which have already been dealt with by the bouse. The particular words to which I invite Your Honour's attention are these:
And to the successful application of other policies respecting credit and employment designed to effect this end.

The Budget-Point oj Order
The end being presumably the increasing of export trade. It is difficult to determine to what extent export trade will be affected by credit unless we discuss credit as well as export trade. The other day the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) took objection on similar grounds to a subamendment; he called attention, as I do now, to a resolution which was moved by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas), and in which the following words appear:
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the creation of a national system of credit and finance.
And the subamendmemt was ruled out of order because in it these words appear:
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.
The hon. member argued that on those grounds, namely, that credit was mentioned in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Camrose and that it was again mentioned in the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), the said subamendment was therefore out of order. I draw your attention, sir, to the ruling which you gave sustaining that particular contention and I quote your words in giving your 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 subamend'ment to be out of order.
If the question of credit as mentioned in our amendment was before the banking and commerce committee and therefore rendered our subamendment out of order, surely the fact that credit is also included in the main amendment moved by the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth causes it to be out of order. Further I would suggest that Your Honour should consider the amendment of the hon. member to whom I have referred, in the light of paragraph 397 appearing on page 127 of Beauchesne's Rules and Forms, as follows:
An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house, can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice.
In other words the question of credit mentioned in the amendment is a substantive motion and does not refer to any particular part of the matter with which the budget deals. Therefore I would suggest that on both these grounds the matter cannot be discussed

again in the amendment: first, that the question of credit is being dealt with by the banking and commerce committee under two measures, one the ordinary revision of the Bank Act and the other, dealing with the question of a central bank; secondly, that it is a substantive motion of which notice should have been given, and that it is not germane to the main matters with which we have to deal. I would also say that the whole question of unemployment, which is mentioned in the amendment I have just quoted, has been dealt with by this house on a motion of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) on February 7, 1934, namely:
That, in the opinion of this house, in view of the large number of unemployed, and with the necessity of increasing the purchasing power of the people, it is expedient that the government give immediate consideration to the inauguration of a large scale program of public works to be financed by a direct issue of non-interest bearing dominion notes.
That includes not only the question of credit but also unemployment, both of which are mentioned in the amendment. The hon. member for Macleod discussed that resolution, which is at the present time on the order paper. Therefore, sir, I submit that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) is out of order for precisely the same reasons that our subamendment was ruled out of order the other day by yourself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the point of order raised by the hon. member, if I understood him aright he raised three specific issues. The first was that the question of credit referred to in the amendment is before the committee on banking and commerce, and the hon. member quoted marginal notation No. 397 to standing order 48:
An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house, can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice.
At once, sir, I wish to submit that the citation of marginal notation No. 397 has nothing to do with the point of order. I think the hon. member knows that there are certain resolutions that require notice, and the mere fact of an amendment suggesting any of these questions which might come up on a substantive motion has nothing to do with the point of order.
Then the hon. member suggested that the question of economic nationalism was referred to in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), and that the question was previously disposed of in the debate on the address in

The Budget-Point of Order
reply. I suggest that after careful perusal of the motioa for an address in reply and the amendment thereto moved by the official opposition you will find that there is no reference to the words "economic nationalism." We moved an amendment adding certain words-that His Excellency's present advisers have lost the confidence of the country. Therefore that point is not germane to the present issue.
Two points remain: first, that the question of credit is now before the committee on banking and commerce, and second, that the question of unemployment was disposed of in two previous debates, on the motion of Mr. Heaps, and on that of Mr. Coote, during the present session. I submit that the other day when I raised a point of order the question of national finance or national credit was concretely before this house in the form of a specific resolution moved by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) and was disposed of on a point of order raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). The general question of credit is always before this house and the banking and commerce committee, and therefore the reference to the word " credit " makes absolutely no difference. The question before the committee was a survey of what is known as national or social credit. I therefore submit that the point of order is not well taken.
Then in regard to the general reference to unemployment: two resolutions were mentioned, one proposed by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), which dealt with a specific phase of the unemployment situation and offered specific remedies according to his ideas in the way of curtailing hours of labour, the redistribution of wealth, and the increase of purchasing power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I might interrupt, if
the hon. member will look at page 73 of the votes and proceedings he will find the resolution is not quite that. The resolution of Mr. Woodsworth was:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's present advisers have not taken such steps as are necessary to deal adequately with unemployment, to reduce the burden imposed by the public debt, and to put the agricultural industry on a basis that will insure to the farmer a decent standard of living.
Upon that the house divided. So it was frankly a question of unemployment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My
right hon. friend is dealing with a point not raised by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine).


Richard Bedford Bennett: I could not hear very
well what he said.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He referred to an amendment moved by the official opposition which was by way of adding certain words, not substituting or deleting. Therefore I submit that the point of order in that regard is not well taken. Further I want to suggest this rule, that any resolution of the session referring to a particular phase of a general question, a general problem, does not bar an amendment or resolution dealing in general with the whole question. That is a well known rule of parliament. The resolution moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg dealt with the question of purchasing power and reduction of hours of labour. The resolution dealt with by Mr. Coote dealt with the issue of non-interest bearing dominion notes. I suggest that these motions therefore dealt with specific phases of the unemployment situation. It is all very well to resort to quibbles, but it would reduce parliamentary discussion to an absurdity if we were not allowed to refer to credit or unemployment in a general amendment to the budget. The specific question of national credit was dealt with on the motion of the hon. member for Camrose and is now before the banking and commerce committee. The general question of credit is not before that committee; it is before this house, as is the question of unemployment. I suggest that we certainly are entitled to move an amendment dealing broadly and generally with the two great questions of credit and unemployment.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I quite agree with a great part of what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). But some of us took precisely that ground when the question was up the other day with regard to the subamendment moved by two members of this group. I believe that the amendment of the official opposition is in order. I believe that our amendment was in order. I cannot see why it should be said that national credit belongs to one particular category and credit belongs to another; that one particular kind of unemployment belongs to one category and another kind of unemployment to another. It seems to me that by ruling out the subamendment the other day we in reality reduced the proceedings of this house to an absurdity. That is the only reason why I feel that I should support a position such as that taken by the hon. member for Wetaski-

The Budget-Point oj Order
win (Mr. Irvine). If the house has definitely decided that this kind of motion is out of order, it is right that we should deal in the same way with other motions of the same kind. That is my position. Personally I submit that this amendment is in order, as I considered our amendment in order. But justice is more important than technicalities; if the one was ruled out of order the other should be ruled out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one distinction between the amendment that has been moved by the official opposition and the one referred to by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, which I think should be drawn to your honour's attention. The amendment of the official opposition says nothing at all with respect to the particular policies on credit or unemployment which are referred to in the amendment. The amendment is solely to the application of any policies, whether they be the policies of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) or the policies of the official opposition. The amendment distinctly reads:
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 that end.
There is no controversy in the mind of any of us as to the policies recommended by hon. gentlemen in the far corner being designed, from their point of view, to effect the end of improving conditions. We are in agreement as to that; they may be different policies from these which we are proposing, but this amendment says that it would not matter whether the policies of the members of the 'C.C.F. group or those of the official opposition were to be the policies of the day, that they could not be effectively applied unless in some way the policies with respect to export trade were of such a character as to improve trade as such. I submit therefore that there is a distinction between the two amendments that is vital, and altogether apart from discussing the previous ruling of Your Honour the amendment which is now being called in question seems to be perfectly regular inasmuch as it relates to the application of policies in general, and not to the question of specific policies with respect either to credit or to employment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the other day this matter was being discussed, on the point of order then raised I asked the Speaker whether or not that applied to the whole of the subamendment, because it contained certain words about which I had the gravest doubt. I still have that doubt. The question, however, is this: Can the house twice debate and arrive at a conclusion with regard to the same matter during the same session? If the amendment proposes to review the decision already arrived at, then I think the amendment is out of order. I think we have held that too frequently to have it further discussed. The amendment of the official opposition first of all alleges what are the policies of the government and then states that the opposition favours the substitution therefor of certain other policies which are named. With respect to one of these there might be a very debatable question as to whether it has been discussed this session in the sense of a conclusion having been arrived at. When the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) was making his observations I remembered that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), following the general amendment moved by hon. gentleman opposite to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, moved an amendment which I have just read, and which I hesitate to read a second time. However, his words were:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's present advisers have not taken such steps as are necessary to deal adequately with unemployment, to reduce the burden imposed by the public debt, and to put the agricultural industry on a basis that will insure to the farmer a decent standard of living.
Rightly or wrongly the house divided on that question and by a vote of 54 to 89 determined for this session that the government of the day had not failed to deal adequately with unemployment, to reduce the burden imposed by the public debt or to put the agricultural industry on a basis that would ensure to the farmer a decent standard of living. Whatever in the amendment to the motion to go into supply is at variance with that in my judgment should be stricken out, following the course of reasoning that always has been adopted in parliament, namely that you never would cease to debate if you continued, sitting after sitting, to discuss a matter already disposed of. It is quite clear that when this house voted upon the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and seconded by the hon. mem-

The Budget-Point of Ordei
ber for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), for this session it did dispose of those matters; I think we all agree with respect to that. Instead of limiting the amendment to a specific matter they dealt with three broad, general policies, unemployment, agriculture and the public debt, and in connection with all three they asked that the attitude of the government be challenged. That has been done; the vote has been taken, and I do submit that this phase of the matter is disposed of.
It will be recalled that it was decided by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to matters that were already on the order paper an amendment could not be offered to the motion later submitted to the house. That was in connection with the natural resources debate. An effort was being made by the late hon. member for Frontenac-Addington to move an amendment on going into supply, and the resolution upon the order paper precluded him from doing so because it was held that you could not anticipate, by a motion on going into supply, a matter that was to be the subject of debate. As a matter of fact the marketing bill had been submitted to this house and had received first reading before the amendment was moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). That bill does deal with the export trade; the very title states that it is desirable to encourage export trade. Whether or not you should place a more limited construction upon those words than their broad and general meaning would indicate I am not going to argue, because last session I did indicate what I should like to repeat now: When an opposition, whether it be the official or the unofficial opposition, see fit to move amendments to the address challenging the specific policies of the government, and a vote is taken which is adverse to them, they cannot again during that session move the same amendment. That is one of the risks that must be taken. Whether or not they sufficiently amplified their position when they first moved the amendment is not for me to say, but it is obvious that they cannot move the amendment a second time on going into supply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There can be a general discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I submit that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) will not say that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not deal with three specific policies of the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But this is general.	,


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and so are they; most general. The amendment of the official opposition now deals with export trade, the permanent improvement of conditions in Canada, the successful application of other policies respecting credit and employment, and so on. Certainly with respect to employment there is no doubt that this matter has been canvassed and argued for this session, and the vote has been taken. With respect to credit it might be said-I am not going to labour the point-that it has been disposed of also- because of the votes that were taken on the general motion that the government had lost the confidence of the house. In addition, however, we had the discussions on the Bank Act and the Bank of Canada Act, and the motion of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) with respect to the issue of non-interest bearing securities. In all those matters the house dealt with that subject. I do not know that there has been a carefu: decision given by the chair as to how far the discussion of these matters on the address, when a vote is taken, precludes the possibility of raising them again in somewhat different words on going into supply. I have pointed out, as I do again, that when on the address in reply to the speech from the throne you see fit to challenge the policies of the government and specify the general policies to which objection is taken, you cannot again challenge them on going into supply, and that is just what this amendment does in at least three points.
The other day I raised the question, which is still uncertain in my own mind, as to whether or not the subamendment moved by the unofficial opposition, in terms negativing the motion to go into supply by substituting for that motion a portion of the amendment moved by the official opposition, to which was added the view of the unofficial opposition as to what the policy should be, was in order. The Speaker, with the approval of the house subsequently given, ruled that this was out of order. I may say that I am wholly in accord with that view except with regard to one item; it is true that it is a small item, but in my judgment the house has not yet dealt with it.
With respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, every one, but two, of the matters contained therein has already been dealt with by this house on recorded votes, or, what is more important, those questions are now upon the

The Budget-Point of Order
order paper and open for discussion. Such procedure is precluded by a rule about which, at the time it was given by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, I had some doubt, but which upon subsequent investigations I satisfied myself was absolutely sound, namely, that if in good faith there is placed upon the order paper-and I say in good faith, because I fancy the house would be quick to deal with a question which was merely intended for purposes of embarrassment-if a resolution had been placed upon the order paper for discussion, and then it was sought, upon amendment going into supply, to deal with it, it is out of order because you anticipate a discussion which must take place. On the two grounds the amendment-not in its entirety, in my judgment-must fall, first, because it endeavours again to revive for discussion in this house questions of which this house has disposed by recorded votes and, secondly, because in its terms it anticipates matters which are already upon the order paper, and with which this house has partially dealt and is about to continue to deal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before he concludes his argument may I ask the Prime Minister a question? As I take it, the point in my right hon. friend's contention revolves around the exact meaning to be attached to the expression "matter disposed of." I would submit to my right hon. friend that if he construes the expression "matter disposed of" as applying to general conditions or to matter or matters, used in a general sense, rather than to a specific matter, there would be no opportunity for debate, discussion or amendments of any kind. It surely must relate only to specific acts or policies which have been discussed and disposed of. As an instance I would mention a motion by the opposition to the effect that the government does not any longer enjoy the confidence of the house. My right hon. friend's contention is that if that motion is moved once in a session it cannot be moved a second time whereas, as my right hon. friend knows, it may as a matter of fact be moved fifty times, if we follow the rules which have heretofore been followed. The rules must be considered in a broad and liberal way so as to permit discussion, and it is important that the Prime Minister should not place upon the words the limited and restricted interpretation which he has just given. *


Richard Bedford Bennett: Although I have exhausted my right to speak, I should like to answer the question asked by the right hon. gentleman. I think that when the resolution 
is moved stating that the government has lost the confidence of the house it must necessarily, under our representative institutions, always be in order, because the British North America Act itself provides that a government must command the support of a majority in the house. One of the methods by which that point can instantly be raised is that any hon. member any time, subject to the general rules and decorum, may make the motion that a government has lost the confidence of the house. Then a vote may be taken accordingly. That is a motion, which, of course, having regard to the British North America Act must always be in order. But the general rule of procedure in all deliberative assemblies is that once, during a session, a matter has been disposed of-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A specific matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -it cannot be raised again. Could you have anything more specific *than the motion made on the speech from the throne by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He challenged the government on three general policies.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
interrupt?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth deals with the application of policies with respect to credit and employment, designed to meet that end. That might mean new policies which have not been discussed in this house at all. It is the application of policies with respect to credit and employment. It might mean new policies, or policies not discussed previously in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unfortunately it does not say that; that is the difficulty. Exactly the same point arose with respect to anticipation. When we had a motion on the order paper, and a motion going into supply, we were assured that members were not going to discuss a matter from the same point of view at all. But because the motion covered the same matter the Speaker ruled it could not be done. Here we have the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth stating that government policies with respect to three matters are inimical to the best interests of the country. And in this motion we have a declaration to the same effect with respect to at least two of them. As a matter of fact I am very anxious that whatever is done in a matter

The Budget-Point oj Order
of this kiad should be done properly. We should not hasten in the matter, because it is very serious. Always, when an amendment to go into supply is dealt with one feels that the widest latitude should be enjoyed by those hon. gentlemen sitting opposite in making any motion which in their wisdom they think it desirable to make, any motion indicating their disapproval of the conduct of the government in the affairs of the country. But, as I pointed out last year and again point out, if they see fit to anticipate that they must take the risk of having a double debate with respect to some matters, a practice which I believe the rules are intended to prevent. No hon. member looking up Hansard will deny that very many of the speeches were almost identical in terms with the language used here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why
not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am simply answering
that the "why not" is the reason that this is out of order. That is why not, exactly. It is not intended that at the same session the same speeches should be made on the same matter. One is on the ground of economy, and the other is that a conclusion already arrived at should not be challenged.
I am not expressing any opinion about the matter other than to indicate that as I read the rules-and I made this statement last session as I had made it before-if an opposition challenges a government's policy as reflected in the speech from the throne to the extent of moving an amendment and taking a vote, it then is precluded from challenging those same policies on a motion to go into supply, and taking a vote on the same matter. The right hon. gentleman is entirely right when he states my point is that the question is whether or not the amendment now 'before the house challenges the policy of the government on the same grounds or with respect to matters dealt with previously in the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This is a matter of considerable importance, and one which I think should be very carefully considered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the Prime Minister's reasoning not make it possible for the government to preclude a debate on any question during a session by just having an amendment introduced of an omnibus nature which would offer criticism of all government policies? That is what it comes to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say that my view of the rules is that they are intended to prevent a second discussion on any matter which has been either affirmatively or negatively determined by a vote of the house. If a resolution has been moved, seconded and passed by the House of Commons that resolution cannot again become a subject matter in a session.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not a specific matter,-but a general matter, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no distinction between specific and general; otherwise the rule would have no value. Speeches on general matters are amplified and illustrated from specific instances, and it seems to me somewhat anomalous that a man can condemn a policy of government with respect to a general program it is endeavouring to carry out, and then say, "Now, I am going to move a vote of want of confidence with respect to the same matter by taking one part from it and making it the subject matter of an amendment to go into supply." It might be made the subject matter of a motion of no confidence in another way, but that is not the matter we now have under consideration.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In view of the importance of the point raised I should prefer to reserve my decision until the discussion comes on again. The hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth who moved the amendment is not here, and the effect of his amendment in relation to Bill No. 51 has been raised I think for the first time. I should not like to see the hon. member who moved that amendment taken by surprise and therefore, if it meets with the approval of the house, I shall reserve my decision for the time being.


Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: 3020	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Fraser (Cariboo)
intelligent effort into the expansion of our foreign trade. The figures are available to every hon. member. Here are some statistics
United Kingdom-*
Percentage of exports. Percentage of imports United States-
Percentage of exports. Percentage of imports Other countries-
Percentage of exports. Percentage of imports
relating to	our	trade with the	United Kingdom and countries:	the	United States and other	1929	1933	Increase	Decrease31.5	38.9	7.4	15.3	21.2	5.9	36.7	30.2	6.568.6	57.2	11.422.8	30.9	7.1	16.1	21.6	5.5	
So that neither in the exports to nor the imports from the United Kingdom have we had any decrease, but on the contrary an increase in both. With the United States our exports as well as our imports have shown a decrease. I think hon. gentlemen will remember that one of the things with which the Conservative opposition charged the Liberal government was that there was too large an adverse balance of trade with the United States, and it should be brought more nearly into balance. We have brought it more nearly into balance. The other night the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Golding) made the statement that we had promised that we were going to eliminate entirely the adverse trade balance with the United States but we still have an adverse trade balance with them of $138,000,000. True we still have that adverse balance with the United States and probably will have it for a long time to come, but our effort has been to cut it down as much as possible. Let me point out what we have accomplished in that respect. In 1929 our adverse trade balance with the United States was $350,000,000. I think we have done very well to bring it down to $138,000,000 in the time this government has been in office and under the conditions that have prevailed. I think that is a matter for congratulation instead of criticism. At any rate we have decreased our imports from the United States in proportion to our total imports by 11*4 per cent, reducing the actual adverse balance from something like $350,000,000 to $138,000,000.
Then hon. gentlemen say we must expand our foreign trade. But in both exports and imports we have increased our foreign trade. We are putting intelligent efforts behind it, and the result shows in the returns which are tabled in the house, to which every hon. member has access. So there is nothing in this eternal and constant reiteration of the statement that this government does not realize the necessity for foreign trade. My observations lead me to believe that constant
(Mr. J. A. Fraser.]
and intelligent effort is being made to develop foreign trade, so that we may balance up and live happily ever afterwards. The general impression one would gather from discussions in this house is that this is an all-round nogood government, that it does not do anything, any time, anywhere.


Mr. NEILL:: Don't mention it.


John Anderson Fraser: Is that the lumberman from Vancouver? I am sorry he was not in the house to listen to my dissertation on the lumber business, because he is one who did not think the Ottawa agreements were going to do us any good. But ask him to-day and see what he thinks. To-day they are prospering instead of being down in the dumps; he is laughing every day.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: More promises!


John Anderson Fraser: Let us see some things that this government has done since it came into power. In the first place we did one grand big job in revising the tariff, we revised it upward. They blame us for being high tariff people, say that our tariffs are as high as Haman's gallows and all that. Now the question whether the tariff is high or low is not an interesting one to the Conservative party; the important question is: Is it high enough to be effective? Is it high enough to do the work it is intended to do, that is take care of unemployment and of general conditions in this country, to give this country a fair deal?


Mr. DENIS:: With what success?


John Anderson Fraser: I am a little dull of hearing, I did not get it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a good fault.


John Anderson Fraser: This government promised that they would raise the tariff. They went right at it in the proper way. When they revised the tariff they made a real

The Budget-Mr. Munn
revision, and it has been very effective. Since that tariff went into operation we see things getting back to normal; we see the benefit. You cannot pick up a newspaper without seeing encouraging reports of reviving industry throughout this country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The gold tax!


John Anderson Fraser: Of course I do not
expect to make the Liberal opposition see this, but as far as I am concerned I have no hesitation in saying that ninety-nine per cent of it is due to the policies of this government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Including
the gold tax.


John Anderson Fraser: I shall talk about the gold tax in a minute. I notice you do not say much about the gold tax yourself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not like .t.


John Anderson Fraser: Then we have had to handle this unemployment problem every year since this government came into office. We have spent $130,000,000 but what did this opposition tell us in 1930? I wonder if there are any here w'ho heard that "five cent" speech-"not a five cent piece," and that kind of nonsense. This government having promised that they would take care of unemployment as well as they could have up to date spent $130,000,000. I wonder if the public want to go back and be left to their own resources. What would have happened to a lot of people had this government not come to their assistance, for instance the people of southern Saskatchewan where they had four or five successive crop failures?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And the Canadian Pacific?


John Anderson Fraser: Then in addition to taking care of unemployment, which has occasioned a great deal of discussion, we also gave the wheat farmers of the prairies a bonus on their production one year.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Only for the west.


John Anderson Fraser: Yes, but they are the people who are hard up; they need it most. Everyone wants more money, and there is always plenty more back in the east; at least that is the opinion of the people in the west V>
not only bonused the wheat 74726-1914
growers; in addition to that we financed the whole operation of purchasing that wheat crop.
I thought I heard my hon. friend from South. Battleford (Mr. Vallance) laugh at that.


Mr. VALLANCE :: Oh, no.


John Anderson Fraser: As a matter of fact the wheat growers would have been very badly off if this government had not undertaken the financing of that wheat crop; they would have tried to deliver their wheat but no one would have been there to receive it or pay for it.


John Vallance: Why?


John Anderson Fraser: Because they
would not have put their money into it; they would not have given twenty-five cents a bushel for the wheat if this government had not stood behind them and said, "Here, these men must have a certain amount of money."


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Stirling):: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


John Anderson Fraser: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I hardly got started.


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) on his interesting speech, though I shall not attempt to follow him. The hon. gentleman must be in the inner councils of the government; after listening to his purely political speech one would think there must be an election just around the corner. I am not going to answer his speech but I should like to discuss the lumber situation for a few moments.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was in Vancouver in January he attended a meeting held under the auspices of the board of trade, and made a very good speech before a very large gathering. Just here let me say that I am not going to touch on very many subjects. I have been in the lumber business all my life, however, and a good deal has been said in this house in regard to lumber both by those who do know and those who do not know about it. During the course of his remarks the Prime Minister complimented the lumber industry of British Columbia for setting up an all time record of lumber exports during 1933. I do not accuse the Prime Minister of having made a misstatement; I believe he misunderstood the statement that was handed to him by someone, but I want to give the correct
The Budget-Mr. Munn

figures. In 1929 our exports of lumber from the dominion totalled 1,696,110,000 feet, valued at $47,663,849, or about $28 per thousand. In 1933 the total exports of lumber from Canada amounted to 619,675,000 feet, valued at about $11,098,675, or roughly $18 per thousand feet. That is the picture; in 1929 we expected about three times as much as we expected in 1933. No doubt some of the Prime Minister's friends told him we had made an all time record in that year.
Here is another feature of the situation. In 1933 we exported something over 313,000,000 feet to Great Britain and 306,000,000 feet to other countries. For the 313,000,000 feet we received $5,341,000; for the smaller amount of 306,000,000 feet we received a larger return, $5,757,000. Those are the actual figures; there is nothing political about that.
My hon. friend from Cariboo has left the chamber; I am sorry, because I am just coming to something that might be of interest to him. The hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) gave this house some interesting figures on April 23, appearing at page 2437 of Hansard, which proved beyond a doubt that while our lumber exports to Great Britain have increased we have lost a great deal of business in the way of exports to the United States. Let me give the house the lumber shipments from British Columbia to the United States for the yeajrs 1929 to 1933 inclusive:
Feet
1929		 654,701,000
1930		 579,390,000
1931		 308.422,000
1932		 101,484,000
1933		 35,000,000
Later I will attempt to show why, in my opinion, our exports to the United States have fallen off. Now let me give the house the total shipments of timber from British Columbia to the United Kingdom for the same period:
Feet
1929		 69,903,655
1930		 98,037,621
1931		 81,356,058
1932		 108,314,682
1933		 270,208,051
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite true that our exports to Great Britain have increased, but in proportion our exports to the United States have decreased very much more. To-day we are still over 300,000,000 feet short of taking up the slack of the loss of the United States market alone, to say nothing of the terrific shrinkage in the Canadian market. During 1933 our total
IMr. Munn.]
production was fifty-two per cent of the production of 1929. They tell us that in British Columbia the lumber business is booming, but that was how the production of 1933 compared with 1929, and the average sale price in 1929 was $21.50 per thousand feet, while in 1933 it was $13.50. I do>
not know why, but they say that in British Columbia the lumber business is prospering. No one in Canada would be better pleased than I if that were the case, because I am financially interested, but since I have come to Ottawa in 1930 we have done very little business in lumber. An analysis shows that the Canadian market absorbed 690,831,000 less feet of our lumber in 1933 than in 1929, and that the United States took 551,500,000 less feet in 1933 than in 1929. I notice that the hon. member for Cariboo has left the chamber; he might be interested.
Speaking in this chamber on October 26, 1932, I made the statement that in my opinion the lumber business in Canada would not get back to anything like normal conditions until we got back into the United States market. For years the Pacific coast states have been asking for a higher rate of duty or tax on Canadian lumber going into the United States, but until 1932 they could not get Washington to act. During 1931 and 1932 a very strong lobby movement was engineered by the Pacific coast states to raise the tariff or put a tax on Canadian lumber imports into that country, and finally the argument was advanced that through her imperial conference treaties Canada was raising her tariffs against the United States, through preferences granted to other countries. Let me quote some of the statements which were made in Washington in support of the proposed increase in the tariff or tax on Canadian lumber. The Pacific coast lobbyists made a very strong move for the imposition of extra tax, or duty, whichever you choose tor call it. As evidence of the points I have made I shall read from the proceedings before the Senate finance committee on the Revenue Act of 1932. I quote from the evidence of Mr. W. B. Greeley, Secretary and Manager of the West Coast Lumber Association. At page 636 of the evidence I find the following:
Mr. Greeley: What has happened, Senator Couzens, is that with the tariff and shrinkage in our home consumption, as I mentioned, with a corresponding shrinkage in our export business because of depreciated currency difficulties, and the preferential tariffs that have to-day

The Budget-Mr. Munn
practically shut us out of the British empire and all its dominions, and because of the foreign regulations and quotas that have shut us completely out of France, our industry is prostrated.
Senator Couzens:	So those are the real
reasons that you are asking this to-day?
Mr. Greeley: Those are reasons, Senator, and the real primary reason is that seventy-five per cent of our men are unemployed. Now, when you consider the communities in which these men lived, it is a very critical situation.
Senator Gore: You have no way of telling why these preferential rates were granted and the quotas cut to keep out our stuff?
In other words, lumber.
Mr. Greeley: Oh, I know the common reason that is given, or the reason that _ is commonly cited is that it was in retaliation against us in this country. I am no expert on those subjects, but I do know, so far as our tariff is concerned, there are no tariffs that keep a single pound of foreign wood pulp production out of the United States.
On the other hand, we are in a position where their preferential tariffs benefit them and they shut us out. And while our friends in British Columbia are steadily increasing their exporting business, and are running their mills at capacity, we -are shut _ off from the export business and have a shrinkage in our home market which has just reached a point where the industry is going to pieces.
Senator Thomas (Idaho): Mr. Greeley, is Russia a competitor here?
Mr. Greeley: In a mild way, Senator. They range from a maximum of 70,000,000 feet to about 14,000,000 feet in 1931, which is not, of course, an important quantity. The Russian imports of pulpwood, however, have been a very substantial factor at one time or another, and a very serious threat to our pulpwood industry.
Senator Gore: Does Canada get preferential rates in England under this new tariff?
Mr. Greeley: Yes, ten per cent.
Senator Gore: When did that go into effect?
Mr. Greeley: It went into effect on the 1st of March. The trade agreement between Canada and Australia levied a preferential tariff against America of twenty shillings per thousand feet. This is on rough lumber. That has been operating almost a year, and has kept the American lumber out of the Australian market. And the same thing is happening in Great Britain and in Africa. In other words, we have had this double burden: This shrinkage in our home market, and this competition in our home market from British Columbia. We have had a very rapid loss in our domestic market.
Then, at page 642 of the proceedings under the Revenue Act of 1932 Senator Greeley made this statement:
The preferential tariffs within the British empire, are rapidly closing many important former markets to American lumber. The trade agreement between Australia and Canada made effective nearly a year ago, gives the Canadian lumber exporter a preference of twenty shillings per thousand board feet on the usual Douglas fir items, and has largely shut out American lumber from this market.
South Africa gives Canadian lumber a preferential tariff of three per cent; Great Britain a preferential tariff of ten per cent, with every indication that it will be materially increased in pursuance of the British empire trade policy. American lumber exports to Great Britain have already shrunk materially; and that market will hereafter be practically closed to our saw mills.
At page 665 of the same proceedings, Mr. R. M. Ingram, secretary and sales manager of the E. C. Miller Cedar Lumber Company, of Aberdeen, Washington, state!:
On Grays harbour we market exports, intercoastal and rail. Our export markets are practically gone because of British empire preferential in Australia, New Zealand, England and import tariffs into Canada. Japan has been lost because of the difference in exchange, France because of quotas and embargos. Our intercoastal business is fast being superceded, what little there is left, by Canadian lumber and shingles.
The fallowing statement made by Mr. C. C. Sheppard, of the Southern Pine Association, is taken from page 11202 of the Congressional Record:
Whereas the lumber industry of the United States is now operating at approximately 20 per cent of capacity, and with the many communities in the south dependent entirely upon the saw mills, thousands of families are undergoing extreme hardship and privation because of the forced curtailment of lumber production; and
Whereas Canadian trade agreements with Australia, South Africa, England, Ireland and Scotland, preferential duties of other countries and the general depreciation of foreign currency have practically eliminated the exportation of lumber by the United States to countries which heretofore have consumed tremendous quantities; and
Whereas, with only the domestic markets remaining, and these being on an extremely subnormal basis of consumption, the lumber manufacturers are forced with the dumpage of surplusage by Canadian producers, who are protected by higher prices in British-controlled territories, and with the importations of lumber produced in Russia from confiscated timber with convict or forced labour.
Page 11278 of the Congressional Record contains the following statement by Senator Jones from Washington:
The lumber industry of the United States is now operating at approximately 20 per cent of its capacity. The object of this amendment is to provide an equalization of competitive conditions for the American forest industry. It has been stated, and I assume that it is true, that Canadian trade agreements with Australia, South Africa, England, Ireland and Scotland provide for preferential duties oyer other countries, and the general depreciation of foreign currencies has practically eliminated the exportation of lumber by the United States to countries which heretofore have consumed tremendous quantities.
The Budget-Mr. Munn

At page 11287 Senator Nye said:
One of the arguments advanced as a reason for a tariff on Canadian lumber is the preferential tariff agreements between Canada and Australia and the United Kingdom, which it is alleged shut the domestic exporter out of the Australia and English markets.
Those arguments, Mr. Speaker, were used in Washington at the time of the lobbying for an additional tax on Canadian lumber, and at a time when the lobbyists knew that the conference agreements had not been finally completed. The preference on lumber had been agreed upon in March but was to be confirmed later by treaty. I made the statement in 1932, and I make it again now, that while we of course received some benefits in the British market from those agreements, in my judgment we lost very much more in other markets which we had been enjoying for practically a lifetime.
My hon. friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), speaking in the house on May 7, attempted to justify the lumber agreement as arrived at in Ottawa at the time of the conference in 1932. My candid opinion is, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend and his associates have up to date suffered more financial loss in connection with these same treaties than any other lumber firm in Canada, through having the American market closed to their business. However, one cannot help but admire the wonderful loyalty displayed by my hon. friend to his political party in supporting these agreements, when he and others who happen to be familiar with the situation know that he is talking against his own financial interest just to keep in line with and support his own party; and when giving figures in connection with lumber shipments, he does not give the whole story. My hon. friend who is considered the expert on lumber from the government side may be a good lumberman or may not, but we all agree that he is loyal to 'his party.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Albert Edward Munn: Before the house rose at six
o'clock I had discussed the lumber situation at some length, and there are just a few more words I wish to say in connection with it.
For many years the lumber operators in Washington, Oregon and California had lobbied for a duty on lumber from Canada. That was prior to 1982, when they were finally successful in having $3 excise imposed. The farmers in the middle west objected; they

said, "No; if you put a tax on British Columbia lumber it means that we in the middle west and consumers in the east will have to pay more for it". In my arguments before six o'clock I gave conclusively the reason why the United States government finally consented to impose an excise tax of $3 per thousand on lumber from this country, and that was a blow to the Canadian lumber industry from which in my opinion we shall not recover until we get back that market.
I am one of those who take up little of the time of this house. I believe that if a man has anything to say he should say it and get through as quickly as possible. Now, I have not much more to say and I am going to say it quickly. As a business man, I say that some of the legislation that has been passed in this house by this government is half baked. Last session the sugar tax was half baked legislation. In the first place, if the government wanted to put a tax on sugar, one cent a pound would have been reasonable; that would have been common sense. Instead they put on a tax of two cents and for some reason or other-I do not blame the Minister of Finance at all-there must have been a leak somewhere and that leak cost the taxpayers of this country four or five million dollars. That did not accrue to the benefit of consumer or producer but to the benefit of the profiteer, and that is what I call half baked legislation. I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance has decided this year to reduce the duty to one cent a pound. I would urge however that instead of having that reduction come into effect on the first of July it should take effect on the first of June. Our people in British Columbia are pretty well through with the canning business before the first of July, and if the reduction were put into effect on the earlier date I suggest it would help not only my friends but the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite and everybody else as well. In my riding in North Vancouver there is a small jam factory at Gibson's Landing. Let me show what happened last year. Their total turnover for the year 1933 was $17,437. That was in a community of settlers who grow fruit to good advantage, but having no market they conceived the idea of a cooperative cannery for the production of jam. The farmers' wives and girls pick the berries and help to make them into jam. On that total turnover of $17,437 they paid this half baked tax of two cents a pound on sugar, or 82,320, and a sales tax of $1,046, representing a total tax of $3,366. Now that is out of all proportion; there is no

The Budget-Mr. Munn
rhyme or reason why a tax to that extent should be levied on such a small operation. The result was that after allowing the growers 4} cents per pound for their berries delivered at the cannery, the factory sustained a total loss for the year of $314.
Then take the proposed gold tax. I do not want to be personal, but that also is a half baked tax, and anyone who stopped to think would know that had it been carried into effect as proposed many thousands would have been added to the ranks of the unemployed. As regards mines in which there are high grade ores, they should pay an ample profits tax; but, I say, hands off the others, or you put them out of business. I am glad to know that the Minister of Finance has changed the original proposal which was absolutely unfair; it could not have been considered by people who are practical in that line.
Just a word now about the railway situation. I am one of those who have faith in the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian Pacific Railway has done a good deal for Canada but it has been well paid for it. I am not going to say who is to blame for the situation as it is at the present time, but in my opinion, to-day, we have in the Canadian National Railways a wonderful property, and all it requires is a square deal as compared with the Canadian Pacific. There is no reason in the world why this government or anybody else should get behind the Canadian Pacific Railway and guarantee its bonds, any more than they should for some private company that I might be interested in. As I say, the Canadian Pacific has done a good deal for Canada but it has been well paid for it. The shareholders of that company deserve no more sympathy for losing their money than I deserve if I lose money in my own business, or if any other hon. member interested in some business loses his money. I do not know why it is, but there seems to be in this house an air of friendship towards the Canadian Pacific Railway. It may be that a good many hon. members have stock in the Canadian Pacific, but they should forget that in the interests of Canada. The country has its money in the Canadian National Railways, and those railways should get a square deal as compared with the Canadian Pacific and vice versa.
I have on the order paper a resolution which I should like to read. I do not know whether it will be in order for me to mention it, but it is so far down on the order paper that it will not come up for discussion later in the session. In that resolution there is something which in my opinion is worthy
of consideration, and to conclude my remarks, with your consent, Mr. Speaker, I will read the resolution, which relates to the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways. It reads:
Whereas, the attention of this house has been drawn by the royal commission to inquire into railways and transportation in Canada to the urgent necessity which exists for an early consideration of the capital structure of the Canadian railways (vide section 84-87 of that report), and
Whereas, that commission recognized that a very substantial part of the money invested in the railways comprised within the Canadian National system must be regarded as lost and that its capital liabilities should be heavily written down although the said royal commission did not deem the time opportune when making the said royal report to deal with this important matter but suggested that the same receive early consideration by the board of trustees, and
Whereas, a board of trustees has been appointed by the government:
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, it is of vital importance that the attention of the board of trustees of the Canadian National Railways be directed to this matter and that this house deems it highly desirable that the said board of trustees shall consider this question and report thereon with the least possible delay as being of vital and primary importance in the intersts of all concerned.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the resolution he has just read is not now under discussion. It is on the order paper for discussion at some future time.


Albert Edward Munn: I just want to say this, Mr. Speaker


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member may want to say it, but whether under the rules he has the right to do so is a different thing. He is not in order in discussing that resolution now.


Albert Edward Munn: I am not going to discuss the resolution, but I want to say this: I am not one of those who believe that when you write off a liability you are getting rid of it; you still have it. If I were taking charge of a business and it were capitalized for more than it was worth, as manager of that business before taking charge I would want to have the capital assets written down.
I sympathize with this or any other government that is carrying on at a time like this. We are passing through very difficult times and have many serious problems ahead of us. The cost of government in Canada, municipal, provincial and federal, is entirely too high; we are spending too much money for government in all lines of activity. Further, we are paying interest at too high a rate.
The Budget-Mr. Munn

Other countries have converted their loans to a lower rate of interest and we in Canada should do the same thing. I do not believe in repudiation, but the situation is similar to that where a man in business makes up his mind that he can pay his creditors only so much on the dollar; it is better to take that than to lose all.
Then we have the unemployment situation, and many other problems, but one that worries me is that of the position of the young people who are growing up. I have not heard anything from government speakers which would indicate that any encouragement is to be given to these boys and girls in the way of work. There are many thousands of Canadian young people fourteen, sixteen, and eighteen years old and up and there is nothing for them to do. That is one problem in connection with which the government might do something. In British Columbia and other parts of Canada reforestation plans might be carried out; this is being done in the United States, and we might follow their example.
I had not intended speaking on the budget but I heard so much about the lumber situation that I thought I would give the house my angle of it. I have given positive figures aside from politics. If there are any lumbermen in Canada who have suffered, I am one of them.


Mr. DUFF:: Under a Tory government.


Albert Edward Munn: Yes. The hon. member for Cariboo stated that since this government came into power the fruit growers and the dairy people in British Columbia have prospered. If there can be found a prosperous fruit grower or dairy farmer in British Columbia I should like to shake hands with him.
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my remarks on the budget I wish with my first words to convey to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) my sincere sympathy in his recent sad bereavement.
A short time ago we had delivered to us a budget speech, and in my view;, after listening to the debate arising thereon, there seemed to be just two lines of thought in the minds and utterances of the different speakers. The government speakers carry us up into a new dawn of commercial progress, while those of the opposition, with the very same text, desire to drag us down into the valley of humiliation. The vitally important thought, however, as expressed in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, was the fact that

the country is now well advanced on the high road of economic recovery, and I am happy to say that this is borne out by facts, figures and present day conditions as they exist throughout Canada. The official opposition, on the negative side of the budget, seem to think nothing has improved, and take objection to the budget in all its different phases. It is, of course, the duty of the opposition to criticize; criticism when it is constructive and reasonable in parliamentary debate is part of our democratic form of government; but if we are to judge from the form of criticism displayed by the authorized critic of the Liberal opposition, the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), it is nothing more than a partisan, fault finding preamble such as has been delivered on more than one occasion in this chamber; in fact, it might be termed the sequel to the obstructionist tactics displayed in the house in order that the relief measure might not pass. The kind of criticism thus far directed against the budget is of no help to Canada's financial standing; neither can I see how it can be much of a political ballyhoo for the Liberal party.
It would be a long task to review the different speeches that have been made by opposition speakers on the budget, but the line of criticism was definitely set out by the authorized critic, the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth. They have outraged every phase of the budget, but what they are opposing is a budget speech that was remarkable not only for the manner of its presentation but for what it contained for this country. It is of such vast extent and vital importance to the dominion, and comprises so many topics that seem to create consternation among the opposition, that one even hesitates to enter the debate at this time.
Following the introduction of the budget speech the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth in a lengthy speech, made a very strong and bitter condemnation of the government. As I have said, it would be difficult to follow that speech throughout, but having listened to it and read it again I wish to make just one criticism of it: his speech might be well sized up as a political, partisan, dramatic extravaganza on an immensely stirring, thought-provoking subject like the budget. He presented his terrific broadside in the form of an ironic last act speech with the idea of making the house and Hansard readers believe this country was going to pieces-and you can believe it or not. The hon. gentleman's remarks and criticisms throughout did

The Budget-Mr. McLure
not add anything to the reputation for intelligence and vision of a political party over which it is his supreme desire to preside. Time will not permit me to follow in detail the remarks of the hon. member, but there are some points in his criticism to which I desire to call attention.
For instance there were some things that the hon. member shied clear of, whether consciously or unconsciously. At page 2427 of Hansard he twits the Minister of Finance with regard to his budget speech, especially his estimate last year of a surplus, which turned out to be a deficit. From that he branches off and criticizes the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) with regard to previous budgets. But I should like to point out to the hon. member that especially in times like these it is difficult to estimate exactly for a budget, as trade conditions are by no means normal. I might remind him that there have been other occasions on which estimates did not work out exactly. I would draw to his attention an estimate of his own government of the expenditure for the Montreal bridge- the hon. member was a minister of the crown at that time. They budgeted for an expenditure of eight or nine millions, but as a matter of fact the cost was nineteen millions and more. But there is this difference between the two deficits; the present government knows how the deficit last year occurred, but in the case of the Montreal bridge nobody knows where the extra ten or eleven million dollars went, unless the opposition themselves know. The public would certainly like to know.


William Duff: Page Mr. Pitfield.
Mr. MeLURE: He may be in Newfoundland eating kippers. Again at page 2427 the hon. member for Shellburne-Yarmouth, dealing with debt and interest, gives a statement concerning the public debt, and then states that the increase in the interest payable by the people of this country amounts to $2 AO per head, and that the interest load which has been put upon the people since this government took office is practically $25,000,000 per year. He states that under the Liberal regime they had surpluses, and repeats the statement from the famous Dunning budget speech that Canada had a surplus of $257,000,000 between the years 1925 and 1930. I am reminded that in appealing to the electors during the campaign of 1930 that was one of their stock arguments. Let us see the story of this $257,000,000 reduction of debt which they claim. The Liberal government received during that time $45,000,000 from repayment
of loans and $102,000,000 interest on bank deposits and investments, making a total of $147,000,000 which came due and which certainly applied on debt-what else was there to do with it? Then there was a further $110,000,000 that they also claim they paid in reduction of debt. This came out of taxes. Why should it not have gone to reduction of debt? I might ask why they did not reduce it considerably more, in view of the large amounts of taxes they took from the people at that time. During the six years from 1925 to 1930 inclusive I find that the taxes collected by the Liberal government were in round figures as follows:
1925		 $293,000,000
1926		 328,000,000
1927	 347,000,0001928	 365.000,000
1929		 394,000.000
1930		 375,000,000
Making a total of over $2,100,000,000 in those six years. If we compute this on the systems the hon. member for Shelburne-Yanmouth used, instead of being $2.50 per head it amounts to $210 per head of taxes collected from the people to pay for the Liberal government's program of extravagance during those years.
Then the opposition critic veers away from the budget to preelection promises, and goes back to the campaign of 1930. When he refers to those campaign speeches and promises I should like to remind him that the government in which he was a minister came into power in 1921 pledged to reduce taxation. But what do we find? Instead of a reduction in taxation they increased taxes; they took from the people of this country more than $100,000,000 additional in taxes annually. Yet the opposition critic was a minister in that government; so I think he has no reason to talk about election promises.
The hon. gentleman attempted to show by a long parade of figures that debt and interest were increased by the Conservative party, and on page 2428 made what apparently he considered a conclusive argument. Referring to the Minister of Finance he said: "iMy hon. friend may say that this government's position is due to railway deficits." Then he proceeds:
Let me remind him that during the Liberal administration current deficits on railways were paid out of revenue, and were not added to the public debt.
This is new, and worth looking into. I am rather glad the hon. member mentioned these railway deficits, because as I indicated at the beginning I did not intend to correct all his
The Budget-Mr. McLure

misstatements but only to add a few facts which the hon. member had omitted from his remarks. From time to time the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth as well as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. He on an) and many other hon. members of the opposition have criticized this government and the Minister of Railways with regard to the railway problem, always blaming it on this party. It would have been just as well to leave out of this budget debate that supposedly telling argument. We know that the railway extravagance authorized by the Liberal government from 1922 to 1930 was tremendous. The railways were run purely as a political machine for the Liberal party, and railway construction and various other schemes cost the country over half a billion dollars, so that to-day we are saddled with heavy interest payments. These have been met and are being met by this government, and the credit of our country has been maintained at a high level.
Then from time to time the opposition criticize us with regard to the increase in taxation. The answer is that this is the result of the extravagance of the late government, and is necessary to pay their bills and the interest on the debts they created. We are taxed perhaps more than we should be to meet these requirements. But we might refer to some of their expenditures in connection with railways just to show that the opposition critic might have left this question out of the debate. Perhaps the most extravagant year of all was 1929; that might be termed their pork barrel year for election expenditures. Perhaps we shall be better able to appreciate the Canadian National railway problem if we look at the expenditures made by the Liberal government and consider a few of the things the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth omitted to mention, to show that the administration of which he was a member had no idea of how to finance. You might say that they had no more idea of the finances of this country or of the proper way to protect the public treasury than you would expect from a bunch of drunken sailors. I might quote the words of the Vancouver Sun of October 3, 1932, which, speaking of a Liberal ex-minister, had this to say:
He is an accessory before the fact in the economic ruination of this country.
Yes, my hon. friend the opposition critic neglected to say that the government of which he was a member placed an annual interest burden on the taxpayers of Canada amounting to many millions of dollars, and that the

greater part of the $57,000,000 that we must pay annually in interest on railway bonds is the result of the mismanagement of the present Liberal opposition. Let me contrast for a moment the political interference of the two governments in regard to railway matters. There has been absolutely no interference by the present government in the administration of the Canadian National Railways, but I do not think we could say the same thing with regard to the Liberal government. In support of that statement I would refer to paragraphs 61, 142, 143 and 154 of the Duff report. There you will read of the political interference under the Liberal government, when legitimate expenditures were ignored and the officials were forced to squander the money of the people in order to keep the political Liberal machine going in high gear. Let me read a part of section 154 of the Duff report, which says:
It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the directors and management of the Canadian National were amenable to public influences and pressure which it would have been in the public interests to have withstood.
This portion of section 154 is well written; it is in good English, but translated into the vernacular of the day it simply means, "The Canadian National was run as a political machine for the Liberal party," and my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth was a minister of the crown in the government of that day.
Let us go a little further with regard to this railway extravagance. In 1929 they bought at tremendous cost fourteen million railway ties which, if laid end to end, would extend several times across Canada. I wish I had time to say more about these railway ties, but this was only one of the many reckless expenditures that were made. 'Sections 149 and 154 of the Duff report contain a severe indictment of the political expenditures made by hon. gentlemen opposite. In 1929 their committals cost the taxpayers of this country $270,000,000; in addition, the ordinary annual supplies for 1929 cost $132,000,000, and in that year they also purchased branch lines costing over $40,000,000. These branch lines were bankrupt; they never had paid and never would pay, and I doubt if their operating income would be sufficient to pay the interest charges. Then we had the Montreal terminals committal, to say nothing of the hotel and steamship undertakings.
I have heard Liberals, both on public platforms and in this house, endeavour to blame the railway management for this waste of public money, but the fact stands out like

The Budget-Mr. McLure
a sore thumb that the contract of the general manager expired on April 4, 1928, and was not renewed until September, 1929. The clear inference is that a club was held over his head and that if he wanted his contract renewed these extravagant expenditures had to be made in order to assist the progress of the Liberal political machine.
Now for a moment I should like to deal with salaries and wages. Hon. gentlemen opposite have said that under this government labourers have not been receiving fair wages. Let us see whether the labourer was protected under the Liberal regime, or whether they looked after the high salaried man. We had one man drawing a salary of S157,000 annually, with another man in the railway receiving $62,000. He was the director of expenditures; he had to see that the money went to the proper channels. Then another agent of the same bunch who was employed in London received $25,000 annually, and there were many other salaries ranging from $20,000 to $30,000. These are the people who, after paying these terrible salaries, say that at present the labourer is not receiving his just desserts.
The government made other wild expenditures. I would like to remind the financial critic that they paid $110,000 annually for club dues and fees. It would seem that the whole government were playing golf or that they belonged to all the clubs throughout the country. Under the present government all these extravagances have been cut out; no one can point to any expenditures of the kind that went on for several years under the Liberal government. Then there are one or two other salaries I should like to mention, one being that of a stenographer or private secretary who received $22,000. Do hon. members suppose that the Liberal party and the hon. member who acts as the financial critic for the opposition did not know anything about that? We will admit that $22,000 was a very good salary. Again, a policeman who strutted his stuff all over the country and was accommodated with a private car received a salary of $15,000. The cost of the private car in which he travelled, including attendants, amounted to an additional $35,000 annually. Under those conditions who would object to being a policeman in the employ of the Canadian National Railways when that system operated under the Liberal government? To indicate that the late government did not look after the interests of ordinary labouring men may I say that in those days ninety-six people were receiving salaries of over $10,000, and many
more were receiving salaries of over $5,000. This condition, I am happy to say, has been corrected by the present administration.
In those days they had all kinds of inspectors. For instance, in my own city of Charlottetown the railways had six or seven inspectors visit the city in one week. There was an inspector of spikes and bolts, another of oils and greases, another of safety-first devices, and several other inspectors attending to other minor details. All this work could have been done by one man. They had a good time, putting up at the best hotels and playing golf from morning till night at the expense of the Canadian National Railways. I believe that if the official financial critic of the opposition had looked into these details he would not have made the statements he did with regard to the Canadian National Railways; certainly he would not have said that they paid their deficits out of earnings. In fact it ill behooves the hon. gentleman, as an ex-minister of the crown, to jumble or to juggle figures with regard to these matters when, as a matter of fact, the government of which he formed a part were responsible for the greater part of the debt and interest of the Canadian National Railways.
Directing his remarks to the Minister of Finance, and speaking about trade conditions, the hon. member is quoted at page 2432 of Hansard as follows:
He does not seem to realize that perhaps the most important thing in this country is trade.
He stated further that trade had developed through its own natural channels. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have had a twinge of conscience when he made that remark, because it is not so very long ago that he was one of those hon. members who voted against the conference trade agreements with the British Empire. Dame Rumour has it that he has been severely censured by people in the maritimes for his action in this connection. Again, at page 2432 of Hansard he takes another wallop at the trade agreements when he uses the following language:
The fact of the matter is that any increase in trade between Canada and the Mother Country has been due to natural and economic causes.
I wonder if the hon. member will deny that the Ottawa trade agreements have developed a substantial expansion in Canada's empire trade. Liberal members will have to take back a good deal of what they said regarding the trade agreements. Their success

The Budget-Mr. McLure
has been a great disappointment to the Liberal opposition, and they will have to take a back flop in regard to many of their utterances in that regard. They wanted to destroy the Ottawa conference; they did not want it to be held. They have said that if elected they would destroy these trade agreements. I doubt it; I do not believe they will ever have the chance, but if they do, I suggest they would not dare destroy what has now built up in Great Britain a great market for our agricultural products.
It might be well to remind hon. members of the Liberal attitude towards the empire trade agreements. They dubbed the spirit of the Ottawa conference "economic imperialism" and "enlarged economic isolation," and declared that from the Liberal point of view economic imperialism and economic nationalism are both wrong. They further declared that Canada, as a great exporting country, must organize its trade relations on a world wide scale, and that anything less than this would be a denial of our birthright. I wonder how the Liberal party, its leaders and some if its partisan press will explain these astonishing utterances in face of the trade developments of the last year which have resulted from imperial conference agreements.
I could go on and quote from many speeches made by Liberal members outlining their objections to the empire treaties. The only conclusion at which we can arrive is, inevitably, that if the Liberal party had been in power the agreements would never have materialized. The advantages and benefits of the Ottawa trade agreements have been set forth and are known to all hon. members. In these days, when we are advancing along the highway to recovery, the empire agreements are of vital importance. Let me at this point mention some of the results.
I shall not go into details in regard to the dumber trade/, because that phase of the matter has been covered. I will state briefly, however, that lumber movement has been stimulated by the United Kingdom-Canada trade pact, and last year's trade was the heaviest which had been known for several decades. The export trade through the port of Halifax has increased by over fifty per cent since the treaties came into effect. A revival in trade is very much in evidence in connection with apples, farm products and steel products. Let me mention, further, the possibilities in -the bacon industry brought about by the advantages given in the treaties. The sure demand for Canadian bacon is 
bound to react more and more favourably on the domestic market. There never were more favourable prospects in the history of the bacon industry from the days of confederation down to the present time.
Again, the opposition critic severely criticizes the tariff policy of this government; but let us see what this government have done. They found when they came into office that during the Liberal regime Canada for a considerable period had been buying more than she had been selling; that Canada, in other words, had been a dumping ground for the surplus products of other countries, and the policy of the present government was to overcome that state of affairs. That they did by passing what is known as the dumping duty legislation. Instead of closing all our Canadian industries by its policies, as the Liberal government had done, this government protected our Canadian people and Canadian labour and Canadian industries.
The government has also been criticized by the opposition because it would not support the Russian soviet government plan. The Canadian government placed an embargo on the importation of Russian coal, Russian pulp-wood, Russian asbestos and Russian manufactured furs. Will any hon. member of the opposition dare say that these embargoes against Russian products were not in the best interests of the Canadian people?
I cannot understand how the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth and the opposition generally can continue to endeavour to mislead the public on the Ottawa conference treaty agreements, put perhaps it is only natural in their case because as they squint at the present and future, blinded by their own past record, they will always have a very poor idea of the present and of the future progress of this country.
Again, on page 2428 of Hansard, the opposition critic puts in what he again thinks is a stop argument when he says, "Someone else may say that the debt is due to relief." He had this question of relief very much on his mind. He goes back again to the election campaign, refers to unemployment in 1930, rehashes many of the campaign speeches about relief, talks about unemployment, quotes figures, and then proceeds to blame this government for the unemployment conditions which he charges have been brought about by government policy.
But let us look for a moment at the policy of the hon. gentleman and his government with respect to unemployment, and then contrast it with the policy of this government.

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich
If you look over the conditions for the past ten years or more, or if you go back even further, you will find that from 1914 to 1920 prices and wages advanced very rapidly, with the prices of commodities perhaps holding the lead. There is no doubt that the peak of both prices and wages was reached in 1920. The decline of employment began in 1921, when the number of unemployed began steadily to increase. By the end of June 1921 there were, according to the statistics, over 100,000 unemployed in Canada, 2,000,000 in Great Britain and 6,000,000 in the United States. In the year 1921 there was available for the relief of unemployment in Canada $6,000,000, and the federal government aided the provinces and municipalities in all cases. That sum of money was spent by the federal government to feed, clothe and comfort the unemployed of Canada. Then in 1922 the Liberal government came into power and what was their policy with regard to unemployment?


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, in their opposition to
the Farmer-iLabour subamendment the opposition have made another faux pas, but of that more anon. It appears that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) was so convincing in debating the point of order raised by the subamendment that he may even persuade the Speaker to give the opposition's amendment a similar ride.
It was apparent, from the discernible apathy manifested by this house when the budget was brought down on April 18, that there would be no radical departure from the beaten path or from the course the government has followed for the past three years. Nobody expected anything else but a deflation budget, and a deflation budget it turned out to be. Outside of a few reductions here and there the traditional government policy of retrenchment and rigid economy has been strictly adhered to, while any desire to sail into uncharted seas, to seek new remedies, to live dangerously in order to live, has been frowned upon by the Conservative party which would preserve the present system simply by lopping off its mouldering branches.
The depression, sir, we still have with us, and the government's policies remain the same. The government still continues to try to borrow itself out of debt and to cure unemployment and falling prices and afford relief by the flotation of new loans. In other words,
it still continues to try to pull itself up by its bootstraps, which as everybody knows simply cannot be done. When one looks to the other side of the house for a solution all one gets is a lot of heat instead of light. As an example I shall refer to the rather unaccountable opposition of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to the Farmer-Labour subamendment.
Paradoxically enough the Liberals this session have out-conservatived the Conservatives and out-reactionaried the reactionaries. I shall leave the psychological analysis of this phenomenon to more scientific minds than my own. For the time being suffice it to say that the events of the past few months have more than borne out my contention. Pick up any magazine or newspaper in Canada to-day and you will read about it, or ask reporters and they will tell you about it, and it will not be long before Ripley will caricature this anomalous state of affairs in his "Believe it or Not" column. Indeed before very long I am afraid that both parties would be called the new Canadian Siamese twins, were it not for the legislation which the government has brought down in regard to marketing. If you do not believe that, sir, look at the columns of the Liberal wet nurse, the Ottawa Citizen. She ought to know, and after the way she has slapped the wrists of her nurslings I should have thought they would get wise to this, but as the poet says, where ignorance is bliss 'tia folly to be wise. If they still persist in running around in short pants and diapers instead of long pants, that is their business. If they have not yet learned that Queen Victoria is dead this debate will prove futile and will avail us absolutely nothing. And if Daddy King still persists in feeding his political children on the sour milk of liberty, how can you, sir, expect them to grow into healthy minded Canadians, with a healthy minded aspect of things and of life? I should prefer the raw meat which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) feeds the brood on the other side of the house, even if it is not according to Hoyle. But the "Hush ye, hush ye, don't ye fret ye or the Black Bennett will get ye" attitude of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) is the only type of food which the laissez-faire weaklings on this side of the house are getting from their well meaning but very unwise political foster father. It is no wonder this lack of proper food has produced such barren results in this and other debates.
Take their amendment. It was moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth

The Budget-Mr. Luchkovich
on certain securities; and this in order to allow these companies to carry on loan shark business in this country.
All of these bills, as I have said, are similar in principle and therefore my remarks on one alone, that is Bill No. 15, the Small Loan Company bill, may be considered as applying to the other two. It seems that Bill No. 15 has had more lives than a cat. I thought it was dead, as it certainly should have been, and duly interred with a proper parliamentary monumental epitaph to mark the passing of what otherwise might have been an actual statute of Canada, and a very notorious one at that. It reminds me of the story of the man they could not hang, only in that case the man was innocent while this bill certainly deserves to be killed. It is like a weed; no matter how you try to dispose of it, the thing keeps popping up all over the place. The only saving grace about it is its stubbornness, a certain persistence that would do credit to a nobler cause. In view of the fact that this is supposed to be a year of great activity in parliament in regard to financial matters, and also that we have before the house certain legislation respecting the Bank Act and monetary reform, I cannot for the life of me understand how this bill was ever allowed by the committee on banking and commerce to pass the committee stage. If the committee allowed this rotten bill, as I might call it, to pass, then heaven help the bank revision and heaven help the central bank bill as well as any other pending legislation that was supposed to assist the Canadian people in getting out of the depression in which they now find themselves. Might I ask: Whom is this piratical bill supposed to benefit, and what good is it going to do in lessening the suffering of the Canadian people in this terrible time of stress?
I understand that someone in the committee twitted my colleague about not being able to legislate people into heaven and that he very pointedly retorted: "Not into heaven, but nothing will legislate them into hell [DOT]quicker than this bill." Upon an analysis of the various clauses in the bill I do not see how the average mortal is ever going to escape from the various tentacles that most certainly will envelop him once he is foolish enough to get caught in this bill, which I consider to be a trap to catch the unwary. It may be said that the prospective debtor knows what he is up against when he negotiates a loan under the provisions of the bill, but that certainly [DOT]does not excuse this house from allowing him

either wittingly or unwittingly to get into the clutches of the money sharks who are behind this proposed legislation. I therefore think parliament would make a very good start along the line of reformative and clean-up, constructive legislation by throwing the thing into the parliamentary debris and other rotten Tefuse instead of giving it a place of honour among decent pieces of legislation. The sponsors of these bills would have us believe that there is a bright side to the proposed legislation in that it would render a certain service. But this shining brightness in my opinion is superficial and illusory serving only to hide the dross underneath. I cannot help recalling an incident in my boyhood days that left an indelible impression on my mind. We were bathing on a sandy beach near Atlantic city when we saw a fish thrown out on the shore by a great wave. Try as it would to flop back into the water it could not, so it slowly died on the unaccustomed terrestrial domain. Some children playing nearby picked it up and threw it back into the ocean. Next evening we all went bathing again, when to our surprise there was this very same dead fish lying on the sand. It was one of those beautiful, rare, calm and warm evenings in June:
Then, if ever, come perfect days;
Then heaven tries earth if it be in tune,
And over it softly her warm ear lays;
Whether we look, or whether we listen,
We hear earth murmur, or see it glisten.
Well, we heard life murmur, but as far as this fish was concerned all it did was to glisten. A full moon shone on a cloudless and windless night. As its beams fell directly upon this dead creature of the sea they were reflected from its scales in multicoloured brilliance. The sight momentarily rooted us to the spot; then as we gradually drew nearer to the object from which it emanated and finally got near enough to pick it up, the offensive odour arising therefrom proved equal in intensity to its exterior brilliance. This happened about fourteen years ago. In my last years of high school I ran across a passage in which the orator berated a brilliant but corrupt man for something that he had done, in castigation of whom the remark was made that while the person in question was a man of brilliant parts he nevertheless was utterly corrupt; his whole action was likened to a dead mackerel cast ashore in the moonlight, shiny but smelly, brilliant but rotten. The name of the orator has escaped my memory but the picture has never been forgotten. Comparing that incident with the proposal made by the

The Budget-Mr. Buchkovich
bill to which I have referred, I might point out that while outwardly the bill may appear all right, a thorough examination of ite contents will show how really rotten it is. With all its brilliant exterior but offensive odour it has once more turned up in this house to worry hon. members and haunt their peace of mind. Frankly speaking, to me the whole thing is so offensive that it would only pollute our statute books to give it a place therein. Indeed, sir, were this legislation to pass I am afraid that turning to the page where this bill might be found in the 1934 statute book might be detrimental to the health of the prospective investigator.
An attempt has been made to throw a halo around this bill by referring to the illustrious names of the directors of the company. However, it seems to me that if they are as illustrious as they are described they would think twice before putting their money into a company of this kind. Why do they not invest it in government bonds, for instance? It would not matter whether the president were St. Peter, the secretary St. John and the general manager St. Paul, and all the rest of the evangelists, the board of directors, the obnoxious nature of the various provisions of this bill, the usurious practices that certainly would prevail if the company ever got a charter to do business in Canada, would still be reason enough to sound its deathknell. Oh for another saviour to chase the moneylenders out of the temple again! Let us hope in this regard that the Prime Minister turns out to be another messiah. It is beyond my intelligence sir, to understand why this fishy bill has been trotted out again to nauseate the house, when its only virtue in my estimation is a certain outward appearance that lends it a false respectability-the bright surface to hide a rotten interior; an honest face to camouflage a deceitful nature. I suppose the Dr. Jekyll brilliance has so overhelmed the sponsors of this and other bills and the protagonists thereof that they failed to notice the Hyde hideousness lurking among the provisions of the proposed legislation. But they might have taken some warning from the vigorous opposition of the hon. member for York^Sunbury (Mr. Hanson); for when a man so conservative turns his forceful eloquence against the dubious provisions of this bill I think it is high time for the house to wake up to the seriousness of what is involved therein.
Let us pause for a moment and see what this bill asks us to do-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: May I ask the hon. member what bill he is referring to?


Michael Luchkovich: I am referring to a bill introduced in this house not long ago, the Small Loan Company bill, and two others, which are still before the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: They have nothing to do with the motion now under consideration.


Michael Luchkovich: I am mentioning these bills in order to show that the matter of interest rates is very important in this country. We are dealing with it in the committee on the Bank Act, the central bank bill and other legislation that is supposed to get us out of this depression. There is a great demand throughout the whole country for a reduction in interest rates. Not so long ago three bills almost passed through this house which would have enabled these companies to charge ten or fifteen or twenty, yes, even thirty per cent, without a word of dissent from either side of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: At the present time these bills are not before the house, and it is not open to the hon. member to discuss them. The motion before the house is that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth. That has nothing whatever to do with the bills the hon. member is discussing, which have already been dealt with by the house. The hon. member should have said what he had to say with regard to these bills when they were before the house for consideration. I would also call the hon. member's attention to the fact that he must not read his speech.


Michael Luchkovich: Only the quotations, sir. I should like to deal with the debt question, but as my time is limited I shall postpone my comments in that regard until the Bank Act and other financial legislation is before the house.


Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: It is my intention on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, not to traverse the budget in detail, but to confine my remarks largely to one matter in the hope that thereby I may more emphatically direct the attention of the house and the country thereto, a matter of outstanding national importance to Canada both now and in the years that lie before us.

3036	COMMON'S
The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
I refer, sir, to Canada's future in the air. Before developing that subject, however, I wish to refer briefly to certain features of the budget speech so ably presented in this house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes).
That Canada is definitely emerging from the depression is strikingly indicated by many indices. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the records placed on Hansard, notably by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade
and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). To repeat them would serve no useful purpose to-night, but I wish to add the record of registrations throughout Canada of new passenger cars and particularly new commercial trucks during the first three months of this year. The registrations throughout Canada for the months of January, February and March of this year of new passenger cars as compared with the same three months of last year were as follows:
			Per cent	
1934	1933	Increase	DecreaseBritish Columbia	808	329	145.5	Alberta	609	332	83.4	Saskatchewan	215	115	87	Manitoba	337	196	71.9	Ontario	6,097	4,145	47.1	Quebec	929	996	6.7New Brunswick	47	60	21.7Nova Scotia	179	218	17.9It should be explained, I think, that the de-	shows that this year	9,221 cars were	registeredcrease in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is due to heavy snow	as against	6,391 last	year, a net increas.- of	conditions this spring, bad weather and bad	44 -6 per cent.	roads. The net result, however, is that over	Even a better index is the registration of	the whole dominion, for the first three months	commercial	trucks.	For the same	provincesof this year, the registration of new passenger	and for the	same three months the figures are	cars, as an index of returning better times,	as follows:	Per cent	1934	1933	Increase	DecreaseBritish Columbia	273 162 23	105 38 6	160 326.3 283.3	Saskatchewan	Manitoba	63	21	200	Ontario	913	485	88.2	Quebec	98	123	20.3New Brunswick	9	14	35.7Nova Scotia	69	32	li5.6	For the whole dominion the registrations of new commercial trucks totalled 1,610 as against 824 last year, or a net increase of 95-4 per cent. There is one other index I should like to register. The registrations for the month of April, which has just closed, are available for the cities of Toronto and Montreal, and they show these remarkable results:	This year in
Toronto, in the month of April, there were registered 1,628 new passenger cars as against 755 last year, an increase of 215-8 per cent. This year there were 163 new trucks registered as against 43 last year, an increase of 379 per cent. In the city of Montreal in April of this year 1,089 new passenger cars were registered as against 713 last year, an increase of 128-1 per cent. Trucks were about the same this year as last.
Now I should like to give one example in regard to employment; I refer to the General

Motors plant at Oshawa. At the end of April of this year three thousand employees were working in that plant; at the end of April of last year there were 1,900 employed. On January 1 of this year there were 2,100 employed.
In the face of such facts, Mr. Speaker, who will say that better days have not already dawned? In many respects the crisis of the past four years is comparable to the crisis of 1914-18. It has lasted for four years. We have been fighting with our backs to the wall. The resources of the whole country have been mobilized to meet the situation, and it has been met with the same high courage by all classes of our people, particularly by the rank and file on whom the chief burden always falls whether in time of peace or in time of war.
Another point worthy of comment, sir, is the fact that Canada's credit both at home

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
and abroad still ranks high; in fact there is none higher. This standing is not the result of mere chance; it is founded on two essentials, first the sterling character of our citizenry and second the nature of the leadership they have had. When the Bank of England ceased paying in gold, world financial institutions were rocked to their foundations, but drawing upon the traditions of the past and upon the strength which is intermingled in our blood, Canada stood firm. Again, when the United States issued an order closing all banks, in Canada the order of the day was "business as usual." Not a bank was closed. Canada's credit and the strength of her institutions stood out in those days like a beacon set upon a hill. Again this was not mere chance. All sorts of panaceas were offered, among them the suggestion that in view of exchange rates and certain general world conditions Canada should default upon her international obligations. That she did not do so is due in no small degree to the type of leadership she has had; I refer particularly to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett) and his associates in the government. Theirs has been a leadership inspired by the character of our people. The stand was taken that default on international obligations was unthinkable, and to such vision, such action and such wisdom, Canada owes much. Already that is being recognized, but the wisdom of that action will become increasingly apparent in the years that are to come.
More important than bank balances is the matter of credit, either individually, nationally or internationally. What has this meant to Canada, sir; what will it mean? To-day Canada is regarded as the safest field for investment. We are a young country, sparse in population but rich in tradition and confident as to our future. The adjustment of domestic obligations, whether as to principal or interest or both, well may be made and in fact should be made, but in our international relations there has been no default and there should be no default. If honourable adjustments can be made in regard to international obligations then let us make them, but if not let Canada meet her obligations according to the letter of the contract.
The impelling reasons are practical as well as moral. To repudiate would destroy our international credit; to fulfil our obligations will set Canada's credit high. Any temporary benefit that might come from repudiation would be fleeting, but to fulfil our contracts will pay dividends throughout the years to come. This is not fantasy but fact.
74726-192J
Coming from Montreal the other evening en route to Ottawa I held conversation with a resident of the city of New York who has prominent business connections in that city. He volunteered this statement, "The United States has been watching Canada. We recognize, to an extent we have never recognized before, the standing of her credit, the strength and virility of her people and her institutions. When our banks tottered yours stood firm. When burdened with almost insuperable difficulties the words of your Prime Minister to the world were: 'Canada will keep her contracts.' The result is that prosperity will be forced upon you. I mean that the benefits which will flow to you from your stand will follow as naturally as day follows night. Our investments will come to Canada for her development because with all our experiments, the people of the United States are panicky. They look to Canada as the best and surest bet."
These days of depression experienced in the last four years are surely not without avail. There has been a reorientation of thought. Ideas heretofore considered too radical are now considered normal, when humanity is placed before money. It is now recognized that in our national set-up for the future provision must be made through planned insurance to take care of the sick, the helpless and the unemployed.
During these times what has been the contribution of the official opposition? Is it not opportune to ask what the contribution of the official opposition has been towards the solution of our difficulties? Any point of view put forward by myself as a supporter of the government is naturally subject to the discount of partyism. But let us examine the facts. Has the attitude of the official opposition been one of helpfulness? Has it been constructive or subversive? Let me refer to an indictment which recently appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, a newspaper which supports hon. members opposite. This article appeared in the editorial column in the issue of April 25, 1934, under the caption Negative Opposition, and is as follows:
There is nothing easier in Canadian politics than to sit on the opposition side in judgment of the government. The greatest opportunity for criticism is provided by the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. It is an opportunity also, however, for the leading financial critic to show where the opposition has any more hopeful policy to put forward. Never before in any Canadian parliament have there been such opportunities as in the years since 1930, but this official opposition has been more conservative than the government. It is simply
3038	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
a negative factor in parliament, offering neither light nor leadership in Canada's most critical period of economic readjustment.
It is, of course, possible to put forward excuses for the negation of Liberalism in this parliament. In the emergency session before Premier Bennett went to London in 1930, the Liberals could take the position that they would refrain from doing anything to retard the government's effort to deal with the unemployment situation. In the following session, they had the excuse of allowing Premier Bennett to demonstrate the futility of high tariff barriers in Canada. In the session of 1932, the opposition could continue to put forward nothing, by saying that the government would be allowed to go into the imperial economic conference with a free hand.
Last year, similarly, while the government looked to the world economic conference in London to provide the way out, the opposition had nothing better to offer. This session there is no such excuse, but Colonel J. L. Ralston's speech on the budget last Monday afternoon made it clear that the opposition sterility is due to something more than tactics; it is a state of political barrenness. The light of Liberalism is flickering so feebly on the opposition side, it is quite liable to go out altogether when the Liberals come back into office.
But, sir, we are rising above our difficulties. Surely it is time to move forward. Having held the line against all assaults, having withstood the impact of dire need and discouragement and having maintained an unbroken front, the time is opportune to move forward. Let me suggest to the government the importance of leading the way by immediate action by carrying out its tentative program of work, thereby giving employment to those who have held the line with such courage and high resolve, and replace this utter weariness and sickness of heart with hope and optimism.
I come now to Canada's future in the air. With what prophetic vision did Tennyson forecast the development which is upon us and to which I now refer:
For I dipt into the future, far as human eye
could see,
Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Bilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales;
Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew
From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue.
It is all there, commerce and the emergency of war. Canada's future is inexorably bound up with the development of air routes.
At once, let me set up a background of fact, the reality of which can readily be demonstrated, against which to cast the shadows of things to come.

Flying is as yet a relatively new arm of our transportation system. Our people have not yet become air minded.


Frederick George Sanderson: I rise to a point of
order. Your Honour has already ruled tonight that hon. members are not permitted to read their speeches. I think the hon. member now speaking should not do so.


Mr. QUINN:: How often do you read your speeches?


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I am quoting considerably, and I admit that I am keeping rather closely to my notes, but only to save time and for the sake of accuracy.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The point is well taken by the hon. member. When the Speaker's attention is called to the fact that an hon. member is reading his speech it should come to an end. I may say the practice of reading speeches has been followed too often in this house, although the Speaker's attention has not frequently been called to it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I have some figures to which I should like to refer.


George Gibson Coote: As the Minister of Finance
reads his speech, I do not see that there could be any objection.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is but a little over thirty years since the first aeroplane flight was accomplished when Orville Wright made history by his flight in North Carolina in December, 1903. Little progress was made until after the commencement of the war in 1914, so that we might reasonably say that the aeroplane has been in use little more than twenty years.
While on the subject of early flights we should not forget to do honour to two Canadians who figure in these records, namely Mr. F. W. "Casey" Baldwin, now a member of the Nova Scotia legislative assembly, and Mr. J. A. D. McCurdy, now a resident of Montreal. Baldwin made a flight at Hammonds-fort, New York, on March 12, 1908. McCurdy made a flight over Baddeck Bay in the famous "Silver Dart" on February 23, 1909, Sir Elliott Y. Roe made the first flight in the British empire in England on January 8, 1908, it being an Englishman who made the first flight in the British Empire; a Canadian Baldwin, was the second in the British Empire and the first Canadian to fly. McCurdy was the first Canadian to fly in Canada.
It is a happy coincidence that on February 23 last, exactly twenty-five years after the

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
first aeroplane flight in Canada, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) presented publicly at Toronto the first comprehensive outline of a national aviation policy expressed by any minister of the crown in Canada.
It gives me pleasure to congratulate the minister upon his definition of government policy. In paying tribute to the Minister of National Defence as the one charged under the Aeronautics Act with the development of flying from the standpoint of federal government control, I am not unmindful that his predecessor, the present sitting member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) then Minister of National Defence, was also seized with the importance of air service to this dominion and worked hard for its establishment. I am happy therefore on this occasion to extend my congratulations to the member for Shelburne-Yarmouth and "to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's."
On August 4, 1914, there were 272 aeroplanes available to the British army; at the time of the armistice, after thousands had been destroyed, worn out or become obsolete there were 22,171. In August, 1914, there had been less than 250 officers i.. this new service; in November, 1918, there were more than 30,000. In this almost incredible story of British achievement, Canadians played a tremendous part; by the end of the war one-third of the officers in the Royal Air Force were Canadians. Canada's share, individually and collectively, was out of all proportion to her population. May we not ask:
Does still the breed run true?
Does still upflame the ancient fire?
Echoing back there comes the answer of Canada's war pilots. A comparison of the number of aeroplanes destroyed by the four leading pilots of various nations forcibly demonstrates the high rank attained by Canadians. The four leading Canadian pilots destroyed 230 enemy planes; other British pilots, 192; French, 214; German, 246. Next to the number of enemy planes destroyed by the four leading German pilots came the Canadian pilots, and I think it is only fitting that I should put on record their names: Bishop, Collishaw, Barker and MacLaren; Bishop, with his 72; Fonck, the leading French pilot, with 75; MoCudden, the British pilot, with 54; Richthofen, with 80. And remember, sir, that these were boys whose faces still bore the soft and tender curves of youth which the stress of later years eradicates, but the memory of which mothers carry always in then-hearts.
It was not chance that wrote these results into history. The innate initiative of our Canadian youth, their environment backed by tradition, made such results possible.
Let us now consider Canada's position in commercial air routes. To realize Canada'f unique position in that regard, certain misconceptions as to distances must be at one. corrected-misconceptions arising from our usf of Mercator's projection in the matter of map making, which distorts areas in ratio according to their distances from the equator, Greenland, for instance, appearing almost as large as Africa. To get a correct conception of ail route distances you must measure them on a globe.
In considering this matter it is fundamental that we Should bear in mind that time has always been and always will be a prime factor in commercial development-in gaining trade and in holding it.
The shortest international air route from the chief centres of Europe to the Orient lies across Canada, passing over Newfoundland, north of the St. Lawrence, over Cochrane, Ontario, over Winnipeg, the Yukon, Alaska, and down the east coast of Asia to China and Japan. Now mails go from Europe to the orient by the eastern route, but when our airways are developed and we have a north Atlantic system the air mail of Europe going to the orient will travel over Canada.
It is in the northern hemisphere that the great trade routes running from east to west find the long overland stages. At the latitude of Montreal, about three-quarters of the distance around the world is overland. The desirability of land for landings, forced or otherwise is obvious.
So we realize-or do we realize-that if we take Chicago, for instance, as the industrial centre of North America, the startling fact is disclosed that the shortest routes from the centres of industrial Europe and Asia, to the centre of industrial North America, lie through, or over, Canadian territory? In other words, starting say at the Rhine valley, a great circle route would continue on through France, Belgium, England, Northern Ireland, the straits of Belle Me, the St. Lawrence river valley, through Montreal and on to Chicago-the important fact being that this route lies actually north of the St. Lawrence.
Again, let us not forget that history emphatically tells us that the flow of trade and commerce has always followed the shortest
3040	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
feasible routes. In this great circle route, Newfoundland occupies an important strategic position. Recognizing that fact, a determined effort was made by American interests through Pan American Airways to acquire vested and exclusive landing rights in Newfoundland for a period of fifty years, in consideration of substantial money payments. The agreement had been negotiated and was ready for signatures when the present government of Canada and the British Government, watchful of the situation, intervened, the results of which intervention were to safeguard for Canada and for the British Empire this important trade route that might otherwise have passed into foreign hands. This action was taken at the Airway Conference in Newfoundland in July of last year. The signifiaince of that conference will, I think, in due time be better understood.
Turn now to the orient. The shortest route from Chicago to Tokyo passes through Winnipeg, northern Alberta, down the Mackenzie river, through the Yukon and Alaska and on by the northeast coast of Asia to Japan. Planes from the Pacific seaports of the United States to either China or Japan will find that their shortest feasible route will be over Canadian territory, passing through British Columbia, through the Yukon, at White Horse, over Alaska and on to Tokyo and Pekin. Again recognizing these facts, American interests .have endeavoured to secure landing rights on Canadian soil along these routes, but again these routes have been preserved to Canada.
Whether, therefore, of our own volition or otherwise, we in Canada are going to find ourselves participating in important intercontinental air routes of the future. The significance of these facts will not be lost on this House of Commons. Canada must zealously maintain her sovereignty over all air routes which lie through or across Canada.
What would be Canada's position in the event of war? Aircraft must be regarded primarily as servants of commerce; yet our air transport system, while conceived for and serving commerce first, must take due cognizance of the possibilities of national emergencies. The only adequate defence against aircraft is aircraft. Without an adequate aircraft industry we would find ourselves in a hopeless position in the event of a national emergency.
To-night it is not my purpose to develop further the importance to Canada of the development of her air routes in the eventuality of war, other than to state that no good purpose can be served either in the
	, I
interests of national development or in the interests of world peace by emulating the ostrich and burying our heads in the sand, or by crying "peace, peace" when there is no peace.
It is important to look, sir, to what the other nations are doing. At this juncture we might well refresh our minds on the progress being made by other countries in the establishment and maintenance of regular air services:
In Great Britain, external as well as internal interests are being served by airways. Imperial Airways Limited operates two main empire trunk lines; one is from Croydon to Capetown, a distance of 7,945 miles, and the other is from Croydon to Singapore, 8,646 miles. This route will shortly be extended to Australia. The company is now operating a fleet of forty air liners and is doing a steadily increasing business, showing gains in every year but one, in total traffic ton miles. Figures for the past fiscal year show 2,100,000 ton miles as compared with 600,000 in 1928.
Under direction of M. Pierre Cot, the French Air Minister, the government of France has supported the amalgamation of five of the largest companies into one organization known as L'Air France, with a capital of 120,000,000 francs. In addition to a network of lines over Europe, a weekly service is maintained between Paris and Saigon, in French IndoChina. A service across the south Atlantic is projected.
The Deutsche Luft Hansa, which is Germany's national air line, also maintains a network of airways over Europe, resembling on a map a great cobweb, Germany itself being more extensively covered than any other country.
From Amsterdam, the K.L.M. Royal Dutch Air Lines operates the world's longest airway to Batavia in the Dutch East Indies, as well as other air lines in Europe.
Italy has six important air line companies at work, and their routes cover not only Italy but stretch out to Berlin in the north, to Barcelona in the west, to Constantinople in the east, and to Tripoli in the south.
Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, are all relatively well to the front with air lines. Russia, of whom we have little authentic information, is known to have important trunk lines in operation, employing a fleet of large air liners.
Probably the greatest advance in commercial flying has taken place in the United States, and being a near neighbour we have more than passing interest in this progress. Internal interests are served mainly by three transcontinental lines. There are 19,500 miles of fully lighted airways in operation.
Externally, United States interests are being served extensively by Pan American Airways System, whose principal routes lie over the South Americas, the total distance covered

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
being 26,650 miles, and 139 air liners are in use by this one company alone. Their service, based at Miami, follows the east coast of South America down to Buenos Aires, then to Santiago on the west coast, and up along the coastline to a terminus at Brownsville, Texas. Having a large trade with the South Americas, the United States has found the fast mail, express and passenger services of Pan American Airways of great value.
In this regard Britain has found the air routes of the United States into South America of significance in the diminution of her trade.
Looking at the matter in the round, the big outstanding problem in civil aviation is unquestionably the institution of a regular air service across the North Atlantic by heavier-than-air aircraft. We must give credit to Germany for the remarkable demonstrations that they have given with the Graf Zeppelin to show that a service by means of lighter-than-air aircraft is possible. We must also acknowledge the work of both the French and Germans in spanning the south Atlantic by heavier-than-air aircraft.
The end in view, however, i3 to join the two important areas in the northern hemisphere-Europe and North America. A great deal of attention has already been concentrated on the problem, and five methods or routes have been proposed:
1.	The Arctic route via Greenland and Iceland, which is just over 5,000 miles from London to Ottawa. This route gives reasonably short stages and, therefore, would permit the carriage of a reasonable load, but it presents the very serious problem of fog and ice formation. It is an inhospitable route with very uncertain meteorological conditions, and durng the winter much of the route is a land of almost perpetual night.
2.	The direct route, flying from New York or Montreal to Newfoundland, and from there to Ireland, carrying on to London, whence air services radiate to all parts of the continent. This route is 3,500 miles, including a nonstop stage from Newfoundland to Ireland of about 1,900 miles.
At present there are no aircraft in the world that can fly this stage as a regular commercial venture carrying any pay load whatever, and the object of a North Atlantic service is, of course, not merely to fly it, but to carry load by it. This route also has to face the problem of fog around Newfoundland, and possibly ice formation in that region during winter.
3.	The Bermuda-Azores route, which is again about 5,000 miles, but which traverses an area of better weather and of less fog. The longest stage without the possibility of refuelling is from Bermuda to the Azores, a matter of over 2,000 miles. There again, there are no aircraft yet available that can fly this stage regularly and carry useful paying load.
4.	Floating islands are proposed as intermediate refuelling points.
If a satisfactory method can be found for anchoring these islands in the Atlantic, and if they are, in fact, able to stand against the Atlantic gales, there seems no difficulty in operating a North Atlantic service with their aid, if sufficient money is forthcoming to construct and man the number of islands required. The capital expenditure that would be required for the islands seems, however, to put this method out of court, at any rate at the present time.
5.	The last alternative is the employment of ships in place of the floating islands; to employ, in fact, the method adopted by the Germans for the South Atlantic service.
One would expect that it would be impossible to land a flying boat in the North Atlantic as a regular thing, even making the best possible use of the refuelling ship to form a lee. The method does not lend itself to passenger transport, however, even though the difficulty of landing in the sea close to the refuelling ship could be overcome. As you doubtless know, the method is for the flying boat to land on the sea, to taxi on to a trailing apron towed behind the steamer, and then to be lifted by a crane on to the deck of the steamer, and after being refuelled, to be catapulted for its next stage. The use of the catapult, involves, however, very rapid acceleration which would probably be entirely unsuitable for ordinary passenger transport.
It would appear, therefore, that we aTe faced with very considerable difficulties in the establishment of an all-air service across the North Atlantic. Nevertheless, with the progress of aeronautical science, the various obstacles to the establishment of such a service by one or another of the methods or routes outlined will in the course of time be removed. How soon progress will enable us to overcome these difficulties is a matter of opinion.
It is not enough that the distance shall be flown;-it must show a saving of time over the normal sea route, and it must do so at a cost that the traffic will bear, or at any rate will bear within a reasonable time. In the initial stages of any venture of this descrip-
3042	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)
tion, it may be necessary to foster the development by the grant of a subsidy.
Now, sir, what is Canada doing? What has Canada done? What should Canada do? At the present rate of progress on the trans-Canada system, there will be from coast to coast by next fall an airway on which safe landing places may be found at intervals averaging twenty-five miles. It only remains to equip this airway with lighting, radio and meteorological services, for it to be comparable in efficiency with any airway in the world. I quote from a speech of the Minister of National Defence, delivered in Toronto on February 23 last.
This work is being carried out by the Department of National Defence as an unemployment relief measure under the able and immediate direction of Major General Me-Naughton, chief of staff of the defence council.
Its importance is of the first rank. By this fall therefore the government will be in a position to call for tenders for better than a twenty-four hour transcontinental air mail service.
Time will not permit me to go into the present air mail services already established; they are considerable. The service from Montreal to Rimouski, put on during the period of navigation and inaugurated originally in 1928, is of threefold significance:
1.	Foreign mail via New York to Montreal without air service beats the St. Lawrence route one day.
2.	The Montreal-Rimouski air mail service wipes out this differential and ties the New York route. That means something to Canada.
3.	With the development of a ship-to-shore service, picking up the mail at Belle Isle and flying it to Montreal, we can beat the route via New York from one to one and a half days.
Then there is the Montreal-Albany service and the Winnipeg to Pembina service, connecting with all United States lines. There are also domestic contacts to all outlying points in Canada's hinterland and to the mining areas; down the Mackenzie river to Aklavik. There are two services from Prince Albert, one to Lac la Ronge and one to Isle a la Crosse. Coming eastward we have these services: Lac du Bonnet to Wadhope and Bissett, mining areas; Sioux Lookout to Red Lake and Narrow Lake, mining area; and the Amos-Siscoe route, which is also mining.
Then there is the bush flying of our trappers, miners and prospectors out into the hinterland of Canada. In this respect these pilots to-day are doing a national service to

Canada and are performing feats in flying which are second to those of the pilots of no other country. There is a winter service from Quebec to Natashquan and to Anticosti island, and a winter service from Leamington to Pelee island.
We did have an interurban air mail service in eastern Canada as well as a prairie service from Winnipeg to points in Alberta, which was discontinued owing to economic distress in 1932.
The cost of the prairie service came particularly under criticism. Certain extravagant statements were given wide publicity and should be dispelled. For example, statements were made to the effect that air mail had been costing the country $30 per letter. I find that the average cost of air mail was 47 cents per pound, a vastly different thing from $30 per letter. Even the somewhat experimental prairie run, which was cancelled, was doing better than fifty per cent of its cost. In that connection, too, one should bear in mind that the former service had no continuity. The prairie run was left-up in the air at both ends with contacts only through the United States. So, too, of the eastern section.
Of outstanding significance was the experimental ship-to-shore mail services operated under the direction of the Department of National Defence and the Post Office Department during the Ottawa imperial conference of 1932. Mail was delivered from London at Ottawa in less than four days, and vice versa. A three and a half day service between Montreal and London is an immediate possibility and should be put into effect with the least possible delay.
Is not this a most logical step to take particularly following consummation of the recent trade agreements with Great Britain? Let us more firmly knit the empire with another all red route. With the inauguration of a Canadian transcontinental mail service, the ship-cum-air service across the North Atlantic would give the fastest route from Europe not only to Canada but to many parts of the United States and to the far east-and, remember, through Canada.
In commerce, speed has ever been the mandate. The air mail is the answer to this demand for speed. Weighing fully the cost against the service performed, the air mail presents economic advantages of incalculable value to the nation. As one of the leading trading nations of the world, can we afford to ignore these facts?
Shall our transcontinental air mail service be undertaken by a private company under

The Budget-Mr. Willis
contract with the government, subject to essential governmental regulations and control to safeguard the public interest; or shall it be undertaken by a semi-national corporation on which the government shall have adequate representation, or shall it be undertaken as one more national enterprise? I merely point to the alternatives. But whatever the way, let it be one of planned progress, with adequate safeguards for the public weal.
We should now think of Canada as not 3,500 miles but as eighteen to twenty-four hours in width. Let us reach out and take our destined place among the nations. Opportunity is on tiptoe waiting to take off: let us give her wings.
I cannot conclude without acknowledging my debt for assistance rendered through the Department of National Defence by the minister and his able chief of staff, Major General Andrew G. McNaughton; through the Department of the Postmaster General by the minister and the officials of the air mail service branch. Particularly am I indebted for information to Mr. George M. Ross, executive secretary of the Canadian Flying Clubs' Association, who has done and is doing such splendid work in awakening and making our Canadian people air-conscious.
Out of all this welter of words, Mr. Speaker, this supreme fact overtops them all: Canada is on the Main street of the heavens. Would that I could splash it in letters of flame across the firmament! Would that it might stand out as a pillar of oloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, to lead Canada into her promised land!
Let Canada, led by her government, put her back into this development and make it possible to realize in truth and in fact the destiny envisaged in those lines:
Wider still and wider Shall thy bounds be set;
God who made thee mighty Make thee mightier yet.
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris): Mr. Speaker, for the few moments at my disposal I desire to bring to the attention of the house many matters which are of particular interest and concern to those whom I have the honour to represent. At the outset I wish to say that within the area from which I come, being the southwestern comer of Manitoba, there are very distressful conditions due to the fact that for the last four years there has been an almost entire lack of rain. No blame can be attached to lack of fertility of the soil in that area; no blame can be attached to the
people who live there, about ninety-seven per cent of whom are Anglo-Saxons from Ontario, but when for four years there is no rain, there can be no crop. At one time last year it seemed as though it were going to be possible to have crops in that area, but when the crops had grown to a height of some six inches there came from the republic directly to the south of us that tremendous pest, the grasshopper. Where perhaps on one day there stood a crop luxuriant in growth, the following day there were found only thousands of spikes, being the straw which the grasshoppers had left.
When people under such conditions face distress for four years, their reserves completely vanish and they find themselves requiring relief. Similarly the municipalities within that area have been able to borrow only that which the banks would permit them to borrow; they have then gone to the province, the province has come to the dominion and through these agencies help has been given. The physical hardships of the people in that area are of course tremendous, but I should say that they are nothing compared with their mental hardships. They are a people completely unaccustomed to accepting relief; they have lived many years without having to face such situations. They are entirely worthy; they desire to be self sufficient, self supporting and self respecting. They are, however, faced with conditions which are not of their own making.
It is strange that that territory in which during the years 1924 to 1928 perhaps the best crops in Manitoba were produced, has become rainless. I believe a survey should be made to determine whether that area is facing drought merely on account of a cycle which we believe prevails in some places, or whether there are within its confines many farms which are submarginal, by which I mean lands that will not under ordinary favourable conditions produce such crops as would allow the farmer to operate at a profit. Various suggestions have been put forward, for instance that a huge corporation might be set up which would take out of cultivation some lands within drought stricken areas, whether in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, with the result of course, first, that there would not be so much grain grown and, second, that a tremendous amount of hardship would be obviated in the way of people attempting to cultivate land on which it is not possible to grow paying crops. With regard to what is known as the drought area of Manitoba I think a survey would show
The Budget-Mr. Willis

that practically all those lands are capable of being farmed at a profit, because until the end of 1928 they were farmed at a good profit.
Due to conditions within that area the questions of interest and of debt are of major importance, and I am glad to note that further federal legislation is forecast under which there will be some system of debt adjustment. I should like to refer particularly to the good work being done by the present government in regard to the reduction of rates of interest on money which they borrow, with a consequent reduction in interest rates throughout the country. It is pleasing to see that treasury bills to the amount of
515.000.	000 were sold by the government during March, 1934, at rates of 2-85 and 3-12 per cent, and also that in April another issue amounting to 815,000,000 was sold at rates of 2'41 and 2-71 per cent. Last year, in August, for instance, the normal rate of interest was 3-75 per cent. Through what has been done in this connection there has been created in this country a short term money market, something which we did not know existed before. The old practice of governments was to call in the banks and the various loan organizations and to give them perhaps a percentage in order to sell treasury bills. Prior to 1933 the rate varied from four and a half to five per cent where the banks made the arrangements on behalf of the Canadian people. This year, however, the method was changed and the government sold treasury bills in units of 8100,000. They sent out questionnaires to all parties who they thought might be interested in buying those treasury bills. This has two effects: it will reduce the rate of interest and reduce taxation, and in addition it indicates the value which will come from the organization which we know as the central bank. It is interesting perhaps to indicate what the effect would be if we could place all our debt on the same basis. The funded debt of Canada on March 31 last was $2,858,000,000. The interest on that was $131,890,000, which indicates a rate of 4-62 per cent. If we could strike a new rate of 2-62 per cent there would be a saving of $57,000,000. There is due this year about $424,000,000 of debt. The rate thereon is 4-8 per cent, or a total interest bill of
520.484.000.	If we could strike a rate there of 2-8 per cent there would be a saving of $8,484,000. That is to say, if we could borrow at the same rate at which we have borrowed now, if we could carry that rate right across, there would be a saving to Canada of many millions of dollars.
In connection with the question of conversion loans there seems to be much mis-

apprehension with regard to the British conversion. We are often asked why Canada does not do what Great Britain did. It should be remembered that in the case of the British loan there was a clause in the contract providing that the loan should be redeemable at 100 after January 1, 1929. The issue was to run until 1947, at 5 per cent. The government refunded the loan as of December 1, 1932, at the same time offering to subscribers the right to continue their investment at 3i per cent, which proposal was accepted by 92 per cent of the holders. There is no such clause in regard to our loans, therefore we are not able to put through a conversion on the same basis as the British people.
I wish to turn for a moment to the general question of trade. It is important to note that we have no longer an adverse balance of trade. We now have a favourable balance of 8152,000,000 whereas when the previous administration went out of office there was an annual adverse balance of $127,000,000. This change is a tremendous achievement in itself. Another interesting comparison is Canada's situation in world trade in 1929 as compared with 1933. We find that during that time world trade as a whole was reduced by 68 per cent, the trade of the United States by 65 per cent and that of Canada only 62 per cent. These figures show that so far as world trade is concerned Canada has done better on the average than the world generally, and has done better than the United States, in spite of its N.R.A. and Roosevelt and all his great legislation.
Then I should like to draw attention to a question which was of particular interest to me and those whom I represent. Since this government came into power a duty of twenty-five cents a bushel was placed on corn imported into this country. I must admit that I had something to do with that duty being imposed; therefore I should like to indicate some of its effects. On March 1, 1931, when I made an address in this house in regard to the matter, we had on hand
100,000,000 bushels of barley. On March 1, 1934, according to the bureau of statistics we had on hand only 22,500,000 bushels, or less than twenty-five per cent of what we had in 1931. I do not think the question of price is a good indication, but I wish to give the prices. On March 1, 1931, the price of 3 C. W. barley in Toronto was 38 cents a bushel, on the same date in 1934 it was 54J- cents. But I think the most important feature in that regard is in connection with the importation of corn. Whereas for the twelve months ending March 1, 1931, we

The Budget-Mr. Willis
imported into this country 8,000,000 bushels to be fed to our cattle and poultry, during the year ending March 1, 1934, we imported only 3,000,000 bushels. That is to say, due to the imposition of that duty we have been importing into this country annually 5,000,000 bushels less, with the result that that market has been available to those who produce barley in this country, to the great benefit of the producer.
In connection with the duties placed by this government and the benefits of the Ottawa agreements, I should like to indicate the valuable increase we have had in exports of agricultural products in 1933 as compared with 1931. The products for which I have obtained figures are wheat, flour, oats, barley, cattle, beef, pork, bacon, ham, canned meat, poultry, eggs and butter. I have chosen these articles because they are items of importance to western 'Canada. In round figures the exports of these products to the United Kingdom in 1931 amounted to $81,000,000, whereas in 1933 they amounted to $99,000,000, an increase of $18,000,000 in those particular products alone. That is of some importance to the people I happen to represent.
It is often said by those who oppose us that this government is collecting too much in duties. In that connection I wish to give four different figures which I think of importance. -For the fiscal year 1923, when the previous government was in power, they collected in duties $133,803,370. In 1929 they collected $200,479,505, and in 1930, $199,011,628. This year this government collected only $65,900,000, in round figures.
Then it is often said that the policy pursued by this government of keeping the home market for Canadians had the effect of increasing prices. I do not wish to quote many items, but I obtained some figures from a store in my own town selling men's and boys' wear. I got the prices of twenty-two items as of June 1, 1930, and the present time, and on every item of ordinary apparel that a working man would buy there is a decrease in the price to the consumer. I give a few items:
Price
June, 1930 To-day Cotton merino work socks. .	$0 35	$0 25
Medium heavy wool work
socks	
0	40	0	29Split horsehide	work	gloves.	0	75	0	50Heavy plain blue bib overalls	
2	25	1	85
Black box kip boots, medium
weight	 4	50	3	40
Medium heavy jumbo knit
sweaters	
3	50	2	75Medium weight	tweed	caps.	1	40	1	00
The items all tell the same story. We are also told that this government has strangled trade by the tariffs which have been imposed.
I desire merely to summarize statements which I might -make at great length, by saying this: In regard to our trade position so far as the world is concerned, aside from the figures I have already quoted, we occupy fifth position among exporting nations where formerly we were sixth. Of course the previous government .lost most of our export markets, particularly the United States where our annual agricultural exports totalled $159,000,000 when the previous government came into power, though in 1929 they had diminished to ten per cent of that amount.
I have indicated that there has been no strangulation of' trade due to the Ottawa agreements but rather there has been an increase, and that the increase in agricultural exports alone has amounted to some $18,000,000. I think it is well recognized by all those who care to read the statistics of the country that the previous administration, known as the Mackenzie King administration, increased tariffs. I have indicated also that in evidence of the fact that there has been no strangulation of trade we have a favourable trade balance amounting to $152,000,000 where previously we had an adverse balance of $127,000,000. In connection with trade it is well to recall that the previous administration was represented at Imperial conferences in 1921 and 1926 at which no agreements were reached and no progress made. It is also of passing interest to note that in connection with the Ottawa agreements, out of 228 items affected the tariff was lowered on 136.
From time to time we hear a good deal in regard to unemployment and the promises made in connection therewith. The promises made by the previous administration might very well become the subject of a forty minute address, so many were there of them, particularly if one cares to take the old platform of 1919. There one will find literally dozens of promises which were never carried out by the previous administration. In regard to unemployment, however, I should like particularly to refer to the fact that during the last fiscal year 250,000 more people found employment in comparison with the previous year. One could quote various summaries to indicate that trade has been increased and is increasing all the time. In one of the famous Southam papers of May 12 I happened to notice a list of improvements in trade, as follows:
The Budget-Mr. Willis

Toronto-The Ontario Paper Company this week announced a wage increase of 6J per cent for its nearly 1,000 workers.
Fort William-Great Lakes Paper Company, Ltd., is arranging to take on about 60 more workers and to operate three shifts.
Three Rivers, Que.-Employees of three mills of Consolidated Pulp and Paper Company in this district are receiving a ten per cent wage increase, effective from May 1.
Meaford, Ont.-The Meaford Manufacturing Company, Ltd., the town's largest furniture plant, is again operating on part time after a shut-down.
Hamilton-The Canadian Keystone Products, Ltd., is moving to this city and will manufacture cleasers and water softeners.
Marysville, N.B.-Canadian Cottons, Ltd., announce a five per cent wage increase for mill hands here. Plant is operating almost full time.
St. Catharines, Ont.-The McKinnon Company here, a subsidiary of General Motors, now has 1,290 on its payroll compared with 590 last year.
Ottawa-Lumber mill of J. R. Booth Company here, is again operating after a shutdown of 3 years' duration. The company will also operate a mill at Arnprior.
East Windsor, Ont.-This town's relief roll has dropped 2,300 to 5,776 in the last year, and reductions are being made daily as employment improves.
North Bay, Ont.-About 270 men will be given employment temporarily by the T. & N.O. railway, on track maintenance work.
Toronto-Canadian Frigidaire factory here has been placed on a 24-hour production schedule.
Montreal-Six thousand persons have been taken off relief lists since February and the number of families obtaining assistance is now decreasing about 200 -weekly.
These indicate, in any event, that there is a recovery going on, particularly in eastern Canada. But when we speak of unemployment it is well to remember that the question of immigration still has some bearing on the matter. I should like to quote two figures in regard to the people who were brought to this country by the previous administration. We find that in the year 1928 there were 151,597 people brought to this country; in 1929 there were 167,722 people brought here, but in 1933 we allowed only 19,872 people to enter Canada. That is quite important to remember when discussing unemployment.
Then for a moment I should like to refer to the question which Conservatives have to face every time they address an audience in this country, due to the influence of Liberal speakers and some sections of the press; I refer to the suggestion that the Conservative party stands for the big interests. I should like to point out that the financial centre of Canada is Montreal and that the financial province is Quebec. Montreal votes Liberal, and in the past the province of Quebec has

been solidly Liberal. Lately it has been slightly less Liberal; we now get a small block of Conservative votes from that province. The present government has increased the corporation tax, which affects all those in this country Who have money; it has increased the income tax on the higher incomes; it has increased the taxes on banks. It is bringing into existence the central bank, which is the greatest menace to the chartered banks that this country has ever seen. It has increased the taxes in regard to the carrying of newspapers, again affecting a big interest. It is said that the present government, through the measure providing for cooperation between the railways, has placed the Canadian Pacific in harness, or at least has had an influence upon it which no other government ever had. In addition this government refused to give the control of radio to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or other private interests. Of course there is protection, even as there was under the previous government; that is for the purpose of employing labour. It seems very strange indeed, if this government is linked with the big interests, that this party got nothing out of Beauharnois while the Liberal party received $700,000.


Mr. DUPUIS:: How much from the Macdonald Tobacco Company?


Mr. WILLIS:: Not a cent. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the clauses concerning the taking over of gold by the government and the issuing of currency, contained in the Bank of Canada Act, are the greatest blows ever struck against the banks, and the very investigation to which my hon, friend just referred, the Stevens inquiry, is the most courageous step ever taken in Canada with regard to whatever hold the big interests may have upon the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite were very critical of the government in regard to the gold tax, because the government preferred to tax those who had plenty in order that they might reduce the sugar tax which is paid by those who have very little.
The people are having great difficulty in deciding where the good old Liberal party now stands. Liberalism in this country is now a stranger mixture than ever it was in the past. If you consider the government of the province of Quebec you find the most reactionary government that ever existed in Canada; and that is the criticism usually voiced by those who try to tear down the Conservative party. In addition you have Liberalism as we know it on the Pacific

Sugar Tax Reduction
coast, led by Mr. Pattullo, who is trying to set up something in the nature of a dictatorship; he is referred to as the Mussolini of that province. Then, within the inner circle of the party we have the president of the Liberal Association for Canada, Mr. Vincent Massey, who since he made a fortune from Massey-Harris implements, has retired, and is now saying that the olive branch should be handed to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and that the Liberal party should be more socialistic. Then, solidly against that view we have the present right hon. leader of the opposition who thinks that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation should be wiped from the face of the globe. These are some slight difficulties with which the voters in this country are faced. The other difficulty, is, of course, that the Liberal government in the province of Saskatchewan will have nothing to do with what is known as the 'Progressive-Farmer movement, whereas in the neighbouring province of Manitoba it goes arm in arm with that movement. The old difficulties the Liberal party had were that they had in the west speakers who believed in free trade and in the east speakers who believed in protection. But in addition to the old difficulties there are the new ones I have enumerated, and we see others operating within the party. The result will be that when the electorate goes to the polls it will not be in a position to know whether the Liberal party stands for laissez-faire or old Liberalism, the reactionaryism of the province of Quebec, a dictatorship such as they accept in British Columbia; or whether they will follow those hon. members in this chamber who during their term of office secured high duties to protect the articles they manufactured. These are some points about which the voters will have to do some thinking. These are points which will be passed upon by them at the next election, and it is my guess that at that time the voters will decide that they had better stay with those they are sure about. They know where the Conservative party stands, and that is why I say that at the next general election they will turn again to the Conservative party.
On motion of Mr. Manion the debate was adj oumed.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Tuesday, May 15, 1934