1935-04-02

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house the annual report of the Canadian National Railways system; the annual reports of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Canadian National Steamships; report on the accounts of the Canadian National Railways system, in English and French, by the auditore, George A. Touche and Company; report on the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and on the Canadian National Steamships, subsidiary companies, in English and French, by George A. Touche and Company; also a report on the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways system by George A. Touche and Company.
May I add that the annual reports of the Canadian National Railways and of the steamships are in printed form, and are being placed in the post office boxes of all hon. members and senators. The reports supplied by Touche and Company are typewritten documents which are being circulated to the members of the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned and operated by the government. All of the foregoing reports will be referred to that committee for consideration.



PACIFIC COAST SHIPPING


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, on January 28, of this year there was a discussion of a resolution offered by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) regarding the employment of white seamen on Pacific coast steamers. After a somewhat lengthy discussion in which hon. members from all quarters of the house took part there was unanimous agreement by the house and by the government that the resolution of the hon. member, with all its implications, should be referred to the committee on industrial relations. However, either through an omission on the part of an officer of the house or because of the wording of my motion the result was that the resolution was deleted and only the preamble presented to the committee.
92582-148i
The King's Silver Jubilee
Therefore with the unanimous consent of the house, which was given on the former occasion and which I have no doubt will now be given, I move:
That the amendment adopted by the house on January 28 last to the motion of Mr. Reid in respect to employment of white Canadian citizens on ships, as follows:
"That all the words after 'that' in the last paragraph be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
'the resolution be referred to the standing committee on industrial and international relations' " be rescinded, and the following substituted therefor:
"the question of employment of greater numbers of white Canadian citizens on all ships and vessels of Canadian ownership and registry, the owners of which receive grants of money from the public treasury of Canada, be referred to the standing committee on industrial and international relations."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, in view of the general interest in the question as to what bodies might send representatives to the King's jubilee ceremonies in the United Kingdom I thought it best to send a cable in order to obtain the necessary information. I have received the following reply:
"It is the King's wish that the celebration of _ the^ twenty-fifth anniversary of His Majesty's accession to the throne should be on a local basis, and that His Majesty's subjects should, wherever practicable, have the opportunity of observing the occasion near their homes. While any visitors from overseas, who may have occasion to be present in London at the time, would naturally have an opportunity of sharing with the people of the United Kingdom m celebrations here, invitations to participate in those celebrations as guests of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom have, so far as the dominions are concerned, been issued' only to Prime Ministers and, m view of the character of the celebrations as described above, it is not proposed to invite further official guests"



CONFERENCE IN LONDON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: While my right
hon. friend the leader of the government is touching on the question of the jubilee ceremonies in London, may I ask him if I am right in understanding that there is not to be anything in the nature of an imperial
2320	COMMONS
____The Budget-Mr- Stitt (Selkirk)
conference while these celebrations take place? I have heard that at most it was expected that there might be something in the nature of informal conversations between representatives of the dominions who might gather together in London, but I assume that nothing will be said or done there which in any way will bind this parliament or country by those who may be representing it.


Right Hon.   S@: I think the right hon. gentleman is correct in suggesting that there will be only informal conversations but I will make certain of that and give the house the information.



OYSTER FISHERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) asked a question about oyster fishing to which I promised an answer.
Oyster fishing in East, West and North rivers which flow into Charlottetown harbour, Hillsboro bay, Prince Edward Island, has not been closed.
The regulations that will govern oyster fishing therein are at the moment receiving particular consideration because of the questions of health involved.



AIDS TO NAVIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: [ would like to ask the Minister of Marine if he intends to proceed with the resolution appearing under No. 22 on to-day's order paper, with respect to the collection of shipping dues by the Canadian government.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I did not know, Mr. Speaker,
that my hon. friend was interested in the matter, but I may tell him that I am getting some further information in view of the discussion that took place when the resolution was before the house. The matter is under consideration.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Thank you.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday April 1, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. N.

Rhodes (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Ralston, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coote.
Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker,
last evening in the course of my remarks in this debate I paid some attention to the criticisms which were made by the official critic of the opposition, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). I desire now to direct the attention of the house and of all western grain growers particularly to a few words which that hon. gentleman spoke, and which will be found at page 2116 of Hansard. Among other things he said:
We find that in the fall of 1934 the prices of Canadian wheat in the British market- were something like 22 cents above Argentina and something like 14 cents above Australia. What has been the result? In the first place the dominion as it wanted to do, shared with the western wheat producer in the responsibility for marketing the 1930 crop, and nobody finds any fault with that action; both parties joined in approval of it.
A little further on he says:
What is the criticism? What do I mean by that? I mean that the government through Mr. John I. McFarland, who is its agent, becomes in effect the potential holder of
200,000,000 or 225.000,000 or 250,000,000 bushels of wheat that should be off the market in order to enable the western producer to dispose of his 1935 crop.
Here we have it in the words of the official critic of the opposition that the price of our wheat in the British market is 22 cents above the Argentina price and something like 14 cents above tihe Australian price. Was that to the advantage of the western producer? Was that something done in the interests of the grain grower? Wlnat is the hon. gentleman's solution? He says that this wheat ought to be off the market. In other words, his policy would have been to dispose of the wheat. What t-hen would have happened to the western producer?
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this party and its supporters ought to proclaim throughout western Canada every such word of criticism against the activities of this government in upholding the price of wheat for the producer.


Mr. VALLANCE:: What did Australia do
with her wheat?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Vallance: I won't sit down. What
did Australia do with her wheat?

The Budget-Mr- Stitt (Selkirk)


James Herbert Stitt: I believe that the
western grain producer is not so much interested in wlhat Australia did with -her wheat as he is in what we are doing with ours.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We are not doing much.


James Herbert Stitt: We are not adopting a laissez-jfaire policy anyway. I notice that the hon. member for Shelbume-Yar-mouth quotes as his authority for what ought to be done the Financial Post. I wonder how much the editor of the Financial Post or the barons of St. James street are interested in the welfare of the western producer.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Ask your government.


James Herbert Stitt: There has been a
great deal of discussion to the effect that the Conservative party is the servant of the vested interests.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Herbert Stitt: "Hear, hear," my opponents say. I ansrver " there, there." Who are they in this house who first raised their voices against the policy of this government of helping the farmers on the land? Who are they in this house who have come to the aid of the bank? Who are they in this bouse who have tried to prevent us from taking the gold from the banks and ear-marking for the benefit of Canada the profit on that gold? Were we the henchmen of the vested interests when we undertook and carried through that legislation? I say no.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Have we got the profit on that gold yet?


James Herbert Stitt: We have the gold,
every bit of it, and we can get the profit any time. I have paid some attention to the hon. member for Shel'burne-Yarmouth. Although I disagree with him, I want to pay my respects to him as a member of this house, as a lawyer, and as a soldier with a gallant military record overseas, but Mr. Speaker, if his policy were carried into effect I believe that bankruptcy would be suffered by every grain producer in western Canada. The last thing that the farmers of western Canada want us to adopt is a policy of laissez-faire, to leave them at the mercy of the manipulators of the market.
There is a resolution on the order paper for the establishment of a grain board. I stated last evening that this government was not afraid of big business, and the legislation which the government has brought down proves it. Were we the champions of the big interests
when we reduced the interest rates by our conversion loans, when we brought down the average rate of interest from over five per cent to under three and a half per cent, saving the taxpayers of this country over $15,000,000 per year in interest? Were we the servants of the big interests when we enacted the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, when we gave to the debt-ridden farmers of western Canada some opportunity to get rid of the heavy and burdensome debts which were driving them into economic servitude? Were we the henchmen of the big interests when we enacted minimum wage legislation, when we enacted the eight hour day and when we enacted the Unemployment Insurance Act?
I do not know that I have time to give the complete record of this government but I should like to outline some of the legislation which has been passed for the benefit of the people. First, there was unemployment relief; second, there was the reduction of interest rates; there was the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Canadian Farm Loan Act, the wheat bonus, the legislation in connection with the marketing of wheat, unemployment relief works, loans to the provinces and amendments to the Currency Act whereby $50,000,000 of new money was produced. Millions of dollars have been voted for public works; $20,000,000 the first session and $40,000,000 last year. Legislation was passed to bring into being the eight hour day and there is yet to be considered the minimum wage legislation. This government has passed the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Bank of Canada Act. It has increased imperial preference and has conducted an investigation in connection with price spreads. The marketing act was passed along with other reform legislation. This government brought into being the Ottawa agreements and is enacting pensions for the blind.
I think it is time that every hon. member who is supporting this administration should stand behind the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). The Prime Minister has waited upon this country; during the present dilemma which has faced the country he has given the complete measure of his devotion. He has waited upon us and we should wait upon him. AVe are glad to know that he is recovering and will soon be back to lead the forces of reconstruction.
I believe my time is about up. With the permission of the house I should like to say just a few more words. I want to thank every hon. member for the manner in which he has listened to what I have had to say. I feel

The Budget-Mr- Stitt (Selkirk)
that I have friends on both sides of the house and among the independent group. I have considered it a great privilege to be here and I hope I have learned something and I trust I have contributed a little to the debate of this house. In conclusion I should like to pay a tribute to the Prime Minister although it is almost impossible to find the language with which to express my admiration for him. He is a man of giant intellect, he has been most unselfish in giving his health and strength to the welfare of his country. I believe in the words of Disraeli, that he has been a Conservative to preserve all that is good and a radical to remove all that was bad. I believe that I express the wish of every Canadian who loves his country when I say that I hope he will soon be restored to health and be again able to lead his party. In February, 1932, when I seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I quoted some lines which I should like to repeat. At this time thejr refer most appropriately to our beloved leader:
I vow to thee, my country-all earthly things above-
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love,
The love that asks no question; the love that stands the test;
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best:


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: The inadequacy of purchasing power and the concentration of credit in the hands of large corporations account for the failure of this and other governments to meet the needs of the people of the world at the present time. How otherwise would you explain, except on the basis of abundance, the destruction of such quantities of goods as were destroyed by the nations of the world in 1934, not to speak of the tremendous further amounts of goods which might have been added to production had our resources of man-power, machinery, plant equipment and raw material been used to capacity? I noticed that even the Ottawa Journal gave a brief, though inadequate, summary of some of the goods destroyed in 1934. It says:
In 1934 nations destroyed millions of dollars worth of goods and foodstuffs while millions of people lacked clothing and food. Holland buried 15,000,000 flower bulbs and destroyed
2.000.	000 sows and 4.000,000 little pigs; Denmark incinerated 25.000 cattle. In New Zealand 5.000 lambs were driven into the sea. In the United States every third row of cotton was "ploughed in." Brazil destroyed
26.000.	000 bags of coffee-
And so the story goes. That is not by any means a complete list, but it does indicate the insanity of a world that does not know what to do with too much, that has no policy applicable to too much but only knows how to act when it has too little and thus seeks to restrict production and destroy goods in order to bring about an artificial condition of scarcity so that statesmen may know their way about. To my mind that is a fair statement of the policies of nearly all governments to-day.
So much, then, for the assumption that there is an abundance of supplies. As to the other assumption contained in our amendment, that there is too little money, I think the fact that there has been a shortage of money for purchasing power has been very adequately and emphatically demonstrated. I direct the attention of this house once more to the analyses and the mathematical demonstration of Major Hugh Douglas, of London, who I think has shown more completely and more thoroughly than any other economist of his time the scarcity of money and the causes of that scarcity. But he is by no means the only one who has demonstrated that fact. Foster and Catching have demonstrated it in the United States; Ivitson, Keynes, Right Hon. Reginald McKenna and numerous others have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt to every intelligent student of the question that there is not sufficient money in circulation at a given time to buy the good? on the

shelves at the prices at which those goods are marked, and that while that is so those goods cannot be distributed.
Time does not permit a recapitulation of the data to prove that point mathematically. I turn from the scientific statement of the case to the fact that must be staring every man in the face, a fact which I think the people of Canada know very well; it is that they have not the money in their pockets with which to supply their needs, while the goods they need are sitting on the shelves of the warehouses of the country and their stomachs are empty and their backs are bare. There is no argument or scientific demonstration that is more effective than the actual, practical fact that the people see the goods, that they are ready to produce more but have not the money with which to distribute them.
Then if we want a real, practical proof, we need only turn to the relief policies of the government. What do they amount to? They amount to this, that the government have undertaken to borrow money which otherwise would not be put into circulation and to apply that money to nonproductive pursuits, so that in their continuation of certain public policies and public services-which may be all to the good-they have been able to distribute money as wages to the people engaged in those projects. By doing such work the government have placed no goods upon the market to offset the money that has been distributed, and to that extent they have slightly increased purchasing power. But apart from the inadequacy of that policy so far as sufficient purchasing power is concerned, what is the inevitable result? The inevitable result of that policy is the utter crash of the system, for every penny that is so circulated among the unemployed on relief projects has been borrowed, and the borrowing of that money naturally increases our debts. Our debts now are terrific; they cannot be paid as they stand at the moment, and as we increase them and as they grow larger through interest charges compounded, we hasten towards the inevitable abyss. Let me just direct the attention of the house to the growth of debt during three centuries. In the seventeenth century the debt of the world increased 47 per cent. In the eighteenth century the debt increased 466 per cent; in the nineteenth century it increased 12,000 per cent and I venture to state that in the twentieth century it will increase 12,000 times 12,000 per cent. So, Mr. Speaker, the speed of our debt creation increases by every year

The Budget-Mr. Irvine
of time, just as the velocity of an object falling through the air increases with every inch it travels towards the ground.
Let me turn now, sir, to a brief summary of the economic situation in relation to purchasing power. Goods manufactured and sold at a profit cannot be bought back with the wages paid those who have produced them. This is chiefly so because much of the money that was employed in the purchase of raw materials and in the payment of wages for production was borrowed money, or credits created by the banks, and as soon as the goods then produced were sold those debts were repaid. Being repaid they were cancelled and being cancelled they were not available to buy the goods which they were employed in producing. So there must remain on the shelves, unpurchasable through lack of money, goods which cannot be moved unless some auxiliary supply of money be found somewhere.
To make the situation worse machinery is becoming more and more automatic as the industrial process goes on, and the use of solar power, steam, oil, gas, electricity has not only made it possible to produce sufficient goods with a very much reduced number of workers, but has vastly increased production, in some instances far beyond the capacity of the people to consume even if they had the money to buy the goods, which they have not. Moreover the tendency is towards further mechanical progress, which will still further reduce the number of workers required and further increase output. The fact that those who are employed do not receive and never have received sufficient, income under the profit system to buy even the necessities of life, much less the entire output, together with the additional fact that machinery is displacing thousands from every industry, thus depriving a large percentage of the population of any income at all. has resulted in vast amounts of goods going to waste unused while millions are in want. This condition of more goods than money intensifies competition among producers, and compels them further to reduce wages and further to supplant workers with every conceivable labour-saving device, which courses of action still further intensify the problem.
Being unable to find markets at home through lack of purchasing power as I have described, the producers of all nations enter into keener competition for whatever foreign market there may be; thus the economic basis of war. Those who look upon the situation in Europe to-day, as well as in the east, must come to the conclusion that there is grave danger that the events of 1914 may very soon be repeated. This situation has become
so acute that something must be done, and if governments will not heed and take intelligent and constitutional action it is altogether likely that the masses of people, driven by desperation, sooner or later will take unconstitutional and unintelligent action. It is in order to prevent such unreasoned and dangerous action that from time to time during the last fourteen years I have urged with all the sincerity that I possess, upon whichever party was in power, that they take some definite action on this question. Both parties continue to drift, they hope that we may drift into something better. I noticed the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) in his admirable budget speech indicated that we were drifting out of the depression in the same way we drifted into it, I think he suggested by natural causes. I cannot express my-I was going to say contempt for that view, I hope the minister will realize that the term has no application for him personally, but I have nothing but contempt for the view that we can drift into prosperity. I am as firmly convinced as that I am in this house at this moment that if we are to attain prosperity we must plan our way, that our plans must be based upon economic truths and facts of the present time, and that such plans must be worked out by the application of established scientific principles.
The attitude of bankers and industrialists and bondholders is one of economic fascism. That is to say they want to restrict production to the limits of an unsound money theory, the theory or doctrine which bases money on one commodity only, famed for its scarcity, rather than basing the medium of exchange on commodities generally. Thus they cheat the people of all the advantages of industrial progress, maintain the multitudes in a state of semi-starvation in order that they may continue to hold to an unjustifiable superstition about the relation of money to gold. They further carry their fascistic notions to the restriction of the use of machinery as far as possible so as to employ as many people as possible and to distribute wages as widely as possible for doing unnecessary work. Now that viewpoint is so absurd as to be unworthy of comment. A section of the community, some of the working class who have suffered more under this insane system than any other class, are becoming impatient and demand complete and immediate revolution. They are not prepared to wait for constitutional action, they want to smash all opposition by ruthless force. Now I do not hold with that, I would fight that with all the powers I have, but we have to face the fact that there is a considerable and growing number of Canadians who take that position. Another group, the
The Budget-Mr. Irvine

group to which I belong, hold another view with respect to this question of purchasing power and the Canadian economic problem. We are a small group in this house, composed of representatives of organized farmers and labourers and other groups. We regard the problem chiefly as one of making available to the consumer enough purchasing power to equal the total prices of all commodities that are for sale, and we regard provision of the required amount of purchasing power as the most advisable next step, since it will bring about the immediate distribution of the goods required to satisfy the wants of the community and thus prevent revolution and give us time to think out succeeding steps in a fundamental economic and social reconstruction. We say that the major trouble in Canada to-day is faulty distribution, and money in the pockets of the consumer is the surest way to bring about distribution of goods. We claim that there is no, difficulty in obtaining ample supplies of all the necessities of life, if people only had the money to buy them. We regard social credit as a source capable of providing money and at the same time an adequate method of distributing it wherever it is required.
What then is this social credit to which I refer? The real credit of the nation we regard as consisting of its power to produce and deliver goods as, when and where required. Secondly, the extent to which credit may be used for purchasing power equals the sum of the price of the goods available for distribution, and there can be no such thing is inflation so long as money can be redeemed in goods at the prevailing prices. Thirdly we believe that a metallic or gold basis should be abandoned completely, and that the basis of all money should be goods and services, and not any single commodity, metallic or otherwise. To provide all the goods required for consumption is the object of production, in the view of those who advocate a proper use of social credit, and to distribute goods, not create employment, is the problem of today. Proper distribution of goods through an adequate supply of money may be said to be the chief aim of this doctrine. We regard it as impossible under the profit system to distribute sufficient money in the form of wages to buy back the goods produced, therefore we must augment the purchasing power of the people by some other method. What we propose is that purchasing power shall be distributed as dividends freely to the consumer, so that it will operate as purchasing power and not as capital investment, as is 
customary under the present monetary system. To-day all credits appear first as investment, loans made to production, and being paid back thereby cancel the means available for the purchase of goods.
"Where is the national dividend to come from" is the question so often asked those who advocate this .method of increasing the purchasing power of the nation. May I point out that we regard the great increases of production during the capitalistic period as accruing chiefly from three sources, first association in production, secondly through mechanical inventions and thirdly through the use of solar power. All of these are social. We have increased production tremendously by association. I must not take time to demonstrate that fact, but I think all hon. members will agree that by specialization and by organization of industry, and even by international trade we have vastly increased the capacity of the world to produce.
Then, second, all will agree that machines do not belong to any individual. Machines have histories, some of them centuries old. Contributions have been made to their development by a great many people of all nations. Those people have died and left their contributions as a heritage to mankind. They are the social heritage. Machine equipment, all inventions, all discoveries, all knowledge whatsoever are the heritage of people now living and since all these things contribute tremendously to our capacity for production they form a true basis of social credit from which every individual has a right to draw.
Finally, solar power belongs to no individual; it is nature's gift to all living creatures. All these combined account for increased production over the hand craftsmanship of preindustrial periods. Together they form the source from which we have the moral, the economic and if you like, the divine right to draw purchasing power in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole. That is the source of the proposed national dividend.
" How are we to prevent inflation " is the next question. I shall have time to say only a word on this point. The social credit proposal prevents inflation which would naturally follow the issuance of such quantities of money under the present system. We propose to prevent inflation by the application of a mathematical formula known as the just price. The main point to be observed in this connection is that the ratio between production and consumption is held at a given level. The principle is that prices will

The Budget-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
not rise-cannot rise-if there are always goods on the market sufficient to redeem the money available for purchasing power.
There was money for war-any amount of it. There will be any amount of money for the next war. From where did we get it? If we quote the Macmillan report we will discover how it was issued.
It is not unnatural to think of the deposits of a bank as being created by the public, through the deposit of cash representing either sayings or amounts which are not for the time being required to meet expenditures. But the bulk of the deposits arise out of the action of the banks themselves, for by granting loans, allowing money to be drawn on an overdraft or purchasing securities a bank creates a credit in its books, which is the equivalent of a *deposit.
That is the principle by which money was provided for the war, and the real basis of the provision was the power of the people of Canada to produce and to deliver two billion dollars worth of goods-which they did. But Sir Thomas White describes it more aptly when he states:
During the war Canada surprised not only herself but the world when her people subscribed for war bonds twice as much money as there was in Canada, and then we had ample money left with which to carry on a growing business.
Now, sir, I wish Canada to subscribe now twice as much money as there is in Canada to keep the people of this country from starvation, and to save us from having to destroy the goods which we have produced in order to keep somebody else making more of those goods, in order that we may destroy them again. I demand of this parliament and government money for life; I demand money for peace; I demand money for construction. AVe had money for war, money for death and money for destruction. In the name of God why can't we have money for life, for construction and for peace? We can have it just as soon as the opposition says so, just as soon as the government says so, just as soon as this house comes to its senses this question can be solved. But so long as we play the political game which both the budget and the opposition amendment indicate we are not going to get very far.
I look to a crusade against hunger, against scarcity, and I ask every man in this house -and the lady member, too-who believes in this monetary reform policy, who regards it as a first step towards new economics made necessary and possible by abundance, to rise in their seats and to vote for the subamendment w'hich proposes the only intelligent and constructive suggestion offered thus far in the present session towards meeting the needs of the Canadian people.
One sentence more. I would suggest that the government take note of what Alberta has done. The government of that province has invited the only man who knows how to handle this subject to deal with it. But the province of Alberta has no control over monetary policy; this government has. Give the Alberta government your right hand of support; give Alberta the power to deal with the question, if you will not deal with it yourselves, and let us all join together in working out a monetary policy. Let us not quibble over technical details, but get together on a great crusade for feeding the people of Canada out of the abundance which is ours.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I do not care to follow in detail the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Irvine) who has preceded me, because I believe time would not permit. I always listen to him with great interest, because upon all occasions he seems sincere and has the faculty of warming up to his subject. I can agree with the preliminary part of his speech in which he dealt with the amendment offered by the official opposition, and with his statement that the amendment is of a negative character. I do not believe however the people of Canada are prepared to go to the limits he has advocated, namely, that of accepting complete socialism. I would judge that if hon. members in his section of the house are sincere they would support the government in the measures of reform which have been offered.


Miss MACPHAIL:: AVe have done that.


Ernest Edward Perley: Furthermore
they should do so because there is no possibility either at the present time or in the near future of the party composed of hon. members in the extreme left hand corner of the chamber having power.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Don't be
so sure.


Ernest Edward Perley: 
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Bunkum.


Ernest Edward Perley: The Budget-Mr. Arthurs


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house listened with great interest and satisfaction to the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). It was a clear-cut business statement, without political bias, made for the evident purpose of showing the people the true state of our finances at this time.
I am sure people of this country will be glad to learn that we have had a steady improvement in almost every line of business since the beginning of 1933. Our public finances have improved; there has been a steady improvement in both export and import trade; we have more men at work in our factories and there are fewer people on relief.
Our Liberal friends have been strangely dumb during this debate. They had of course their chief financial critic, and one or two others, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) and that usually very silent man so seldom heard in debate, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I presume these hon. members were set up by the Liberal party as the chief exponents of the prevalent opinion on that side. But in fact our Liberal friends were silent for a very different reason. For the last couple of years or more they have depended entirely not on any policy which they have enunciated but upon old man depression. They believed, and perhaps believe yet, that this depression and unrest, which did prevail in the past in Canada, was about to lead their party into power. Consequently they cannot speak enthusiastically about a budget which announces to the people of Canada better conditions and better times, for they know that every further step in improvement means fewer votes for the Liberal party in the coming election, every additional man employed means further loss of votes for that party, and every effort put forth by this government to make times better makes the prospects worse for that party under present conditions.
I have said that the depression is passing, that conditions are better. In support of that I wish to quote a few figures. These are taken from Business of September, 1934, and give a comparison showing Canada's progress towards prosperity. Compared with the low period our exports have increased 50-5 per cent; our exports to empire countries have increased 53-2 per cent; our imports generally have increased 36-8 per cent; and our imports from empire countries 53-2 per cent. The physical volume of business in

Canada has increased 64 per cent. Here let me point out that in making comparisons our hon. friends opposite are always anxious to compare trade in recent years and at the present time with the peak prices of 1928 or 1929, the fact being that prices on the average are veiy much lower, so that the resulting picture is not a true one. Our manufacturing production has increased 75-6 per cent, iron and steel production 53 per cent, and textile production 141 per cent, being at the present time very much above the average of 1926 to 1929. The same is true of the production of electrical power and of our mineral production, which has increased 184-8 per cent, and is now very much above the average of 1926- to 1929. Employment has increased 62-6 per cent. I could give many more figures but do not think it necessary to take the time. I have in my hand a comparison made I think by the Canadian Bank of Commerce as to the real purchasing power of the farmers of Canada. It shows that the low period was in 1931 immediately after the change of government, and that since then it has steadily risen. I have the figures for 1931 to 1934. In 1931 it was 58-36 per cent of normal, in 1932 it rose to 62-77, in 1933 it was down slightly to 61-03, and in 1934 had increased to 67-51. That is the latest available.
There is no question that the principal problem in this country, as in every civilized land to-day, is that of unemployment, and perhaps that of relief. This situation is common to all civilized countries. In this country the depression commenced in the early part of 1929, trade was paralyzed by the great slump in stocks of the autumn of that year. Things went from bad to worse not only in this country but in almost every other. Naturally with the collapse in stocks the purchasing power of our people was greatly reduced. This resulted in unemployment and the closing of factories. Conditions were further aggravated by the fact that farming was in a very deplorable condition owing to the action not only of the United States, as instanced by a previous speaker, but of other countries, which all closed their markets to the agricultural products of Canada. For many years the United States had been our nearest and best market, and while hon. members opposite have always preached, as they do even yet, that we should buy where we sell and that unless we buy we cannot sell, our American friends were not of that opinion at that time. In spite of the fact that we were then and probably are yet their best customers, they proceeded to shut the door absolutely on our agricultural products.

The Budget-Mr. Arthurs
The result was that the buying power of our farmers fell to almost nothing, and our factories were closed.
That was the situation which confronted this government when they came into power in 1930. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister found the situation much worse than he had anticipated. But he immediately took steps to do what he could to remedy the condition, and parliament was called in September of that year for the purpose of voting such moneys as were necessary and passing such legislation as was deemed advisable. It is true that when parliament was called in 1930, manufactured goods from almost every country of the world were being poured into Canada practically regardless of cost of production. Consequently our factories had to close. At that time we took steps, which I believe and have always believed were right, to protect this country against that condition. We raised tariffs, there is no doubt about it. I remember hon. gentlemen opposite getting up one by one and protesting that when we increased the duty on silk for instance by practically 100 per cent that increase would be passed on to the consumer. They said the same thing about textiles, upon which the duty was also materially increased. But what are the facts? Continuously since that time prices of silks and textiles have gone steadily down, and people are able to buy them at lower prices to-day than before the duty was changed. But it had another result. Millions of dollars were spent in this country for the building and enlargement of textile factories. In one town that I have in mind one company I think spent $2,000,000 on new buildings. Many of them are working twenty-four hours a day, and are doing a great deal to strengthen the Canadian situation. These mills not only provide work for our people but in doing so furnish a market for the farmers of the vicinity. Hon. members have stated that the greater part of our agricultural production outside of wheat is consumed in Canada. I may later have time to read a few figures in this connection. May I point out that this government took the proper action in 1930. I believe it is better to build a fence at the top of a precipice than to maintain an ambulance at the bottom. 1 believe, further, that if the Liberal government between the years 1921 and 1930 had taken the proper steps or made proper protests to the various countries concerned Canada would be in better circumstances to-day. It is better to have a lighthouse on the shore than to maintain life boats to save the mariners after the vessel has been wrecked.
During the last four or five years this government has been doing everything within its power to utilize the ambulance for the purpose of saving those wrecked by the disaster of 1929. They have built a fence at the top, too, to prevent a similar disaster occurring in the future. They have put up their lighthouses along the shore so thi-there may be no more wrecks. Meantime they have had to use their life boats to save those already suffering.
In the short time at my disposal I do not believe it is necessary to refer to the extent of the expenditures made by the government for relief but I should like to make one or two observations in connection therewith. In all the provinces relief is in the hands of the provinces or the municipalities. For many years however, and especially in centres where the people are not well acquainted with the facts, a whispering campaign has been in progress, and the assertion has been made that only the federal government is to blame. As a matter of fact in the province of Ontario, from which I come, the relief is in the hands of the municipal authorities, and grants are made according to their wishes or whims. I have in my hand an interesting statement produced at the meeting of the mayors held only a few days ago in this city. This statement is prepared by the department of social research of McGill university for the use of the organization committee of the mayors. Although I do not intend to read it in detail I should like to indicate the vast difference in methods obtaining in the different provinces. Whether this difference is brought about because of local circumstances, or whether some provinces are more generous than others in their treatment of the unemployed and those requiring relief I do not know. This statement indicates however that in the year 1934 the amount of money distributed in the maritime provinces cost each elector in each city $2.20. That is to say each inhabitant of a city was charged $2.20. Then we find that each person on relief in the maritimes received $17.25 in the year. Of course I am speaking only of the grant given by the cities, and would point out that the amount should be multiplied by three, so as to allow for provincial and dominion contributions. Therefore instead of $17.25 the figure should be about $51.75. The amount I have given is that paid by the city according to population and the number of people on relief.
In the city of Saint John relief cost $1 per head of population, while in Amherst the cost was more than 85. In other words, that was the assessment on each inhabitant of those
The Budget-Mr. Arthurs

people of Ontario believe that it is rendering a good service. I believe it will be more appreciated when it is better known. This legislation was based upon the British act, and cooperative purchasing and selling has been a success in Great Britain for many years. If this scheme is not complete in every detail there is no reason why it cannot be changed so as to be applicable to the conditions in Canada.
The next legislation to which I wish to refer is the farm loan act. I have very little knowledge of this legislation so far as Ontario is concerned, as it has not been in operation in that province. The loans which had been made in that province by the former government were cut off when the present government came into power, and many farmers suffered considerably. This reacted against the application of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act which was passed at the last session. I believe this act is one of the most beneficial pieces of social legislation which has ever been passed by this parliament. I know that many settlements have been made in my county and throughout the adjoining counties. In most cases the matter has never reached the crown official and in all cases there has been a marked anxiety on the part of both the creditor and the debtor to get together. After the farm loan act has been put into effect in Ontario I am certain that great benefits will result from the operation of this act and the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
This government has also passed the Unemployment Insurance Act. This legislation is more or less of an experiment in Canada. It will have no immediate effect upon unemployment. If similar legislation had been passed in 192S or 1929 when things were booming and the workmen could have easily made their payments, it would have obviated much of the unemployment relief being granted at the present time. We are following the example set by Great Britain where a similar act has been in force for about twenty-five years. About thirty-seven amendments have been made to the British act during that time, and undoubtedly it will be found necessary to amend ours.
The legislation to provide for an eight hour day has passed so far as this house is concerned. This legislation should have a very beneficial effect upon the country as undoubtedly it will give employment to more men. I am not sure but that it would have been better to provide for even shorter hours, but I am quite satisfied that this legislation will provide more employment. The weekly

day of rest is observed practically all over Canada and there was no opposition to the passing of the legislation in that regard.
I believe the provision for the establishment of an economic council will have splendid results. I am glad to know that the government has decided to vote an additional $200,000 for the encouragement of the tourist trade. Other legislation is to be introduced; we are all looking forward to the presentation of the report of the price spreads commission. There is no doubt that legislation will be required in that connection. I hope some kind of works program will be presented to take the place of unemployment relief. Personally I have never been in favour of direct relief. I think the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion, either separately or in combination, should supply employment and then the municipalities could take care of any cases of illness.
Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have entered into a conspiracy of silence so far as the budget is concerned. I should like to ask them what they have done during the last few years in the way of social legislation. As I have pointed out. they were in power from 1921 to 1930 and during that period conditions were favourable to the introduction of social legislation. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), then Prime Minister, said that he had these things thoroughly in mind. He had even placed them in a book which had been published a year or two before.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: It is a good book.


James Arthurs: Probably it is. Books last longer when you do not read them; they do not get worn or torn. At any rate he did not put these things into practice. In the Liberal platform of 1919 we had a reiteration of many of these things but no legislation was presented.
It was contended that we should have had a conference with the provinces before introducing this legislation. I should like to know how many conferences the leader of the opposition had with the provinces when he was Prime Minister. No legislation- resulted from those conferences, but when we bring in legislation we are met with the cry that it is ultra vires. The people of this country do not care whether this legislation is ultra vires or intra vires; they want the legislation and they are willing to adopt any means possible to secure it. It may be necessary to make some changes in the British North America Act, but I am quite sure that the people of Canada will not stand for

The Budget-Mr. Porteous
any talk about ultra vires or intra vires. They are not going to vote for those who write books which are kept in the library; they are going to vote for those who write the necessary legislation into the statute books of the country.


Mr. V. C. PORTEOUS (North Grey):: be absorbed in some way, I searched statistics to find out how that unfavourable trade balance was being met, and I found that in the same period, federally, provincially and municipally in this dominion, we had borrowed almost that identical figure. That tells one story and one story only, and that is that we bought from the United States during that period almost 82,500,000,000 more than we sold and then borrowed the money to pay for it. But that is not the worst. The major portion of that money was borrowed from the United States.
In view of these facts, which are presented to us fairly and concisely, what could we do but use the only instrument at the disposal of any government in order to correct these unfavourable trade balances? It is true that there are some invisible balances such as the tourist trade, and we have reaped some benefit from that invisible trade balance with the United States. But the United States also receives some benefit from the tourist trade going from Canada. Moreover, we are a debtor country and we must budget in order to meet the difference in interest rate which is going out of the country all the time.
I wish to commend the Minister of Finance for having taken a step in connection with the taxing of unearned income. I discussed with the Minister of Finance a few years ago the question of taxing non-taxable investments. At that time I advocated some method whereby investments not otherwise taxable should be made taxable, and I presented the example of a farmer who went out and bought a farm for 810,000, of whi ",h he had to borrow 86,000 from a private individual or a mortgage corporation. Just as soon as he took possession of that property he became liable for the taxes on it, whereas the person or company from whom he borrowed the $6,000 paid no tax except perhaps some income tax on the interest. This plan of taxing unearned income is one of the finest steps to be taken by any government during a period such as this.
From time to time we have heard urged, particularly from the far corner of the house, the question of monetary reform. I do not say that we should not have such reform to some extent in order to cope with other countries; I believe we should keep pace with other countries in that regard, but I want to say that you cannot make money by reforming it. Our paper money in this country represents only what is behind that money, and merely printing money is not going to make it valuable. Moreover, by printing money you cannot meet your obligations more economically than by borrowing money. The moment you issue currency without adequate

coverage you decrease the value of your currency to exactly the same extent as you would by borrowing in a foreign market and paying interest; exactly the same thing happens. While I feel that we should keep abreast of the times with respect to our money policy I believe we should use every precaution to see that we do not get off solid ground or away from stable currency.
I have said that the life of this parliament has covered a period of progress and accomplishment. A special session was called as soon as we came into power, and the first step we took was to build up our tariffs. That was necessary in order to correct the adverse trade balance, and it was necessary because other countries felt the depression before it reached Canada, and they were dumping goods into this country, more or less at bankruptcy prices, which we should have been producing in Canada. As a member of the Conservative party I must say that I have no apologies to offer in respect to the building up of the tariffs at that time; I think it was the only proper thing to do. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) said the other day, to a large extent we had lost our markets; our customers had become our competitors and it was necessary that our home markets should be retained for our own products. Then we entered into trade treaties, and I have special reference to the Ottawa agreements, which surpass any endeavours in that regard on the part of any previous government. As a farmer I sometimes wonder what might be done to raise the prices of farm products, but I shudder to think what might have happened with respect to our cattle and hog industries, for instance, if we had not found that outlet which was presented by the Ottawa agreements. Where would the prices of hogs and cattle have fallen? They are low enough now, dear knows, but they would have been much lower if we had not had the Ottawa agreements-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Victor Clarence Porteous: -which my hon. friend, who just gave voice to his disagreement, voted against. Without those Ottawa agreements the prices of our cattle and hogs would have been much lower, and now we are in a position to reap the full benefit of those agreements.
To a large extent, Mr. Speaker, we have regained trade with the old country which was lost under the Liberal regime. I must say that the British market is the surest and most stable market we have; it will take our hogs when other countries refuse to do so.

The Budget-Mr. Porteous
While it is not for me to say anything in regard to trade with the United States, since an agreement is pending with that country, I will say that we should be very careful not to destroy our market in the United Kingdom in anticipation of any other market, because the day will come when there will be a reaction in these other countries and we will be glad to avail ourselves of the United Kingdom market. So I think we should retain our position in that market which has been assured to us under the Ottawa agreements.
We undertook and carried out a census in this country which throws perhaps more light on the situation than any census previously taken. I have always maintained, especially with regard to farmers, that we have not been in possession of sufficient knowledge with respect to the possible consumption of our agricultural products. I hope that as a result of the census which has been taken, and following some further legislation which will be brought down, we may be able to control our output and take advantage of the knowledge which is presented to us. We are tackling the unemployment problem. When we first did so there were those who condemned the government for its unemployment policy, but I notice those same people are now trying to steal the government's thunder by saying more money should be appropriated for that purpose. There may have been some irregularities with respect to the administration of unemployment relief moneys; undoubtedly there were. But I would like to ask hon. members what set-up they could have made in such a short space of time that would have been more economical and efficient than the set-up which was made, by which unemployment relief was administered through the municipalities. For this or any federal government to undertake to administer unemployment relief would have been much more extravagant than doing it through the municipalities. The municipalities were in a better position to administer relief than any other governmental body, because they were in closer touch with the requirements of the situation. Some hon. members are ready to tell in this chamber of conditions in which they find those who are recipients of unemployment relief. I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) say yesterday that there was only one bathroom in an apartment house in the city of Montreal to serve forty-nine people. But I wonder if that hon. gentleman realizes that there are thousands of people in this country
who have no bathroom at all, yet they are contributing to unemployment relief. I wonder if he and other hon. members realize that there are many people contributing to unemployment relief at this time to provide water from the tap for other people when they themselves are carrying water from wells; who are contributing towards electric light for others and reading the reports concerning it by the light of coal oil lamps. Is it not time that someone took it on himself to voice the position of some of the farmers in this country? I have no fault to find with unemployment relief justly administered; it is a problem which confronts us and I think one which we shall eventually solve economically. But I do say that some who are receiving unemployment benefit have a higher standard of living than some who are contributing to it.
This government tackled unemployment relief, and we have nothing to apologize for in that regard. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said the other day (hat we should have more equality of sacrifice, and he referred to some cartoon which he had seen in a newspaper, under the caption Everybody One Step Down. I remember seeing a cartoon myself some years ago in the early days of bolshevism; it showed a lean, lanky man sitting in front of a grocery store with a banner across his breast bearing the word "bolshevik." A passer-by asked him: "What does that word ' bolshevik ' means?" "Well," he sa-id, "it means absolute equality; nobody has anything to eat." That is about as good an explanation of bolshevism as could be given, because if those people had their way who advocate policies such as those of which we have heard, they would destroy the credit of the country and the result would be that everybody would be equal but everyone would be starving.
Then we assumed greater responsibility respecting old age pensions. May I say in passing that the Old Age Pensions Act was the only part of an extensive program presented by the Liberal party to the labour people of this country in 1919 that was carried out. We assumed ninety-five per cent responsibility in connection with that act. Then we introduced legislation setting up the central bank, and I believe that as the years go by the central bank will prove to be one of the most beneficial financial institutions in this or any country, because it will exercise a controlling influence on the alternations of prosperity and depression that have characterized the past under the banking system as we have had it. Then we introduced the Natural
The Budget-Mr. Porteous

Products Marketing Act, which gave the farmers the only opportunity that ever had been given them to control to some extent the selling price of their products. I was astounded to hear my hon. friends opposite vote against that bill. Surely they realized that in this world in which trade is coming to be regulated largely by codes, farmers should have some organization by which they can to some extent control the marketing of their products. Through the facilities afforded by that legislation I believe that as the years go by the agricultural community will reap splendid results.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Victor Clarence Porteous: When the house rose at six o'clock I was reviewing as briefly as possible some of the progressive and reform legislation this government had sponsored in the past. In addition to the items I have already mentioned there are the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and amendments to the farm loan act. We have maintained our credit and the value of our currency. Through the price spreads commission we have set out to investigate some of the irregularities in connection with trade and commerce. In passing may I state that this is the only government which has had nerve enough to investigate matters of that kind. We are about to set up a wheat board, and still the Liberal opposition continues to present motions of want of confidence in the government.
In the few brief moments at my disposal I should like to review what is knowm as the capitalistic system. I do not believe that the expression "capitalistic system" is in most instances properly applied. In my opinion we are living under a free and competitive system. Capitalism is a product of democracy and not a system in itself. We live in a free country, a country where any individual is privileged to engage in any occupation he may see fit to follow, and we hope that in years to come every Canadian will have that same opportunity. Under our system each individual is rewarded according to merit, and other than by way of reform I do not believe the system can be improved upon.
The great country to the south of us makes the boast that it has made more money in a short term of years than has any other country in the world, and under the system prevailing in that country they have produced more profits than has any other country. For
[Mr. Porteous.!
years I have watched industrial workers, and in passing may I state that I have a high regard for the honest industrial worker and the honest employee. I regard highly that man who is willing to give of his skill, for which he may be remunerated in dollars and cents. I have watched the industrial workers in action, and may I observe that in years gone by there was very little difference between the status of the employee and that of the employer. In bygone days the employer served an apprenticeship and understood the conditions under which the employee worked. Then the employer worked as many hours per day as did the man working under him. What is the condition to-day? By manipulation of the Companies Act, by monopoly in industiy and by other methods, the employer has become immensely rich while the employee may be found among t'he list of unemployed.
Faced with these conditions is it not time for us to embark upon some program of reform so far as possible to correct this free and competitive system? That is the program upon which this government is embarking to-day. As I have stated previously, I was surprised to note that the opposition chose to oppose some of the reform measures which passed last year. I believe they would still oppose the reform legislation were it not for the fact that they realize public opinion is behind it. They understand that the public is behind the reform policy enunciated by the Prime Minister in his radio speeches, and were it not for that fact they would be opposing the reform program now before parliament. However they have learned that public opinion favours reform and for that, reason have made a right about face and declare themselves ready to vote for reform legislation.
The reform program was initiated by none other than the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), who had a reform program in mind a few years ago when we were embarking upon the census, which I mentioned earlier. Since that time he has steadily advanced and made reasonable his reform program. Not only do I hope and believe that he will be back to lead the Conservative party to victory in the next election, but I believe that in years to come he will embark upon a reform policy which will give the world leadership and further jurisdiction for the existence of a free and competitive system.
In 1928 my right hon. leader warned the then government of conditions obtaining at that time, when thej'' were embarking on a mad orgy of expenditure and extravagance.

The Budget-Mr. Picket
The foresight which led him to warn the government of that day will lead him in the reform measures under which the people of Canada will prosper in years to come.


Mr. F. H. PICKEL (Brome-Miasisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) upon the manner in which he presented his budget speech. Seldom has this house been treated to such a full and clear picture of our assets and liabilities. Upon his creditable performance of this huge task the minister deserves congratulation.
During the present session I have remained quiet in my seat; in fact at no time have I been noted for' kicking up a disturbance. I have been pleased with the legislation brought down in the last five years. It is to my liking; and the reform measures which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) forecast in his radio speeches furnish another reason wthy I am perfectly content. I am very sympathetic towards them, and I trust that as a result of the findings of the price spreads commission much useful and necessary legislation will follow.
It is strange, Mr. Speaker, the change that has taken place in the mentality of this house in the last five years from the point of view of agriculture, and that is the topic in which I am particularly interested. Many measures have been enacted for the benefit of the farmer, and I trust .that many more will be brought forward as a result of the findings of the price spreads commission. I am convinced, sir, that this parliament has enacted more useful agricultural legislation than has been passed in any previous quarter century. As the Prime Minister told us in his radio addresses, times have changed and we must change with them. That is very true. The policy of the Prime Minister is to uplift the little fellow. The capitalist and the industrialist 'has had his own way for a long time uncurbed, and as in the case of the individual, it has proved Ids undoing. He has gone too far, and reform must take place in a quiet and evolutionary manner or we shall have something serious on our hands. The standard of living has been raised so high in this country, and in fact all over the world, that it is only the capitalist and the industrialist and their executives who are permitted to enjoy that standard of living. As I said, the Prime Minister's policy is to uplift the little fellow so that he too may ' enjoy a better standard of living and take in the show. Years ago the best and most solid citizen in Canada was the agriculturist, but to-day he is the puniest, the tiniest, the lowest graded class in the whole dominion; yet
he constitutes fifty per cent of our population. That is a strange thing, Mr. Speaker. We have gone on in this country building up industries. We have had an industrial mania not only here but all over the world, and the little fellow has been left too much to float along alone. Like the products of no other class in the community, the products of the farmer- his butter, his cheese and everything else that he produces-are shipped to the cities, there to be distributed by middlemen who fix the price and reap millions out of the farmer's labour.
I have heard some hon. members speak about the importance of our coal mines and other minerals. But compare them with agriculture and they do not make a very good showing. The minute you take an ounce of gold out of the ground the mine has depreciated by that much, but agricultural wealth is a perpetual asset and should be continuously increasing in value and making new wealth. But at the present time the farmer is beaten out.
I want to refer for a moment to the standards of living and the high cost of living, and I do not think I can do it in any better way than simply to mention the golf links and golf courses that abound around our cities and towns. Millions of dollars are invested in these courses, and who enjoys them? Only the capitalist. The farmer never plays golf. The nearest the farmer ever gets to playing golf is when he knocks the dried-up tufts of fertilizer around his fields with a mallet. That is all the golf he gets. Take a train leaving any of our cities at noon in the summer and you will find it filled with men going out to the golf courses, all togged out in their knee-high pyjamas and other accoutrements. Why, Mr. Speaker, the cost of a pair of golf hose would buy two suits for a farmer. The farmer is wondering where he is going to get his next pair of overalls. That is the position in which he finds himself.
The farmer in normal times is by long odds the heaviest consumer, the heaviest buyer in the Dominion of Canada. Let him get his jjust share of what he produces and he will be able to absorb one-half or three-quarters of the present day unemployment. But to-day the farmer is unable to buy, and what work is done on the farm he has to do himself.
As_ I said a few minutes ago, we have gone industrially crazy, and we have done so at the expense of the primary producer. The capitalist has been misled. He has suffered from a sort of greed for gain. That is his hobby, and that has been the trouble-how much he can make. He has been given all power; he has been unbridled, unchecked, and
The Budget-Mr. Picket

it has simply been the means for self-destruction. We cannot go on in the way we are going. The capitalist will have to be curbed. The Prime Minister states distinctly that he does not intend to do away with capitalism, but he intends to reform it, to eliminate its bad features and retain the good ones. It seems to me that that would be a perfect solution. Along in 1927, 1928 and 1929 we saw an example of what a standard of living could be. We saw men with money and men without money but with facilities to borrow falling over each other in brokers' offices to buy stocks. Many of these stocks were all right but they were paying only two and two and a half per cent in dividends. I can give another example. In the small town in which I live we are paying more to-day to light our streets than we paid twenty-five or thirty years ago for all our taxes. Under these circumstances I submit that we must do one of two things. We must either reduce the standard of living or lift up the little fellow so that he can bear his share of the load. I am for lifting up the little fellow, because the country in which the standard of living is the highest is the better place in which to live.
As a general rule I do not indulge in political discussions in the house; we have far too much of this. But I cannot allow the remarks made by the genial and popular member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard), on January 31 to go unchallenged. The hon. gentleman gets so enthusiastic about his political views that he is often led astray and makes many misstatements of fact. His speeches are not usually full of moderation but I think in this instance he outdid himself. He was outlining certain things which this government had done, and on page 367 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
The duty on butter, under the King administration, was four cents per pound.
I submit that the hon. member must have known differently; he must have known that the duty was one cent per pound and that we brought in over 41,000,000 pounds of butter during the last years of the King administration. He then goes on to make a mountain out of a molehill.


Mr. HOWARD:: Would the hon. member mind telling us the price at that time?


Follin Horace Pickel: That has nothing whatever to do with the case.


Mr. GOBEIL:: The question is: Was your statement correct? You know it was not.


Follin Horace Pickel: He tries to make a mountain out of a molehill. He gave the importations

of butter, but they are nothing as far as our market is concerned. It must be remembered that a great deal of (this butter came in from England and paid a duty of eight cents per pound. Statements of this kind are the result of political bias and an attempt to make capital out of nothing. There is nothing in what the hon. member says.
He then goes on to talk about the Quebec milk commission and what they have done for the farmer. This commission was in existence before 1932, when an investigation was held by this government. The members of this commission had been riding over the province for two or three years doing nothing. They were drawing salaries for visiting the farmers and inflicting restrictions and regulations upon them but never increasing the price of their products. This state of affairs was allowed to continue until the session of 1933 when this government gave permission to the agriculture committee to hold an investigation into the whole matter. The investigation was held and a report was drawn up highly derogatory to the distributors. A copy of this report was sent to each of the provinces along with a copy of the evidence taken before the committee. The provinces were requested to take the necessary action. In 1934 the Quebec legislature empowered the Quebec milk commission to set prices. This action is greatly to the credit of the legislature but the fact remains that had it not been for the action of this government the members of the milk commission would still be joy riding around the province.
Tet us look into the manner in which this milk commission is working at the present time. In the autumn of 1934 the farmer in Quebec was getting SI.50 per 100 pounds for his milk. The time had come to set a winter price and the distributors and producers had agreed upon a price of $2.05 per 100 pounds. The milk commission entered the picture and reduced this price to SI .85.


Mr. POWER:: What about the surplus milk?


Follin Horace Pickel: I give the milk commission credit for doing away with the surplus milk, but they did reduce the price agreed upon by the distributors and producers. They also gave the distributor the privilege of increasing the price to the consumer by forty cents per hundred pounds. The farmer was given thirty-five cents more but the distributors received an additional five cents. It was not the object of the investigation held by this government to increase the price of milk to the consumer; the object was to have a more equal division of the proceeds of the labour

The Budget-Mr. Picket
of the producer, which he does not geit at present.
I communicated with the commission last fall in an effort to have them fix the price of cream, and they fold me that they would look into the matter. Up to date they have not done so. The farmer is supposed to have expensive equipment; he must have his premises fixed up in just such a way and he has to wear just such clothing when he goes to milk-they will be wanting him to wear a dress suit pretty soon. He must do all these things but the price of cream has not been fixed. On May 28, 1933, when this investigation was being made, the price of butter was 28 cents per pound. On that day a Toronto dairy paid SI.28 for a gallon of 40 per cent cream. This gallon of cream was reduced down to 30 per cent with surplus or separated milk. The whole process cost the dairy between $1.37 and $1.38. That product was sold to the consumer for $5.68-three times as great a return as in the milk business; and the farmer gets no benefit. I would not take up so much time, but I do not like to have such a bombastic outburst from the hon. member, denouncing the government and making a lot of misstatements as he did.
Often we hear that the government should not be in business. I contend that the government has been in business a long tim'e. The government has even gone into the business of fixing time, which is a bad thing for the farmer; I know of no legislation that hurts the farmer more than daylight saving. Nothing does more damage in the country. The price of labour is indicated in the Labour Gazette, showing that printers receive from $5 a day up, bricklayers, plumbers, gas fitters, carpenters and others from $8 to $10 a day, for an eight hour day. Is that business? I contend that a good deal of the hardship which the farmer is suffering to-day is the result of governmental interference-and when I speak of the government I mean federal, provincial and municipal governments. There have been a good many restrictive, regulating and grading acts which the farmer has to put up with. I am not opposed to grading; I want that distinctly understood. I am not opposed to grading so far as our export trade is concerned, because we must have it if we are to compete; but I do not think it is right to pass a grading act and then fail to see that it is properly administered.
To-day they are buying eggs, and they will continue to buy eggs during the summer at 7 to 10 cents per dozen, especially in the west; they will put them in cold storage, and six or seven months hence they will receive from
40 to 50 cents a dozen for these eggs, for which they are paying from 7 to 10 cents a dozen. Is that business? If the government is in business it should prevent that sort of thing. In 1932 the distributors in this country paid 16J and 17 cents a pound for butter. They bought butter all summer, during the time the farmer was producing, and in the winter it went up to 32 cents a pound. What consolation is it to the farmer to have butter selling at 32 cents a pound when he has none to sell? There is no satisfaction in that kind of business. In 1933 the distributors paid 17^ and 18 cents a pound during the producing season and in the winter butter went up to 30 cents. This last summer they paid 18i and 19 cents and this winter the price went up to 26 cents, and it would have gone up to 30 or 32 cents had it not been for the surplus in storage. There was some 14 million pounds in cold storage and this had a tendency to keep the price down. Why should such things be allowed to go on?- We consume practically one hundred per cent of the butter produced in this country. We consume ninety-eight per cent of all our farm produce, except wheat and cheese. In this connection, we hear the opposition crying for markets. Not only this year but throughout the past five years that has been their cry-let us have markets. I say to them, use your common sense and tell us where you can find a market with as high a price as you can find right in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: In the United States.


Follin Horace Pickel: During the past five months, as the result of artificial stimulation, the American people have boosted their prices to our level and a little higher in some instances; but a year ago we got three times as much for our pork, ten cents more for our butter and ten cents a dozen more for our eggs. Is the artificial stimulation going to continue there? I fear for that country. I hope they will come out all right, but if they do not the result will be reflected in this country. They are spending billions over there to stimulate prices and there is a good deal of grumbling all over the country.
In my opinion our cold storage plants, on which thousands upon thousands of dollars have been spent, do not help the farmers at all. Who gets the advantage of cold storage? The commission man. It does not help the farmer, because it enables the commission man to buy the farmer's produce in the summer at a low price and leave it in cold storage; and when the farmer stops producing in the fall of the year the cold storage
The Budget-Mr. Picket

operators boost prices, making millions. These plants were built presumably for the benefit of the farmer, but the farmer has been neglected and he gets no advantage from them. As they are operated to-day they are a curse to him.
Before I close there are one or two facts I want to present to the house. Perhaps I shall be told that my age accounts for what I am going to say-they tell me I am getting old and childish, and perhaps I am-but to me the two gravest menaces that we are facing in this country to-day, and'the same is true of the world at large, are, first, automobiles, and second, the lack of discipline among the youth. The automania is a perfect curse; and what is to become of the youth of the country? There is no discipline among the children. I was surprised and amused the other night when the estimates of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) were being considered and he was being questioned about the relief camps. It seems that there has been some trouble in regard to discipline. I should like to know how you can have an aggregation of young people without discipline; it is absolutely impossible. Discipline is the first requisite, but where is there any discipline among the young people? There is no more home life, absolutely none. There may be individual exceptions, but as a general rule there is no more home life. The children come and go as they please. If you tell them to gee they will haw, and if you tell them to go east they will go west. They think of nothing but sport, dancing and social gatherings. Take the schools, sir, the colleges and universities; they are just athletic recruiting grounds. The athletic instructors draw down salaries twice as large as those of the professors. Look at the newspapers; they are half filled with sporting news. You see young fellows rush for the latest editions of the papers, and all they look at is the sporting page; that is all that interests them. How are we going to get at these people, these future rulers of this country? I do not know how we are going to discipline them; to my mind that is certainly a serious question. This might be a big field for the churches. As I said a moment ago, when the Minister of National Defence was putting through his estimates two or three members were questioning him quite closely; evidently they did not think the inmates of the relief camps

were being treated very well, but I noticed that most of those who spoke on that subject were bachelors, who did not know much about it.
I am not going to keep the house in suspense any longer, Mr. Speaker; I am just going to stop. To my mind our most important problem is our young people, girls as well as boys; one is as bad as the other. Where are they going? You can do nothing with them. I hope someone will evolve some scheme by which they may be brought to their senses.


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: The Budget*-Mr. White (London)
On February 13 last, in this house, a motion was made by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) to the effect that farm implements and machinery Should be free from customs duty. Inasmuch as farm implements are duty free under the British preference, and any that are imported come mostly from the United States, it follows that the mover of that motion was in favour of free entry from the United States. The hon. member who proposed the motion became rather famous in 1924 as the author of the phrase "ringing the death-knell of protection." I suppose this is another effort to ring the death-knell of protection. He began with the statement that gradually through the application of the policy of protection manufacture has become concentrated, and combines, trusts and mergers have sprung into being. In order to correct that condition he proposes to go for relief to a country of higher tariffs and immeasurably greater mergers than ever existed in Canada. Does he expect corporations to be all that is pernicious and wicked in Canada but all that is benign and friendly when they happen to be located in the United States? I am afraid his trustfulness must be even greater than his fine open countenance would indicate. I think he should give some consideration to the Combines Investigation Act which was passed in 1923 when the present opposition was in power. By that act men engaged in a certain line of business who meet together and come to the conclusion that it is in t.heir interest to charge certain prices for their goods and then all quote the same prices become liable to prosecution. But if they meet together and discuss the same problem and decide to pool their resources and form a combine and all go into one company and charge what price they like, then they are within the law. So it seems to me that piece of legislation might be called an incentive to combine rather than Combines Investigation Act.
Another argument used, and very properly, was that we must buy in order to sell. That argument has been often heard in this house. But I would remind the hon. gentleman that in respect to the United States the balance of trade has been against us for many years, and at no time was it more heavily against us than between 1021 and 1930 when the present opposition was in. power. During all

that time the United States market was gradually lost to us by progressive increases in their tariff. We have already bought and bought heavily, but we are looking in vain for the opportunity to sell. That situation has been brought forcibly before hon. gentlemen opposite very many times in this house, but, they seem to forget it, and are willing and anxious to buy and buy and buy without any trade in return.
We all know that the Canadian customs duties were raised in September, 1930, particularly on agricultural implements. The tariff was raised from six per cent in some cases to twenty-five per cent, in other cases from seven and a half per cent under the general tariff to twenty-five per cent. However, there are many people who do not know that despite the increase in duties farm implements have been cheaper to the Canadian consumer during the past three seasons than they were at the time of the 1930 tariff increases. The prices for 1933 are not yet announced, so it is not possible to give comparisons for this year. I have been especially interested in this feature as at one time I was engaged in the manufacture of these goods, and later in the manufacture of the steel that enters into their construction. The changes in tariff were given in a return to a question asked by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) on November 19, 1932, and answered on January 30,	1933.
Taking for example binders and mowers, which come under item 445 of the customs tariff, prior to 1917 the duties were: British preference, 124 per cent; intermediate, 124 per cent, and general, 124 per cent. It remained so until May 24, 1922, when they were reduced to: British preference, 74; intermediate, 10; general, 10. That held until April, 1924, when the British preference was made free, and the intermediate and general six per cent. Then on Septmeber 17, 1930, the present government made the British preference free; intermediate, 15, and general tariff, 25. The same thing applies roughly to many other types of implements. I have here three different numbers of the customs tariff 445, binders and mowers; 446, hay rakes, cultivators, etc., and 448, bay loaders and hay tedders. This I ask to have put on Hansard; I have read enough of the document, I think, to permit it to go on the record:

____________The Budget-Mr. White (London)
Customs Tariff-Agricultural Implements
-	Prior to 1917	June 6, 1919	May 24, 1922	May 12, 1923	April 11, 1924Binders, Mowers, No. 445	121/121/121	No change	71/10/10	No change	F/6/6Hay Rakes, No. 446, also Cultivators, Harrows, Drills	121/171/20	10/15/15	10/121/121	No change	F/71/71Hay Loaders, No. 448, also Hay Tedders	15/22J/25	121/20/20	10/15/15	No change	5/10/10-	April 16, 1926	Mar. 2, 1929	May 2, 1930	Sept. 17, 1930	June 2, 1931Binders, Mowers, No. 445	No change	F/6/6 Combines 5/10/10	F/6/6	F/15/25	No changeHay Rakes, No. 446, also Cultivators, Harrows, Drills	No change	No change	No. 409B F/71/71	F/15/25	No changeHay Loaders, No. 448, also Hay T edders	5/10/10	F/10/10	F/10/10	F/15/25	No change
I made the statement that prices have been lowered. I have here an advertisement of the Massey-Harris Company which appeared in the Toronto Star of July 9, 1931. Among other things it says:
The price to the farmer has not been increased on any implement manufactured and sold in Canada by this company since the tariff *on agricultural machinery was raised in September (1930) or since the recent budget of June first.
Substantial reductions in price have been made since September last on an important number of implements.
The question of prices has come in for a great deal of attention on the part of hon. members during last session. I have here a *collection of prices which I have gathered from time to time. These prices are on different types of agricultural implements, and are taken from price lists in my possession dating from 1905 until the present year. From 1905 until 1916 there was very little change. Take for example a 7-foot binder with no attachments; in 1905 it sold for $134, in 1908 for $115, in 1911 to 1913 for $138, in 1916 for $133, in 1917 for $149. The year 1918 was the first year in which there was much advance-that was the last year of the war-and in that year the price was $210. It continued to rise until in 1921 it reached the highest, $281. Generally speaking it ran about $237 until 1930, when it rested 92582-150
at $232. That was the year in Which the tariff was changed. In 1932 the same binder sold for $183.24 despite the fact that the tariff was then 25 per cent instead of six per cent. In 1933 there was some difference in the price; the International Harvester Company had what they called a wheat plan discount. On the day of t'he announcement of that discount in the newspapers-the price being affected by the price of wheat-the price of wheat was 49J cents, which allowed a discount of 121 per cent off the list price. That brought the price of the International Harvester Company binder down to $190.30. In that year the Massey-Harris Company pursued a different policy, namely that of having a fixed discount of ten per cent off the list price. Their binder during the whole of the season was sold for $195.75. That of course was a seven-foot binder with no attachments. The price I have given is the Ontario price and the price f.o-b. branch houses in various parts of the province. I am informed that about the same ratio existed, so far as the western provinces are concerned. I have before me the figures for eleven different kinds of implements, showing retail prices from 1905 to 1933. I do not purpose reading those figures into the record unless there is objection to their being placed on Hansard; but if there is, I shall read them.



The Budget-Mr. White (London)
Retail Prices of Agricultural Implements
1905 to 1923-One payment Oct. 1st or Dec. 1st. 1924 to 1933-J cash-Balance Oct. 1st or Dec. 1st.
Year	7-ft. binder, no attachments	5-ft. heavy mower	Hay rake, dumping, 10 ft.	Cultivator, 6ft., 9 stiff teeth$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.134 00	52 50	31 25	35 35115 00	54 50	27 50	33 00138 00	54 50	33 50	40 00138 00	53 50	33 50	40 00133 00	56 50	35 00	52 50149 00	61 50	39 00	57 50210 00	84 00	52 50	82 001919, Sales Tax, li p.c	220 00	87 00	54 50	85 001920, Sales Tax, p.c	237 00	93 50	55 50	93 501921, Sales Tax, 3 p.c	281 00	115 50	59 00	112 501922, Sales Tax, 3 p.c	226 00	93 00	50 50	89 001923, Sales Tax, 4$ p.c	234 00	95 50	51 50	96 001924, Sales Tax, 6 p.c. (abolished April 24)	
1925 	247 00 237 00	100 00 96 50	55 00 54 00	97 50 96 001926 	237 00	96 50	54 00	96 001927 	237 00	96 50	54 00	96 001928 	237 00	96 50	54 00	96 001929 	237 00	96 50	54 00	96 001930 	232 00	94 50	54 00	94 001931	232 00	94 50	54 00	94 001932	227 00	93 50	53 50	92 50Less allowance on "Wheat Plan" plus 5 p.c. when	18 03	13 33	17 85paid as per statement	43 86	183 14	75 47	43 17	74 65"Wheat Plan" discount on day of announcement	by International Harvester Co., April 4,1933	(discount variable with price of wheat-	217 50	89 50	51 00	88 50Discount 12i p.c	27 50	11 19	6 38	11 06190 30	78 31	44 62	77 44Massey Harris- List Price 1933	215 50	89 50	51 00	88 50Discount 10 p.c	21 75	8 95	5 10	8 85195 75	80 55	45 90	79 651934	217 50	93 50	51 00	88 50

The Budget-Mr. White (London)
Retail Prices of Agricultural Implements
1905 to 1923-One payment Oct. 1 or Dec. 1st.
1924 to 1933-J cash-Balance Oct. 1st or Dec. 1st.
Disc harrow, 14 disc, 3-horse, out-throw	Disc drill, 13 disc, 2-horse	13 Hoe drill	Western single disc drill, 20* marker	Hay loader, steel windrow, with forecarriage	Farm wagon, gears, skein 3J, tires Jx2j	Hay tedders, 8-fork$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.30 25	82 75	72 75	No quotation	No quotation	No quotation	48 0027 00	72 00	65 00	*121 00	75 00	65 00	41 0031 00	80 00	77 00	*115 00	75 00	67 00	49 0031 00	80 00	77 00	115 00	75 00	67 25	49 0034 50	87 50	81 00	113 50	74 50	67 00	52 0038 00	93 00	85 00	125 00	78 00	70 50	56 0057 50	125 00	115 00	188 00	112 00	90 50	79 0057 50	130 00	119 50	200 00	116 50	104 00	81 5067 00	149 00	133 50	220 00	120 00	118 00	87 5078 50	179 00	163 00	254 00	137 50	138 00	100 0060 00	142 00	133 00	206 00	112 00	111 50	82 0066 00	148 00	139 00	218 00	118 00	111 50	84 0068 50	155 00	147 00	238 00	122 00	112 50	85 5066 00	157 00	149 00	232 00	123 00	107 50	85 5066 00	154 00	146 00	232 00	123 00	110 00	85 5066 00	154 00	146 00	232 00	125 00	110 00	85 5066 00	154 00	146 00	232 00	125 00	110 00	85 5066 00	154 00	146 00	232 00	125 00	110 00	85 5063 50	154 00	146 00	232 00	122 00	110 00	83 5063 50	154 00	146 00	232 00	122 00	110 00	83 5062 50	152 00	144 00	230 00	120 00	105 00	83 5012 07	29 41	27 86	44 41	23 16	20 27	16 1250 43	122 59	116 14	185 59	96 84	84 73	67 3860 00	143 00	137 00	220 00	117 00	100 00	81 007 50	17 88	17 12	27 50	14 62	12 50	10 1252 50	125 12	119 88	192 50	102 38	87 50	70 8860 00	143 00	137 00	220 00	117 00	100 00	81 006 00	14 30	13 70	22 00	11 70	10 00	8 1054 00	128 70	123 30	198 00	105 30	90 00	72 9060 00	143 00	137 00	220 00	117 00	100 00	81 00
*No particulars.
2352

all concerned, and I believe that a fair and dispassionate review of the whole situation will confirm what I have said. Hon. gentlemen opposite, perhaps with a wave of the hand, may try to dismiss these things as being of no account, but I have given the facts and the figures, and I feel sure that I am right in regard to them.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, before entering upon a discussion of the budget proper there are one or two things not connected directly with the budget which I wish to mention. I want to refer in the first place to some remarks that were made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Mac-Innis) with the assistance of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) on March 29, as found at page 2254 of Hansard. The hon. member for Vancouver South said:
Who organized the unemployed in Regina?
Mr. Garland (Bow River): Who referred to him as Judas?
Mr. Maclnnis: The present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when he was an agitator.
I very much regret, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Vancouver South should refer to the Prime Minister of this country as an agitator during his absence from the house and especially under the condition of his present absence, and I think the hon. member for Vancouver South will regret it himself just as much when he has had the chance to think it over. He went on:
Who organized the unemployed at Regina and gave them buttons to wear in the lapels of their coats?
Mr. Donnelly: The Tories.
Mr. Maclnnis: Chickens will come home to roost.
It is wonderful, Mr. Speaker, how much these gentlemen who live so far from Regina know about these things, and it is wonderful how careless they are of the facts. That matter was brought up somewhere during the campaign in 1930, and if hon. gentlemen will consult the columns of the Regina Leader-Post, a Liberal paper, they will find there a letter from one of the officials of the association of the unemployed in which he says that the Conservative party did not organize the unemployed to attend Mr. Bennett's meeting on the tenth day of June, the day in question, but that the unemployed asked the party to give them a reserved portion of the auditorium so that they might attend the meeting and listen to what Mr. Bennett had to say with regard to unemployment. I assume that in order to identify themselves they wore a little bit of ribbon a quarter of an inch square

on the lapels of their coats, but those badges were not placed there by the Conservative party nor were the unemployed organized by the Conservative party. I had occasion once before to deny that statement in the house, but apparently it needs denial over and over again. As the hon. member for Vancouver South says, "Chickens will come home to roost." But the kind of chickens he talks about are fouler birds than chickens are themselves.
I wish to make a passing reference to the national gallery. In my view the pictures in the national gallery are the property of the people of Canada, and as long as they are stored either in the museum at Ottawa or in the vaults of some building in Ottawa, as I believe many of them are, they are not of very much value to the people of Canada as art, whatever they may be as treasure trove. I firmly believe it is easier to take these pictures to the people than to take the people to Ottawa to see the pictures. While it is true that travelling exhibits visit various portions of Canada for a short space of time each year, I am of the opinion that the national gallery should be decentralized; that instead of collecting a huge gallery in Ottawa we should have smaller exhibits in various parts of the country, in the capitals of the provinces. With the pictures circulating through the capitals in that way those who live at a distance from Ottawa may have a chance to appreciate art as well as those who come to Ottawa.
There is another matter to which I wish to direct attention, and that is the growing custom of governing by commissions. It did not start with this government, but I am sorry to say that it has been continued to some extent by this government. I am of the opinion that the sooner we get back to the position where we are governed by bodies who have to do with the administration of the law of this country and where responsibility is placed in departments that are made responsible to the government of the country, instead of to parliament, which means no responsibility at all, the sooner we will get a better class of administration and one that the people can examine and control.
Returning to the budget; it is a very admirable presentation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). We have had criticism which at least does not err on the side of brevity from the financial critic of the opposition, the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). The hon. member, representing the Liberal party, has moved an amendment, and a subamendment has been

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull
2355 moved by those who represent a body of opinion outside of the two old parties. The amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth reads:
This house regrets that the proposals submitted by the Minister of Finance on March 22 are entirely inadequate to meet the serious and acute situation prevailing in Canada and afford an additional reason why appeal to the people should not be longer delayed.
One would have thought that if the hon. gentleman, who has held high office in this dominion for so long found any serious fault with the proposals submitted, or deemed them inadequate to meet the situation which prevails, and had in his possession other proposals which would have met it more adequately, he would have done his duty as a member of the opposition by putting forward those proposals. My criticism of the hon. gentleman is, that at no stage in his amendment and at no stage in his address did he depart from the practice which the Liberal party has followed since 1930. Since that time hon. gentlemen opposite have played the game of the frog who sat beside the pond with his mouth open hoping that providence would send him a fly. Hon. gentlemen opposite have not offered a policy of any kind or made any suggestions as to how this country could be aided. They have opposed with all their might every suggestion which has been brought forward to assist the people of this country. They have fought year after year and time after time, even to the extent of requiring closure before we could possibly get any relief bills passed to take care of the people. I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite and their followers throughout the country make the statement that the men in the relief camps are being paid Chinamen's wages of twenty cents a day, but I would point out to the country through you, Mr. Speaker, that had the wishes of the opposition been carried out there would not have been a one cent piece voted, let alone a five cent piece, with which to pay these men the so-called Chinaman's wages along with providing clothing, shelter and food. This is what these men have received from this government in spite of the opposition of those who sit opposite. How hon. gentlemen opposite under the circumstances came to consider themselves the custodians of the interests of those in distress is beyond my comprehension. They have opposed every attempt by the people of Canada to assist those in need.
The second part of the amendment asks for an appeal to the people and suggests that
this appeal should be no longer delayed. What has happened to the desire previously expressed by hon. members to have social legislation put upon the statute books of this country at this session? This is the third time this session that they have moved motions which if successful would have dissolved parliament and sent hon. members tc the country for reelection without any social reform measures having been passed. In view of these facts what can we say to their statement that they are anxious to proceed with the program of reform?
The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) rejects the idea of an immediate election as it asks that all that part of the amendment after the word "Canada" be struck out. The subamendment recommends the use of social credit to relieve the conditions faced by the people of this country. I am sorry the hon. member was not more definite in his proposal with regard to social credit. He did tell us that probably 300,000 people would take advantage of his proposition and receive $50 per month for twelve months. It would take $180,000,000 per year to carry out the provisions of the subamendment of the hon. member. The hon. member did not tell us how the social credit was to be distributed or in what form it was to be distributed, whether it was to be printed currency or something else. If it was to be printed currency, he did not tell us what effect it was going to have upon the exchange situation or upon the possibilities of our carrying on the international trade about which the hon. member at times waxes so enthusiastic. He did not tell us how the issuing of social credit was going to prove of any benefit beyond the giving to some person of a piece of paper which might be of some value for a month or so. There is one thing to be said in favour of the subamendment; it rejects the idea of having an election until after we have had the opportunity of completing the program of social legislation now before the house.
There are certain reasons why I desire to express my approval of the budget. My first reason is because of the increase in income taxes. Hon. members opposite often say that the Conservative party is a little tender with the incomes of those in the higher brackets, in fact the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth rather pooh-poohed and belittled these increases. It might be interesting to have the record of the Liberal party with respect to income taxes and to find out just who was tender with those in the higher
2356	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Turnbull
brackets. I think	it	will be found that the	Meighen- government was in office; ini 1930,	Liberal party is the ;	sinner in this regard. I	when the King government was in office, and	have before me a	statement furnished by the	in 1933, when the Bennett government was	Department of National Revenue, income tax	in office. The latter figures are given without	division, which gives	a comparison of taxes	including the increases	provided for in thepaid on different	incomes in 1921, when the	budget this year. These	are as follows:Taxes payable, 1921	Taxes payable, 1930	Taxes payable, 1933Income	Meighen government	King government	Bennett government$ 5,000	.... $ 126 00	$ 32 00	$ 120 0010,000	.... 619 50	232 00	546 0020,000	.. .. 2,089 50	1,232 00	2,173 5030,000	.. .. 4,084 50	2,880 00	4,588 5050,000	. . .. 9,649 50	6,704 00	10,069 50100,000	.. .. 32,749 50	19,064 00	27,447 00150,000	.. .. 64,249 50	34,544 00	48,867 00200,000	.... 97,849 50	51,496 00	72,187 50400,000	. . .. 243,799 50	124,200 00	175,969 50700,000	.... 469,549 50	242,928 00	350,731 501,000,000	.... 696,349 50	362,928 00	527,131 50
All through the schedule we find that the taxes imposed by the Conservative governments upon those receiving higher incomes were practically double the taxes imposed by the Liberal party.
I am glad to know that further exemptions in sales tax have been provided. This is a step in the right direction and will benefit many people. Another item is the removal of the excise tax of three per cent on goods imported into Canada from 'Great Britain and the empire. It is an additional move to help empire trade. Then the customs tariff was reduced on forty-eight items and increased on four, and there was a small change in the empire content of certain articles purchased in the empire. Because of these proposals; because of the history of this country, described by the budget, the history of returning prosperity, of continued economy in administration, of reduced interest rates, of expanding trade, of new trade agreements, of increased employment, of rising prices for primary products, of adjustments of farm debts, of expanding revenues, of balanced budgets, of favourable trade balances, of assistance to the provinces and the extension of farm loans- because of that history, I am very much in favour of the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance and wish to congratulate him and the government on the showing they have made during the return to prosperity from the depths of the depression in 1931, 1932 and 1933.
I wish now to deal with the second part of the amendment of the hon. member for Shel-bume-Yarmouth-that is, that there should be an immediate appeal to the country. In my judgment there are many reasons why there should not be an immediate appeal to

the country. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) gave one of them the other day, namely, that an immediate appeal would disfranchise two or three hundred thousand voters who have come of age since the lists were established. An hon. member says that they will not vote Liberal anyway, and that is why my hon. friends opposite wish to disfranchise them. But there are several important problems facing this country and it is necessaiy that they should receive proper consideration before any appeal is made to the electorate.
There is first of all the question of treaties, and in particular the question of empire treaties and the attitude of my hon. friends opposite with respect to imperial trade. During the election of 1930 the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) posed in Ontario as a great imperialist

Look what we did for imperial trade through the Dunning budget. That was his proclamation all through the country, and the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), was represented by him as an anti-imperialist who was opposed to the imperial connection. The leader of the opposition has declared that he is not in favour of protection, but I have before me a report that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of October 20, 1925, from Kingston, Ontario, in which the then Prime Minister, now leader of the opposition, was reported:
We realize that our industries have to have safeguards-
Not protection, but safeguards, whatever the difference is.
-with respect to competition from other parts of the world, competition from the country to the south of us, competition from conditions

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull
as they are in England, and we think that is ail the more reason why in these days of depreciated currency and the like we should have the benefit of expert advice and information on all these great questions of the tariff.
Where then was free trade, where was the fifty per cent preference which he was going to give England, instead of safeguarding this country against conditions as they existed in England, especially in those days of depreciated currency? And what about the criticism we have received from the other side day in and day out because, in view of the depreciated currency in other countries, we have imposed dumping exchange duties so as to protect the structure of this country from exchange on goods coming in under depreciated currencies? In connection with these treaties, and in connection also with the difference between a preference for a preference and a preference for a hope, I wish to quote some remarks of the Prime Minister of England, the Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald, which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 14, 1931. According to that report Mr. MacDonald said:
But we got orders for British industry made possible by preferences, and when the orders came the British manufacturer could not execute them because he had made an arrangement with the United States manufacturer not to put his goods into the Canadian market. * The very people who made these arrangements. concluded the head of the Labour government, "are now attacking the government because they did not pull off economic arrangements with the dominions the other day."
After twenty-eight years of " preference for a hope," of giving the British people preferred entry into our markets, we have the leader of the government there stating that instead of trying to get their goods into our markets under these arrangements, so that they could tie up with us, they tied up with United States firms, so that the Canadian market should belong to United States firms and not to the British-doubtless in return for something else somewhere. And that is why our imports from Great Britain are not as great as they otherwise would be, because British trade had entangled itself with agencies and representatives in New York, who were given agencies for the whole of the North American continent, and who saw either that British goods did not come to Canada or that they should come through New York, and were consequently credited to imports from the United States rather than from Great Britain.
In connection with these same treaties, we had the attitude of the Liberal party as expressed in the debate on the treaties. We
have the declaration of the leader of the opposition that when he is elected to office he will restore the tariff to the point where it was when he left office, which means that these treaties cannot exist, because 167 items put on the free list by these treaties would have tariffs reimposed on them if the right hon. gentleman were elected and carried out that threat. Then he fought the historic battle of Liberalism to prevent these treaties from coming into effect; he declared that they violated all Liberal principles and destroyed Canadian autonomy. I wonder if hon. members have read the speech he made at Quebec when he said that Canada had been reduced to colonial status because we passed these treaties, and that our nationality had gone. They were going to involve us in questions of imperial defence and, according to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), they would destroy our lumber trade completely. But in spite of that they voted for it all; they swallowed the destruction of the lumber trade, swallowed our destroyed autonomy, swallowed the danger of our entering into imperial defence, swallowed the violation of Liberal principles, on condition that we inflate the dollar and put it on the same level as the pound.
The leader of the opposition came back from' a visit to England and reported that there was no support for the treaties there. A few days later the English House of Commons nailed the story; they saw it for what it was worth. They approved the treaties by one of the largest majorities recorded in the British House of Commons. This impressed the right hon. gentleman so much that at the great meeting of the national council which was held in Ottawa in January, in the midst of a discussion of peace, he said that we should not be able to repeal these treaties but that it would be necessary to modify them in favour of international trade if they interfered with such trade. If they interfered with international trade they would have to be modified; in other words, where we had to choose between Great Britain and the United States, we would choose the United States rather than Great Britain.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is your authority?


Franklin White Turnbull: The press. Although
the press reports were to the effect I have indicated, there has been no denial from any member of the Liberal party since then, and there was no repudiation of the press reports during the debates on the treaties. For these reasons it is necessary for us to consider
The Budget-Mr. Turnbull

whether it is safe to trust the renewal of these treaties to a party that has expressed itself so violently in opposition to them and in favour of international trade rather than of imperial trade-a party that has expressed itself as opposed to these treaties because they involved this country in complications.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And you are afraid to bring in a motion to void them. You deliberately shirked your motion; you shelved it.


Franklin White Turnbull: I suppose my hon. friend across the way will give us a vote of thanks because he was not compelled to put himself on record again in regard to the lumber trade of British Columbia.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will
discuss that when the time comes. I know far more about it than you do.


Franklin White Turnbull: Another question that
will arise during the lifetime of the next parliament is that of converting a large amount of our tax free debt. The present government has successfully converted over a billion dollars of debt with an annual interest saving of approximately $15,000,000; it has reduced interest rates in this country from five per cent to the vicinity of two and a half per cent, and bonds which were free of income tax have been replaced by bonds which are taxable. Another conversion of that kind must occur in 1937. The people of this country must consider whether they would rather trust that conversion to a philosopher who writes books which are forgotten by everyone, including himself, or to a business administration that has made a success of that sort of conversion in days gone by.
A third problem that must receive the consideration of the people of this country is the railway problem. Hon. members opposite shake their heads and laugh over the railway problem. Nero fiddled while Rome was burning. and while the railway problem was being created during the term of office of hon. gentlemen opposite they were still laughing and telling the country everything was all right.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No one is laughing now; everyone is crying.


Franklin White Turnbull: I hope they are tears of regret that my hon. friend is shedding over the record of his party in connection with these railways. This year we have a deficit on the national system of some $40,000,000, for which the Minister of Finance has had to provide. The capital indebtedness of these

railways was increased by $922,000,000 during the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite, according to the Duff report at page 27. The interest on that sum is approximately what it will cost this country this year to take care of the national railways, so if that $922,000,000 had not been added to the capital indebtedness we would have saved approximately $45,000,000 in interest. I wonder if my hon. friends are going to say that the purchase of six branch lines in 1929 for $35,000,000 was a proper expenditure of the public money; I wonder if they are not shedding tears of regret over it now. I know that Professor Norman McL. Rogers, who is a Liberal candidate in Kingston, is authority for the statement that the purchase of these railways by the dominion government, relieving the provinces concerned of their obligations in regard to the bonds of those railways, which were not paid, might have been an act of philanthropy on the part of the dominion government but certainly it did not lighten the burden on the Canadian National system. Let hon. gentlemen opposite figure up the interest burden, to say nothing of the capital expenditure, imposed on the country during their maladministration while they were in office. Let them remember also that they knew so little of what was going on that when the salaries that were being paid in Montreal were exposed in the select committee of the House of Commons-after this government came into office-the right hon. leader of the Opposition said that he was astounded at these things, that he did not know such salaries were being paid. And the reason he gave for not knowing that such salaries were being paid was that he had always made the time-honoured answer in the House of Commons when questions were asked in regard to salaries, that it was not in the interests of the railway that the public should know what was being paid these men. I notice that my hon. friends across the way are not laughing now; they are getting back to tears of regret. This country must decide whether it is going to place the administration of these railways back in the hands of the Liberal party to be used for political preferment, for the purchase of branch lines which add to the burden of the railways, for the purpose of putting the railways even further into debt, or whether they are going to leave it in the hands of the trustees to be administered as a business institution instead of as a fifth wheel on the Liberal machine.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Keep on attacking the national railways; we understand why.

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull


Franklin White Turnbull: I want to suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that no person is attacking the Canadian National. We are attacking the Liberal party for the -abuse to which they subjected the Canadian National. My hon. friend from Vancouver [DOT]Centre is very voluble now, but for the last week he has been glued to his seat under the directions of his leader, afraid to get up and express his own opinions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Listening to a comedy.


Franklin White Turnbull: That has been the
trouble with hon. gentlemen opposite. When they mismanage the affairs of the country they consider it a comedy or a joke, but we want an opportunity to let the people know about these things.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear; bring on the election.


Franklin White Turnbull: That is why my hon. friends are anxious to have the election brought on, so that we will not have that opportunity.
Then there is the question of the social reform legislation. What is the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite on that question? They have always approved of it in principle but never in practice. The unemployment insurance policy was in the 1919 platform, where it remained buried and forgotten. The right hon. leader of the opposition included it in the platform he enunciated in this house on February 27, 1933. He went through western Canada in the fall of that year proclaiming his unbounded faith in unemployment insurance, sickness, invalidity and old age insurance, crop insurance and1 everything else he thought the people of the west would be likely to vote for. Then, having done all that, he came down to thie House of Commons and told the people that he had not brought in these measures because he did not know he had the power to do so. Could there be a more glaring deception practised on the people of Canada? We had the leader of a great party going out and telling the public for fifteen years that he was in favour of certain measures and that, if returned to office, he would fulfil his promises, at the same time thinking in his heart of hearts, according to his own statement, that he did not have power to do the things he promised or to provide those things which he was holding himself out to the people as being able to provide. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre laughs that laugh of his again. That is Liberalism a la the present Liberal members of this House of
Commons, but it is not Liberalism as the people of this country want to see Liberalism expounded and exposed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Give' them a chance.


Franklin White Turnbull: The Liberalism of hon. gentlemen opposite is just about as dead as unemployment insurance was in their hands; it was simply a name. During this session, as I have said1, there have been three attempts to force dissolution of the house in order to prevent any major social reforms being passed. When social reform has been introduced hon. members opposite have received it with sneers and jeers. They proclaimed it-at least their leader did-as futile, useless and unconstitutional; then he twirled his thumb and they all gob up and voted for this futile, useless and unconstitutional legislation, lest perchance the people might think they were opposed to it. What is going to happen to this social reform legislation, in the event of our immediately dissolving the house as requested by the financial critic of the opposition, and the people deciding, as my hon. friends seem to think they will, to put the Liberal party in office?


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Where could they find one?


Franklin White Turnbull: They are going to be faced with a. hostile senate, and with a hostile senate they cannot pass any social reform legislation at all. The only kind of legislation that they say they can send to the senate when it is hostile is legislation to repeal section 98 of the criminal code. They send it there because they are listening to their master's voice from the immediate left-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What about the Old Age Pensions Act?


Franklin White Turnbull: -and because they know their friends in the senate will defeat it there. The excuse was given, not by me but by members of the opposition themselves and by their leader, that the reason they could not bring in social reform legislation was that they were faced with a hostile senate. The Old Age Pensions Act was an exception to the general rule. In other words they can bring in those things that they want to bring, but the senate is a very fine excuse for anything they do not want to do. It is like a lie, an abomination to the Lord but a very present help in time of trouble.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To the Tory party.


Franklin White Turnbull: The other day when
one of the social reform measures was being considered by the house the hon. member
The Budget-Mr. Turnbull

for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) said it was glorifying the bill to oppose it. "There is nothing in it," he said; "let us pass it and get rid of it "*-the same old sneer. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, would it be safe for the people of this country to entrust the operation of this reform legislation to those who sneer and jeer at it? Would it be safe, in view of their attitude, to leave its administration in their hands?


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: The
people will answer that.


Franklin White Turnbull: Let me remind my hon. friend from Northumberland, who seems to have found his voice, although he has not yet stood up to speak, that the party of which he is a member failed in their duty as a government from 1922 to 1930 and were dismissed from office and the Conservative party put in their place. Let me point out that they are now failing in their duty as an opposition, and the next thing will be that they will be dismissed as the official opposition and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation put in their place.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You will be down there after the next election.


Franklin White Turnbull: There is yet an important item of legislation to come before the house in connection with the mass buying investigation. Can we safely trust this to the opposition? Had we better not put it on the statute books while those who are in favour of it are in office? What was the attitude of the leader of the opposition when the resolution to set up the price spreads and mass buying rommitee was brought in? At page 190 of Hansard for 1934 he is reported as saying:
The motion is in large part one of postponing action. What the country is interested in is not so much further inquiry with respect to matters about which nearly everyone knows a great deal, but legislation, if more is required, to meet a situation that is already understood.
II my right hon. friend knew that these conditions existed, he did not pass legislation to stop them, but referred to a book long since on the shelf, entitled Industry and Humanity. Having said that there was no necessity for investigation, he then says: "There is no necessity for any legislation in connection with it; so there was no necessity for either investigation or legislation. While the investigation was still going on the leader of the opposition spoke during a by-election in Ontario and described the whole investigation as humbug. His words were reported in the press as follows:
[Mr. Turnbull.1
Once again, but briefly, Mr. King referred to the Stevens pamphlet. He believed that there was "collusion" between Prime Minister R. B. Bennett and Hon. H. H. Stevens, in this matter *-"more in the nature of humbug to serve the political ends of Mr. Bennett and the personal ends of Mr. Stevens."
With that attitude towards the mass buying commission and the legislation to be brought forward would it be safe for tlhe people of this country to entrust such legislation and the administration of it to those who say it was all unnecessary?


Leslie Gordon Bell: Would it be safe
to entrust them with anything?


Franklin White Turnbull: Take their general
attitude towards these questions. Let me quote from Hansard of June 6, 1934, page 3727, where the leader of the opposition is reported as saying:
Yesterday the house was told by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that my colleague the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and myself belonged to the school mid-Victorian constitutionalists; and that was held out as a reproach. To those who so assert, may I say that I for one am very proud of being classed of the school of mid-Victorian constitutionalists.
Then there is the question of wheat marketing. During the war we used to hear arm chair generals telling how to defeat the enemy. Many of us were very glad that the arm chair generals were not in command of the forces. The other day we had an arm chair wheat merchant telling us how to sell our wheat. We heard him telling how Mr. McFarland was trying to glorify himself instead of taking care of the farmers' troubles. Picture the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth sitting in his gilded office in St. James street with one of his imported fifty-cent cigars in his mouth and his feet on his mahogany table, advising the farmers of western Canada how to sell their wheat, and the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) who never bought or sold a bushel of wheat in his life except on the stock exchange, telling us how the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth could make a better job of it than Mr. McFarland.


William Alexander Fraser: He could not make a worse one.


Franklin White Turnbull: If they keep up that sort of thing they are going to turn every farmer in western Canada against them. Anyone who suggested, when the British market was rising four times as fast as Winnipeg, that the plug should be taken out and wheat allowed to drop to the Argentine level.

The Budget-Mr. Swanston
thereby further destroying the purchasing power of the farmers of western Canada, has very little knowledge of the trend of thought of the people of the west, and very little knowledge of the effect that the buying power of western Canada has upon employment in eastern Canada. My hon. friends are laughing and jeering still, as they sneer and jeer and laugh at anything. There is no doubt the farmer will get over his troubles even if they do laugh. The job of official opposition should be taken from them and given to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation if they carry on in this way. In 1928 we had approximately 550,000,000 bushels of wheat in western Canada that sold for approximately $1.25 a bushel, which meant about $675,000,000 of new money. That money came into Ontario and Quebec to buy boots and shoes, clothing, machinery, automobiles and practically everything the farmer requires. When he paid the interest on his mortgage the money came to eastern Canada and was distributed among the bond and stock holders of mortgage companies, who used it largely for the purpose of purchasing the necessaries of life for themselves, and these purchases kept the wheels of industry turning in the central provinces and kept men and women at work. But in the last four or five years when providence did not see fit to send us a crop and when in the absence of an imperial treaty Soviet Russia broke the price of our grain in England, we had about 260,000,000 bushels of wheat, which was selling at 40 cents a bushel, and instead of having $675,000,000 in new money we had about $100,000,000, or a little more, which was not sufficient to keep the people of the central provinces employed. As a consequence unemployment became rife in all parts of the country.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that because of these facts there is no reason why there should be an election at the present time; there is no reason why the party now in office should not continue to carry out its program, and no reason why that program should not be placed before the electors in the proper way and at the proper time. We have had the statement by the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), a former Minister of Trade and Commerce, that wheat would find its own market if it were left alone. That view is confirmed by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) who states, "Just leave wheat alone, and it will do what it likes." That is what the opposition has done with everything else. When they were in office they let everything do as it liked, and as a result the country
got in a mess. Now in opposition they suggest that wheat should do as it likes.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question, question.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Get up and answer; you can't do it.


Mr. J. B. SWANSTON (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent in this chamber a very extensive and important constituency in southwestern Saskatchewan. Comparatively speaking it is one of the newest sections of this great country. To the southwestern portion of Saskatchewan there flocked many new settlers, men and women who were born and raised in many different sections of the globe. Canadians from every part of Canada are to be found there; people from every comer of the British Isles, from France, Belgium, Germany and the United States. Then, a very substantial part of our population is of Scandinavian origin, and the country is fortunate indeed to have as citizens men and women as honest, as progressive and as law-abiding as they are.
These new settlers from all lands have entered upon their duties of making homes for themselves and breaking the virgin soil. In a very short period of time they have accomplished by way of individual development and community effort that which I say is the greatest possible tribute which could be paid to their progressive character. In the short space of a quarter of a century an area which had been untouched by the plough was suddenly changed into an active and well ordered community with beautiful churches, schools, power houses, public buildings, highways, railways, telephones, first class farm homes, and an extensive elevator system.
You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this development could be brought about only by mortgaging the future to some extent. Money was borrowed, goods were purchased on credit, lumber was purchased and farm machinery was acquired to improve the land. Just at a time when we thought the difficulties of the district were almost surmounted there came upon us the depression with its low commodity prices. Then followed adverse climatic conditions seriously affecting the area. The people in that section of the country met their difficulties with courage and fortitude. They maintained their school and church services, they maintained their community services- and this all in the face of sacrifices which had to be borne individually and collectively.
The Budget-Mr. Swanston

At the last session of parliament the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was passed. It was not until some months after its passage that the preliminary organization could be established. We know now what its effect will be, what it will do in the future for the people on the land. In my section of the country there is only one official receiver, and he is very busy. It is impossible for him to do all the work devolving upon him, but I have urged upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) the necessity for arrangements whereby help may be given and the facilities of the legislation made more readily available to the farmers. I am pleased to say the minister has received my representations and is going to appoint agents to assist the receiver in that section of the country.
The purpose of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is to create an understanding between debtor and creditor. Unfortunately in the past such understanding had disappeared or was fast disappearing, due to the fact that the farmer through no fault of his own was unable to pay and the creditor was unable to collect. There was a tendency on the part of each to magnify his own difficulties, without regard to the other party. However, with this legislation they can get together around a common table; they will appreciate the fact that each has his own difficulties, each has his problems, and that the problems of both can be met only by the farmer being retained on the land as an efficient producer.
When I learned from the Minister of Finance that up to the end of February over two thousand settlements had been effected throughout Canada by the official receiver and by the boards of review, I realized how successful this great experiment had been. When I read the principles announced by the boards of review in the prairie provinces I am convinced that the legislation is going to function as was intended when it passed this parliament a year ago.
For instance, I learn from the joint pronouncement of the three prairie boards of review that they consider the farmer who is reasonably endeavouring to farm his land efficiently and who has been fair and honourable with his creditors is entitled to consideration. I find, further, that the boards of review are interested in seeing that the carrying charges to the farmer are reduced. In the classification of debts they believe special consideration is due in connection with those debts incurred for the necessities of

life. This is as it should be. In my opinion a retail merchant who has carried a farmer through difficult times and has furnished him with food and clothing is entitled to further consideration. I would urge upon the minister consideration of an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act which would extend to retailers the informal procedure of arrangement and adjustment of debts as is available to farmers under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. This legislation is new, but it constitutes a real reform, and if carried out by receivers and boards of review-and apparently that is being done-it will mean much for the happiness and the contentment of farmers throughout Canada.
Then, at the last session of parliament amendments to the farm loan act were passed, and further amendments have been passed at the present session. The people in Saskatchewan cannot benefit by the amendments of last year because there was no immediate session of the legislature in Saskatchewan adopting the legislation, and while in fact the legislation was passed, it did not become law until December, 1934. Then came the amendments made to the farm loan act during the present session. The $90,000,000 available through the farm loan board will be of great assistance to the farmer. The farm debt of Canada exceeds one and a half billion dollars. A comparison of these figures would indicate that every farmer could not expect a loan. However, either under one act or the other, so far as his indebtedness is concerned the farmer should be in a position to face the future without fear. Carrying and fixed charges must be reduced, and if we can obtain reasonable commodity prices the farmer will experience no difficulty in meeting his obligations as they become due.
I was glad to hear from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) that he intends that there shall be the closest cooperation between the official receivers appointed under the 'Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and the farm loan board, once it is established in the province of Saskatchewan. The official receivers will have an intimate knowledge of the condition of the farmer and can be of [DOT]very real assistance to the farm loan board and to the farmers as well. As a result of the operation of both of these acts the farm debt load in Canada is going to be very materially decreased. I have learned with the greatest interest of the success which the receivers are having in my own part of the country in reducing and rearranging indebtedness which has been all past due and in default.

The Budget-Mr. Swanston
During a period of high prices for commodities, the price of land naturally rose. Farmers, anxious to extend their own holdings, either for their own use or for the use of their growing sons, found themselves hopelessly involved because of agreements they had entered into. Likewise, they found themselves involved in debts for heavy machinery purchased for the purpose of farming the land, which, with poor crops and low commodity prices, they could not liquidate.
I am glad to note that in dealing with these large obligations of the farmers, the official receivers are making special efforts, that the boards of review are making very real adjustments, and that the net result is that the farmer, with his new set of contracts, can proceed to farm his land with the satisfaction and the knowledge that he can reasonably perform the new obligations he has assumed.
The last census figures indicated that there were in Canada 728,000 farmers. Of this number, almost 90 per cent could be termed by the census authorities as home owning farmers. We are all proud of this fact. As Canadians we believe that our people will be better satisfied, better contented, if they can . carry on their agricultural endeavours as owners of their own land. It will be apparent, however, that with the tremendous farm debt load to which I referred there is a very real danger of that very high percentage of home owning farmers being reduced either by being forced off the land by their creditors, or by losing hope and giving up their land.
The legislation which was passed at the last session of parliament and the legislation to which I have referred which was passed at this session was definitely for the purpose of retaining a high percentage of home owning farmers in this country. That is what the farmers want themselves; it is what this government wishes as well. There is a traditional desire on the part of every British subject to own his own land or his own home. This comes to us through the generations that have passed. The same is true of many farmers in my own constituency who have come from other lands. They have come with a traditional desire to own their own land. Then to the great province of Saskatchewan many thousands came from countries where they could not own their own land, and they came to this land of hope knowing that here there was not only the possibility of owning their own land but that they would live in communities where the
same desire existed, and furthermore, that they would live in a country where by legislation this desire would be encouraged.
At the last session of parliament there was passed after very considerable controversy what is known as the Natural Products Marketing Act. This legislation was designed to secure for farmers in Canada a more orderly marketing system than the system which obtains at the present time and one which would result in financial advantage to the farmer without being unfair either to the distributor or to the consumer of these products. It was felt that in handling the product of the farmer there was manipulation and exploitation, and that it was necessary that there should be a regulation of the movement of products so that prices might be fairer and that they might be stabilized at a fair level.
I know that in the urban centres particularly it was urged that should the measure be a success in so far as the farmer was concerned, it would mean higher prices to the consumer. Fortunately, we have some experience to go by in this country in the matter of orderly marketing. In the province of British Columbia for some years the marketing of their fruit was controlled. Following a decision of the courts that control was lost, and in comparing the return to the producer during the years of control with the cost to the consumer, it was definitely found that with control and regulation the producer was getting more, with no increase in cost to the consumer, whereas the consumer was getting a better product in that the effect or control was to raise the standard of the product which the consumer could obtain.
The Natural Products Marketing Act has now been in force for almost a year. A number of schemes have been suggested and have been approved. More than a score of others are before the marketing board at the present time for consideration. The experience of the fruit farmer, of the tobacco farmer, and of the fisherman has fully justified the passing of the legislation and fully justified the confidence which the government had in the legislation as a method and a means of curbing abuses and preventing the exploiting of the primary producer. Experience will no doubt indicate that certain improvements will still have to be adopted and the act and the regulations in due course amended, but what I want most emphatically to say is that the law has justified itself as a means of obtaining for the producer the greatest possible reward for his labour, and at the same time
The Budget-Mr. Swanston

the consumer will be obtaining a better product without any substantial increase in cost to him.
In my own province many men who at first were definitely opposed to the principle of the marketing bill are now as strongly in favour of the act, and in the cattle industry almost without exception the rancher and farmer who produces cattle for market looks to the marketing act as the agency not only to improve his condition, but once it is improved, to continue the improvement and give some degree of confidence for the future.
If there is one commodity in. which the people of the province of Saskatchewan are interested it is wheat. In 1930 not only the national situation but the international situation was such in the matter of wheat that a very direct interest-had to be taken in the handling of wheat by the government of Canada, or, poor as the returns were to the wheat grower, they would have undoubtedly been much lower. The government in backing John I. McFarland in the stabilization policy which he was supporting undoubtedly was successful in putting into the pockets of the w-estern wheat farmers millions of dollars which otherwise they could not have had. It is even difficult to imagine how the work could have been carried on at all, or how the companies could have operated, had not this stabilization policy been adopted. Those who are critical of that policy and who would change it completely say that the result of it has been that the farmer has been receiving a fictitious price for his grain. In plain English, they say that the price the farmer received is higher than he should have been receiving. They are going to change all that. They are going to eliminate the fictitious prices so if those who criticize the policy of the government in wheat are put in the position where they can determine the policy, there is nothing surer than that the price which the farmer will receive for his wheat will be very substantially lower than the present levels. The wheat farmer should keep this clearly in mind. If he wants a lower price for his product there is one sure way of getting it-change the policy of supporting John. I. McFarland which has been followed by this government.
Another feature of the policy of this government in connection with grain which I support wholeheartedly is the providing of a better distribution of grain acreage. A market can be found for more barley in Canada and in Europe, and we also need more oats in Canada. The sensible policy is the one advocated by the Department of Agriculture

for the better distribution of grain acreage and the putting of some of the acreage now in wheat into coarse grains. The district in which I live is interested not only in wheat farming but in the raising of cattle and sheep. We have had a drought in the last few years but in view of the snowfall of the present winter we hope that this is broken. However, we must consider what can be done in order to prevent a recurrence of drought conditions. We must give consideration to those policies which will prevent if possible a recurrence of the extreme drought conditions of the past few years.
It must be borne in mind that the range or grazing areas from the Rocky mountains to the dirt hills in Saskatchewan are seriously overgrazed. Another serious drought this year will spell disaster to many of those in the business. They will be forced to market unfinished grass cattle, and herds which have taken years to build up will have to be sold. What will be true of the rancher will be true also of the farmer. The drought has been a costly proposition to everyone concerned-to the farmer, to the municipality, to the province and to the dominion. It has been suggested that there be free freight on feed, but there is no such thing as free freight. Someone must pay, and the state has been paying. In the last analysis the taxpayer is called upon to bear the expense of millions of dollars which has been incurred in taking care of the relief feed requirements caused by the drought. Remedial measures must be taken to correct this situation and improve the stability of farming and ranching in these districts.
There are three essential factors in the production of live stock-grass, water and winter feed. A sound water development policy will go a long way to stabilize the industry and bring about security against feed shortage and serious death losses of live stock. I am glad to support the policy of the government as announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to provide for experiments in the so-called drought areas. This will include the building of dams and the impounding of water in reservoirs. It will take care of spring flood conditions and conserve spring run-off water. I suggest that particular consideration be given to simple community irrigation projects. I urge the government to consider a scheme which has been suggested on the Whitemud river in southern Saskatchewan, and I hope a favourable report can be made in this connection.

The dominion experimental farm at Many-berries, Alberta, has done some splendid research work in connection with water development. During the past eight years the station's only source of water has been the reservoirs. There has been a little snow but the summers have been dry. However, because of the water policy which was followed it was not found necessary to move the stock to water, as water was always available within a distance of two miles. The United States government is keenly interested in what has been done in Canada, and I am informed, I believe authentically, that the government of the United States is constructing 700 dams in Montana and North Dakota. If the drought period is broken, as conditions this winter would indicate it is, I contend that this would be the time to construct the
Date of construction	
Capacity of reservoir, acre feet
Type of soil	
Surface acres of water	
Average annual run-off	
Drainage area	
Height of dam	
Length of dam	
Width at top	
Freeboard	
Depth of water	
Yardage of dirt, cubic yards..
Cost per yard	
Type of rip-rap	
Cost of rip-rapping	
Total cost of dam	
Cost of repairs for one year..
Loss of water, per yard	
Permanency	
The Budget-Mr. Swanston
necessary dams. The time to prepare for another drought period is during the time of ample rainfall so that there may be that conservation of water so necessary in a dry period.
I would point out that the construction of dams is not expensive. Most of the labour can be obtained locally and the expert engineering expense can be kept low. The station at Manyberries has harvested eighty tons of hay per year from forty acres of land. If water had not been available at the critical dry periods, no crop would have been obtained. I have obtained some figures of the cost of the type of reservoir constructed at Manyberries. The figures, which are for two dams known as C.23 and A.29, are as follows:
C. 23	A. 29
Oct., 1927	Oct., 1927
18.5	5
Loam	Clay
4.6	1.2
20 acre feet	12 acre feet
640 acres	320 acres
16.0 feet	10 feet
270 feet	165 feet
8 feet	8 feet
3 feet	3 feet
13 feet	7 feet
3,517	350
20 cents	20 cents
Part rock	Rock
$26	$10
$729.40	$80
$20	$10
2.5 feet	3.5 feet
100%	95%
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), the chief financial critic of the official opposition, was particularly critical of the wheat selling policy of the government and especially of John I. McFarland. His argument is that the prices paid during the past year for wheat have been out of line with world prices. He infers that the price of wheat is too high. The official opposition say: Put us in office and we will change all that; we will see that prices are more in accord with world prices. In short, that they will be lowered. This is a hopeful promise from the Liberal party to the western voter. It would appear that the official critic is making a bid for the support of the big interests in St. James street, Montreal, where he is now located. When it comes to choosing between the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) I think the western farmer and everyone dependent upon him will know how to vote, 92582-151
especially when the wheat question is considered.
Let us consider for a moment the record of the Liberal government from 1922 to August, 1930, in connection with wheat and markets for wheat. In 1922 the Liberals took office under their present leader, following a Conservative prime minister, Mr. Meighen. They were given the legacy of free markets for our wheat in France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Greece and all other European countries. After nine years of Liberal rule, a rule which boasted of freer and wider markets-they offer the same thing if they are again returned-what did we find? We found that the free markets left by the Conservatives had disappeared, to be replaced by the highest tariff wall ever placed against Canada. When the Conservatives took office in August, 1930, there was a duty of 85 cents per bushel against our wheat entering France; the duty



The Budget-Mr. Swanston
on our wheat entering Germany was 92 cents per bushel; it was 90 cents per bushel against it entering Italy, and so on down the line. That is the record of achievement by the Liberal party. Because of a fear of provoking someone, they permitted the United States to build up a prohibitive tariff wall against our butter, our eggs, our cattle and everything else we produced and had to sell. The western farmer knows that this depression took place twelve months before the Conservative party came into office, and the prices of farm products were rapidly tumbling. He knows that during the last year of Liberal rule the price of wheat dropped from $1.55 to 80 cents a bushel before this government came into office. Everything was in chaos, and the personal effort of that greatest of Canadians of whom we are all so proud, the Prime Minister of Canada, was necessary to prevent even more serious consequences of world conditions affecting this country.


Mr. FRANK BO YES (East Middlesex):: I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) on the excellent budget which he has presented to this house, a budget which will be favourably received throughout the dominion. I have the honour of representing a riding located in the western part of Ontario and known as East Middlesex. The population of the riding is partly rural and partly urban, and I consider it my duty to speak on behalf of all classes of people in that community. This duty has been comparatively easy in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the government have been thoughtful of both classes. I want to take this opportunity to thank the government for the erection of a new federal building in the city of London, something that has been needed for a great many years. It will assist materially in the relief of unemployment. I thank the government and the Canadian National Railways for the erection of a new station at London. This also was very much needed and it will assist in relieving unemployment in that city. I thank the government also for having complied with the request I made for extensive repairs to Westminster hospital. The work has been done and has relieved the unemployment situation to some extent. I am of opinion however that further repairs should be made to this hospital, and if this were done it would also tend to relieve unemployment.
I have great sympathy for the man who goes to work carrying his dinner pail but I have greater sympathy for the man who is
[Mr. Swanston. |
unemployed, and I wish to thank this government for the legislation it has enacted for the relief of unemployment. In 1930, shortly after this government came into power, a session of parliament was called and the sum of $20,000,000 was granted to take care of the unemployment situation. Under the relief legislation of 1930 the sum of $18,140,998 was spent. Under the relief act of 1931 the expenditure was $42,709,418; under the relief act of 1932 it was $25,887,992; under the relief act of 1933 it was $30,678,381; under the relief act of 1934 it was $42,519,758. This made a total of $159,936,548.74. This is a very admirable record when you consider that the former government had intimated through its Prime Minister that not even five cents would be spent for the relief of unemployment.
I am sure that the man who goes to work in the morning carrying his dinner pail or the fellow who is unemployed will be thankful indeed for the assistance which this government has granted to enable him to keep himself.
As regards the dominion contributions to the province of Ontario for relief, I wish to place on Hansard the amounts which have been granted for that purpose. The statement has been made by a good many people and has been broadcast throughout the country that the dominion is not granting relief to Ontario. The figures which I am going to give will disprove this statement. Under the relief legislation of 1930 the amount spent in Ontario was $5,292,180; under the relief act of 1931 it was $12,537,932; under the relief act of 1932 it was $8,117,562; under the relief act of 1933 it was $12,192,429; under the relief act of 1934 it was $15,990,950, or a total of $54,131,055.78. This is the sum which has been spent in Ontario since this government came into power, and I have no hesitation in saying, judging from the remarks made by the former prime minister, that had his party been returned to power not one dollar would have been spent for the purpose.
Coming nearer home, I want to show the amounts granted in the municipalities included in the riding I represent and also London. In the year 1930 the amount spent in the city of London was $124,772, and in the township of London, $1,000, while in the township of Westminster the expenditure was $611. In 1931 the expenditure in London was $242,596, in the township of London, $1,329, and in the township of Westminster, $1,150. In 1932 the expenditure in London was $168,861, in the township of London, $2,951, and in the township of Westminster, $3,533. In 1933 the expenditure

The Budget-Mr. Boyes
in London was $232,976, in the township of London, $2,043, and in the township of Westminster, $1,977.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I wonder if my hon. friend would give the amounts spent in the other townships in the county of Middlesex during the same period.


Mr. BOYES:: I have not those records,
but I am speaking of the places where the larger amounts of money were spent. In 1934 the sum of $168,025 was spent in the city of London, $2,511 in the township of London, and $2,158 in the township of Westminster. There are other townships located in the riding which I have the honour to represent. Smaller amounts were spent in those townships as smaller amounts were requested. In reply to the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) I may say that my view is that any township that made application for a grant for that purpose had its request met reasonably well, and I think the same situation exists in the riding represented by the hon. gentleman.
.There are large numbers of men as yet unemployed. However, there is improvement shown in this connection also. In 1933 there were 610,763 men in Canada without jobs, while in 1934 the number fell to 502,819. So that we are moving in the right direction, and I believe that in the near future, with conditions continuing to improve, we will be relieved of this problem of unemployment.
Now for a few moments I should like to deal with the legislation brought in by this government in the interests and for the protection of the farmers. As all hon. members know, during the election campaign hon. gentlemen on this side told the farmers that protection should be extended not only to those interested in industry but to the products of the farm as well. I am very glad to state that this protection has been afforded. I should like to place on Hansard a table showing the duty imposed by the previous government, as contrasted with the duty imposed by this government on a number of agricultural commodities:
Live hogs	
Cattle	
Sheep and lambs	
Fresh meats	
Bacon, hams, shoulders and other pork
Eggs in the shell	
Cheese	
Butter	,	
Peas	
Oats	
Rye	
Wheat	
Hay	
Potatoes	
Milk and cream	
Previous duty cents per lb.
25 per cent 25 per cent 3J cents per lb.
2	cents per lb.
3	cents per doz.
3	cents per lb.
7 cents per lb.
15 cents per bush.
10 cents per bush.
10 cents per bush.
12 cents per bush.
$2 per ton -	Free
174 per cent of value
Present duty 3 cents per lb.
3 cents per lb.
$3 each
8 cents per lb.
5 cents per lb.
10 cents per doz.
7 cents per lb.
14 cents per lb.
1 cent per lb.
16 cents per bush. 15 cents per bush. 30 cents per bush. $5 per ton
75 cents per 100 lbs. 25 per cent of value
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers needed this protection, and I believe they have derived considerable benefit from it.
Then I should like to say just a word in regard to grain. It is true that prices have not been as high as we would like, but through the stabilization of the price of wheat in Winnipeg I feel that the farmers of Ontario have obtained better prices for their wheat than they would have received otherwise. I should like to direct attention to the fact that since these duties have been imposed on farm products entering this country, our imports have decreased, as follows:
1930	1934
Bushels Bushels
Wheat	
1,146,310	16,703Oats	
3,725,948	34,286Barley	
14,255	1,007Rye	
256,957	107
This speaks well for the action taken by this government; I feel confident that the farmers of this country have benefited very materially thereby, and I am sure they are thankful. Further benefits were conferred on the farmers through the imperial conference agreements, under which preferences were granted on dairy products. On cheese this preference amounted to 15 per cent ad valorem, on butter to 15 shillings per 112 pounds; on condensed milk, whole, sweetened, in addition to sugar duty, 5 shillings per 112 pounds; on evaporated milk not sweetened, 6 shillings per 112 pounds, and on milk powder and other preserved milk not sweetened, 6 shillings per 112 pounds.
I should like now to say a word in connection with the whole milk situation in the province of Ontario. The board appointed by the former provincial government saw to
The Budget-Mr. Boyes

it that those .producing milk for city canf sumption received a fair price, and I believe they were in a fairly good situation. In regard to butter, when this government came into power the situation was very bad indeed; butter was being imported and as a result the price was very low. In 1930 our imports of butter amounted to 41,910,372 pounds, while in 1934 that importation dropped to 2,602,744 pounds. At present the producers of butter in Canada are almost able to take care of our requirements, and they are receiving the benefit of the whole Canadian market.
I should like to say a word in regard to the production of cheese in Canada. We have the very finest cheese in the world with the exception of a Cheddar cheese which is manufactured in England. Practically all the cheese used in local trade and all that is exported is grated by the official government grader. In 1933 the percentage of No. 1 cheese in all Canada was 94-87, while in 1934 the percentage of No. 1 cheese increased to 95-53. 'Ontario is divided into four sections, the main ones being eastern, central and western Ontario. The average percentage of No. 1 cheese in eastern Ontario was 95-45 in 1933 and 95-61 in 1934, which is a very creditable showing. In central Ontario the average percentage of No. 1 was 97-76 in 1933 and 98-06 in 1934, which is a better record than eastern Ontario. In western Ontario, in which is located the riding I have the honour to represent, the average percentage of No. 1 cheese was 99-02 in 1933 and 98-99 in 1934. So you can see that the cheese manufactured in the western part of the province is some of the very finest manufactured in any part of Canada. But while these figures show that we are manufacturing the very finest quality of cheese in the dominion, yet the price is not as high as we should like. The price for export has been down to some extent. During the fall of 1934 the national dairy council conceived the idea of specially advertising cheese during a cheese week in Canada. During this week a considerable amount of advertising was done in order to increase home consumption. I assisted in the campaign by speaking at a number of meetings, and I believe some good was done, as the market for cheese in Canada to-day is higher than it was a year ago. Another plan has been devised by the national dairy council, that of seeking through the marketing board to stabilize the market for cheese in Canada. The secretary of the council attended a number of dairymen's conventions, and a resolution was passed by a number of conventions to this effect:

This meeting approves of the establishment of a scheme under the Natural Products Marketing Act for the election of a board with power to levy on butter fat to all markets for the formation of a fund to support the marketing of those dairy commodities which may be best adapted as a means of exporting our surplus dairy products.
This was promoted to quite an extent, but I believe it was not started early enough in the season. I think that when it is thoroughly understood by the dairymen of Canada they will take up the proposition and all dairy products will benefit.
Then those who are producing beef have been enabled by this government to secure a sale of their cattle in the old country. I regret that more have not been shipped; at the same time some benefit has been derived. I regret very much that producers of cattle in the riding which I have the honour to represent were so unfortunate as to sell their cattle to the Richelieu Corporation of Montreal and a number of them received no payment for their cattle. I believe that the Richelieu Corporation did not intend at the time to pay for those cattle, but I am hopeful that some remuneration may be obtained from some of those who were connected with the company. I understand certain of the officials have been arrested and will have to stand trial.
Another advantage that'this government is endeavouring to secure for the farmers is under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act. I regret very much that durmg the last half of 1934 and up to the present the farmers in the riding I represent have not been able to secure loans from the province of Ontario. I do not know whether loans were procurable in some other parts of the province, but I know of none being obtained in that part. Very many have been inconvenienced by this situation and some have been embarrassed to the extent that they may be put off their farms. Therefore I am very glad that the federal government is making provision that loans may be available. I would ask the government to make the rate of interest on such loans as low as possible. I feel sure that they will do so, as the farmers are not making sufficient income to pay a high rate of interest.
On motion of Mr. Boyes the debate was adjourned.


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

Pensions jof the Blind
Wednesday, April 3
The house .met at three o'clock.

Mr. A. C. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dun-das):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That the petition of the Northern Telephone Company, Limited, presented on the 2nd instant, praying for an act of incorporation, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92, 93 (3) (a) and (c), and 95 (1) in relation thereto. *


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That the order referring to the committee of supply, the estimates respecting the Canadian National Steamships and the Maritime Freight Rates Act, presented to the house on the 18th of March, be discharged, and that the said estimates be referred to the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.
This motion is merely to get the estimates before the committee to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina) moved concurrence in the second report of the standing committee on industrial and international relations presented to the house on Monday, April 1, 1935, as follows:
Your committee have held two sessions and have heard statements from eleven persons, with respect to the subject matter of the resolution referred to it for consideration under an order of the House of Commons, dated January 31, 1935, which resolution reads as follows:-
"Resolved that in the opinion of this house the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act should apply to blind people over forty years of age."
As persons seventy years of age and over, whether blind or not, fall within the application of the Old Age Pensions Act in its present form, your committee considered the position of blind persons between the ages of forty and seventy.
Evidence submitted to the committee indicated that the Old Age Pensions Act is in force in only seven provinces out of nine and
its provisions, therefore, when amended will not affect blind persons living in the remaining two provinces unless these provinces subsequently adopt the Old Age Pensions Act or the proposed amendments thereto.
It also indicated that records of organizations interested in the blind placed the number of the blind between forty and seventy years 9f age at 3,016. After making fair deductions it was stated that 2,178 persons would be affected by legislation requested by the said resolution. These figures are sufficiently in harmony with census returns to be considered reasonably accurate.
The estimated expenditure occasioned by the proposed legislation, if the above figures are accurate and allowing the maximum of $210 per person per annum, would be under $550,000 apart from administration expenses.
The committee regrets that the terms of the resolution, if acceded to, will be of no assistance to blind persons residing in the two provinces of Canada in which the Old Age Pensions Act is not in effect, nevertheless in order that the blind people shall be assisted as far as reasonably possible, desires to express its approval of the resolution in question.
Mr. I. D. COTNAM (North Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, as I moved the original resolution with respect to pensions for the blind over forty years of age, after following the evidence adduced before the committee on industrial and international relations I have come to the conclusion that the original resolution fails to meet entirely the situation which it was intended to meet. The Old Age Pensions Act has never been adopted by the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick. I find that there are some 166 blind persons over forty years of age in the province of New Brunswick and some 720 blind persons over forty years of age in the province of Quebec. This makes a total of 886 individuals who would not receive any benefit from the resolution as submitted to the house. In view of that fact, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney):
That the words "concurred' in" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Referred back to the said committee with instructions that they have power to amend same by recommending that the house pass a special blind act, _ applicable to the nine provinces of the dominion and providing pensions for the blind over forty years of age, on the same basis as the Old Age Pensions Act.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Cotnam) has anticipated a motion which I had drawn up to submit to the house. My motion was of a similar character but I believe it was a little more definite. The report of the committee which will be found in votes and proceedings of the day before yesterday recites the resolution introduced by the hon. member. This resolution reads:
237C
Pensions jar the Blind

Resolved that in the opinion of this house the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act should apply to blind people over forty years of age.
The report then goes on to comment upon the fact that the Old Age Pensions Act does not apply throughout Canada. The report estimates that the cost of these pensions would be $550,000 per year. What might be called the enacting part of the report reads as follows:
The committee regret that the terms of the resolution, if acceded to, will be of no assistance to blind persons residing in the two provinces of Canada in which the Old Age Pensions Act is not in effect, nevertheless in order that the blind people shall be assisted as far as reasonably possible, desires to express its approval of the resolution in question
I had intended to combat that statement on the ground that we were not following the instructions given to us by the house and were taking a too superficial notice of the question. The report says that we express approval in order that the blind people may be assisted as far as reasonably possible. I submit that this report does not go "as far as reasonably possible." The most obvious objection is the fact that the report does not cover thirty-six per cent of the blind population of Canada. It will be found that the blind population of New Brunswick and Quebec amount to thirty-six per cent of the total blind population of Canada. No report could be fair or reasonable or equitable which overlooked thirty-six per cent of the people it was intended to help.
The committee had three meetings, two of which were taken up in the hearing of witnesses, mostly blind people or representatives of the blind. A subcommittee was appointed to prepare the report and the report was presented at the third meeting. I took it upon myself to criticize the report and two arguments were presented in its favour. The first was that the terms of the reference bound us merely to say yes or no, that we had to say that we were prepared to put the blind under the Old Age Pensions Act, or we had to say that we were not prepared to do that. I believe the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) took the opposite view, but that idea prevailed. I submit that such a contention is absolutely contrary to the practice which has prevailed for many years. If such a contention is to be accepted it will mean that most of the references to committees will be merely jokes. We would be confined to such a narrow compass that it would be impossible to consider any subject as it should be considered. If this report is to be only an expression of sympathy, that

has been given already by means of the original resolution. I should like to refer to Hansard to show the feeling of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) who will have the handling of this matter. During the discussion on the resolution he said:
Personally I do not think an amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act would be the most satisfactory method of dealing with a question of this character. The Old Age Pensions Act is legislation of which some provinces avail themselves, others do not. If this resolution results in legislation it might well take the form of a special act, dissociated from old age pensions.
He concludes by saying:
-and I would ask the hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution to move that it be referred to that committee in order that they may take it into consideration from the angles I have suggested and others, because it is an important matter.
It was quite evident that the feeling of the minister and the house was that we should consider this matter from all angles. We did not consider it from all angles.
The second argument offered for the putting through of the report was that the report was recommending what the blind people themselves had asked for. It was argued that we could best protect their interests by giving them that for which they asked. I submit that that is not the correct position. These people did not understand the Old Age Pensions Act; they did not realize its limitations. They were not legislators, they were not even lawyers and they could not grasp the restrictions of this legislation. If our children ask for something which we know is unsuitable and improper we do not give it to them no matter how great our affection may be. The blind themselves speak differently. In their submission they do not ask specifically to come under the Old1 Age Pensions Act; they ask for a pension for the "necessitous and unemployable blind." The inference is that if they were employable they would1 not be so keen to adk for a pension. They asked that special consideration be given to the' unemployable blind of any age. We never considered that aspect at all. They asked that they be taken care of by a bill, separate from the Old Age Pensions Act if possible, but we never embodied that consideration in the report.


James Arthurs: That was suggested by
the minister.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, and it is suggested by
the blind people themselves. We have full authority for this both from the minister and from the blind themselves.

Pensions for the Blind
There is another reason why I believe the report is not complete. I think we should consider whether or not it is best to pension a man of forty years of age who happens to be blind. Such a man may be in full possession of all his faculties other than that of sight. A blind man cannot take much exercise, he can read only Braille and yet we are going to give him a miserable little pension and make him sit down at forty years of age to brood over his troubles and misfortunes. Is that the best way to handle the situation? That aspect, I submit, should have been explored but it was not. Would it not be better to spend some of the money which we are here proposing to give, in training a man so that he could be self-respecting and independent thereafter? These blind people in their evidence stated that they maintain a number of institutions throughout Canada at their own expense, aided by public contributions, but they are now running in low water because times are hard, and it would have been appreciated if we made some grants to these institutes. I do not suggest that we should control them; I do not say that the government should take them over, but it would be appreciated if some grant were given them along the lines of the grants made to the Red Cross and other semi-public bodies.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In the buzz of conversation it is very difficult to hear, and I would ask hon. members to keep better order.


Alan Webster Neill: I will not detain the house
long, but this is a very important subject. These blind people have institutions in which they train the blind to make brooms, baskets and other things, and to take up piano tuning and so on. In England-not by law, but by that powerful influence, public opinion -they have allocated to the blind the making of baskets and so on, and I find that in their evidence the blind alluded to this. Talking about employment they said, "That is a good thing for the blind; they really love to be employed." They also pointed out that in Japan the profession of masseur is reserved exclusively to the blind; hundreds of sightless people in that country earn their livelihood in that way. They say further that it is a great pity that the government of Canada does not reserve to the blind the manufacture of brooms and mops, and I think that is a suggestion which we might well take into consideration. My suggestion is that it would be better to help these people by training them to be independent instead of giving them a sop and then allowing them to sit down and brood over their troubles.
There is another phase of the subject which we might consider. The report proposes to confine our action to those over forty. But what about those under forty? The blind people have expressed the hope that all unemployed and necessitous blind will be taken into consideration. A man over forty might be quite capable physically except for his sight, but a blind sick man under forty gets no consideration here. They refer to this in their submission. I will not read it, but they say that there are a good many young people of thirty and under who are sightless owing to the encroachment of some disease, and these people deserve attention, undoubtedly more than a man who is otherwise able, except for his sight, and over forty. They themselves ask that consideration be given to this phase of the subject.
The suggestion put forward by the minister at the outset is one which I would support, and that is, that there should be a special act for the blind. That would do away with the injustice of excluding from the operation of the act those blind living in New Brunswick and Quebec, and it would deal with those even under forty. Perhaps the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) is adequate to refer the matter back to the committee, but I am not quite clear as to exactly what it implies, because I did not hear every word of it. However, I will read an amendment which I myself was going to propose and in which perhaps the house might acquiesce inasmuch as, in my opinion, it affords greater scope for the committee to consider those points which I have suggested. I was going to move that the report be not adopted but be referred back to the committee in the usual way, and that they have power to consider the subject matter further and more particularly as to:
(a)	Whether the interest of the blind would not be better served by bringing them under a special act for the blind rather than by putting them under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act which, at the present time, is only applicable to a portion of Canada; and
(b)	Whether their interests may not be forwarded by granting support to some of the existing institutions for training the blind to earn their own living.
I will not move that amendment because the feeling of the house no doubt is that the spirit of it is embodied in the amendment already proposed by the hon. member for North Renfrew. I hope the amendment will be adopted and the committee empowered to consider the whole matter, not in the narrow terms of the report but in all aspects of the subject.
Pensions for the Blind

Right H<m. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister): I had not heard about this before, and it is a matter that requires a good deal of consideration. Offhand, my feeling would be to support the committee. When we refer a matter of this kind to a committee it is very carefully considered there, and as a rule that would be my attitude, though I have not looked into this particular matter. However, inasmuch as this has come on without notice I think it should stand in order to give us an opportunity to consider the questions raised.


Ernest Lapointe: Before the motion is allowed to stand, may I say that I heartily support the amendment moved by my hon. friend from North Renfrew. Indeed, I was going to oppose the approval of the committee's report, as it stands, because it would certainly be unfair to a number of blind people in Canada. I agree with my hon. friend that there should be a special act with regard to the blind, irrespective of the position taken by some of the provinces with respect to the provisions of the present Old Age Pensions Act. On the whole, I am not sure that the amendment of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) would not be more regular than the amendment that has been moved, seeing that it does not call for the expenditure of money but merely suggests that the committee consider the matter. However, I am willing to support the proposed amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Some disposition should
be made of the motion; I think the debate should be adjourned.


Ernest Lapointe: I move that the debate
be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 50, to amend the Post Office Act (newspaper ownership).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MULOCK:: What contributions, if any, did the dominion government give to the province of Ontario for relief expenditures in each of the months of July to December inclusive, 1933, the month of January, 1934; the months of July to December inclusive, 1934; the month of January, 1935?


Mr. GORDON:: On Monday last I informed the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) that the form of his question had caused some delay in view of the difficulty in allocating to any month the amount of money which had been contributed in respect of expenditures during any particular month.
The fact is, the contributions of the dominion government consist not only of the payments made but also of the commitments to the province by the dominion government, that is to say, the dominion government agrees to contribute a certain sum of money to the province for a specified purpose or work and at a certain period may have received accounts for only part of the amount and, therefore, have only paid or contributed a portion of the amount, although still liable and ready to pay the balance on receipt of accounts.
A considerable time frequently elapses between the date of the actual expenditure and the date that accounts are received by the department from the province, and when an account is received it may cover a longer period than one month and it may not be possible for bills for materials and things of that character to be divided up to show actual disbursements applicable to any particular month.
A statement of the accounts paid by the dominion is not necessarily a complete picture regarding dominion contributions, as many of the payments made are in respect to accounts for which claims have yet to be rendered. With these reservations, which I trust the hon. member for North York will appreciate, I am making a return showing the payments made to the province of Ontario.
The following are the payments made to the province of Ontario by the dominion during the months indicated:
July, 1933	$ 613,516 65
August, 1933	
1,321,617	96September, 1933	
969,436	82October, 1933	
1,451.639	07November, 1933	
485,902	26December, 1933	
1,196.806	93January, 1934	
1,337,678	87July, 1934	
2,312.052	30
Questions
August, 1934	
911,624	63September, 1934	
656,229	15October, 1934	
2,206,517	04November, 1934	
822,635	24December, 1934	
1,836,927	08January, 1935	
2,216,915	27


GOLD TRANSFERRED TO BANK OF CANADA
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What amount of gold' was taken over by the Bank of Canada from each chartered bank separately?
2.	What was the total value of the gold taken over from each bank separately?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.
Bank	Amount
Barclays Bank (Canada)	$	10,482 23The Canadian Bank of Commerce	
13,182,326	77The Dominion Bank	
804,495	53Imperial Bank of Canada.	218,220	98Bank of Montreal	
13,043,245	93Banque Canadienne Nationale 419,002 56 The Bank of Nova Scotia. ..	6,546,338	19
La Banque Provinciale du
Canada	
40.350	86The Royal Bank of Canada. ..	2,382,087	24The Bank of Toronto	
833,854	172.	The value at $20.67 a fine ounce, which is the basis of valuation for gold in Canada as established by the Currency Act, is shown in answer No. 1.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Has the gold formerly in possesion of the chartered banks been transfered to the Bank of Canada?
2.	If so. how much has been transferred?
3.	At what valuation?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Yes, as to gold held in Canada.
2.	S37,480,404.46.
3.	$20.67 a fine ounce.


PERCENTAGE DEPOSITS TRANSFERRED TO BANK OF CANADA
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What was the total amount transferred to Bank of Canada by way of percentage deposits of the chartered banks?
2.	When was such transfer made?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1 and 2.
Section 27 of the Bank of Canada Act requires that on and after the day of commencement of business by the Bank of Canada (e.g., March 11, 1935), every chartered bank shall maintain a reserve of not less than 5 per cent of its deposit liabilities within Canada, such reserve to consist of a deposit with the bank and of notes of the bank held
by tlhe chartered bank. The act requires that the return to be made by each bank in this connection shall be made to the Bank of Canada and the time for filing the first return has not yet arrived.
Total deposits of the chartered banks with the Bank of Canada were 8151,927,627 on March 13th, the date of the first weekly statement of the bank. At Eelbruary 28th, the date of the last return 'from the chartered banks, their deposit liabilities within Canada amounted to $1,944,561,287.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT

Mr. SEGUIN:: Will the $90,000,000 proposed in connection with the Canadian Farm Loan Act be allotted to each province on a basis of population?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Allotment on a per capita basis is not contemplated by the statute. As in the past, it will be the responsibility of the board to develop its loaning policy, having regard to the demand for loans and the public interest generally.



SENATE VACANCIES

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Were there any vacancies in the Senate on February 7, 1933?
2.	If so, how many, what were they and on what date did each of those seats become vacant?
3.	Since then, were there any other vacancies in the Senate?
4.	If so, how many, what were they and' on what date did each of those seats become vacant ?
5.	Was each of the above mentioned vacancies filled?
6.	If so, when?
7.	If not, what are the seats which are still vacant?
8.	Did the government save any money by delaying the appointments to any such vacancies?
9.	If so, bow much?


Ernest Edward Perley: This is a qestion that should be asked in the Senate. H we are going to try to get the information here, I think there is a procedure by which a message may be sent to the Senate asking for the information. I suggest that the hon. member get somebody to ask the question in the Senate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it not a fact that vacancies are filled by the government and not by the Senate, in which case this would be a proper question?


Ernest Edward Perley: Certainly vacancies are filled by the government, but the information asked for should be obtained through the Senate.
Questions


Mr. POULIOT:: 1 do not ask my question of the Senate; I ask it of the government, because senators are appointed by the government. I would not wish to try to teach the acting Prime Minister anything, because he is an old gentleman, but he must know the answer; lie must have concurred in the nominations.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am quite willing that a message should be sent to the Senate asking for the information.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I want it from the government; I am entitled to that.
Strength
Location	15-3-35
Cambridge	 100]
Blissville (a)	}*
Upper Brookway	 21J
Saint John	 146
Havelock	 42
Colter's siding	 711
(a)	Closed for the winter.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I shall give the matter further consideration. My mind is not quite made up at the moment.
Question stands.



NEW BRUNSWICK RELIEF CAMPS

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	How many relief camps are operated in New Brunswick?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	How many men are there in each camp and at what kind of work are they employed?


Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	Six.
2 and 3.
Nature of Work
Clearing, grading and general development of an intermediate landing field.
Grading of municipal airport.
Clearing, grading and general development of an intermediate landing field.
Development of a forestry experimental station.



MONTREAL MAIL DRIVERS

Jean-François Pouliot: What is the sealary of mail drivers in the city of Montreal, and how many hours per week are they required to work?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1. (a) J. E. Laurent.
Drivers of horse drawn vehicles	
Chauffeurs (junior)	
Chauffeurs (senior)	
(b)	Canadian Transfer Company, Limited.
Drivers for street letter box collections.. .. Drivers for railway stations and wharves service	
Salary
$15 per week.
18	per week
19	per week
Hours of work per week
i- 48 to 54

Hours of work
Salary	per week
$15 00 per week	 39 to 41
19 25 per week	 48



LES MILLES ILES, QUE., DREDGING

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since 1930, did the Department of Public Works do any digging and filling at the outlet of the du Chene river at the place called Les Milles lies, in the county of Laval-Two Mountains?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such works, why were they undertaken, and what was the cost of same?

3.	What was the depth of the river before and after the digging operations at that place?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Dredging was done to deepen shoal areas of less than 3 feet to a depth of 3 feet along shores of Riviere du Chene and outlet channels in Milles lies river; also to remove a boulder shoal area projecting above low water level

Questions
in Milles lies river. The work was undertaken. to improve the general sewage outlet of the town of St. Eustache in Milles lies river and facilitate small craft navigation. The total cost of the work was $18,139.81.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



PUBLIC REVENUE

Jean-François Pouliot: What did the revenues (a) from customs; (b) excise; (c) income tax, amount to in each calendar year since 1930?
Mr. MATTHEWS;
1932
1934
(a)

(b)



S101,568,404 01 123,198,041 30 134,906,889 38 158,979,436 62 (c) $57,081,084 91 63,995,050 19 58,829,330 32 61,608,732 29 MONTREAL MAIL CONTRACTS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since 1930, did the Post Office Department call for tenders in connection with the various contracts awarded for the carriage of postal matter in the city of Montreal?
2.	If so, on what dates and who were the tenderers in each instance?


Arthur Sauvé: 1	and 2. No. Owing to the necessity of a complete revision of the contracts in Montreal when the new postal accommodation is completed, and the fact that the present contractors have been giving first class service, several services have been operated under temporary agreement. This practice has obtained for the last fifteen years.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since the month of August, 1930, and in addition to the contract under the terms of which the hon. Postmaster General stated on March 26, 1935, that he paid $57,220.53 to J. E. Laurent, Debates, page 2253, did the Post Office Department award one or several other contracts for mail carriage and delivery in the city of Montreal?
2.	If so, to whom, and what amount was paid in connection therewith?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2	(a) The Canadian Transfer Company, Limited.
(1)	Street letter boxes collection in West-mount, $1,186.25 per annum.
(2)	Street letter boxes special collection) on route No. 19, $1,825 per annum.
(3)	Street letter boxes collection in northern section (evening), $2,098.75 per annum.
(4)	Street letter boxes collection in eastern section (evening), $2,244.75 per annum.
(5)	Service between head office and Stephen building, $8,760 per annum.
(6)	Service to De Lorimier postal station, $1,144 per annum.
(7)	Service to Notre-Dame de Grace postal station, $1,430 per annum.
(8)	Service to railway stations and wharves, $43,900 per annum.
(9)	Service to St. Lambert postal station, $2,400 per annum.
(10)	Street letter boxes collections all over Montreal, $79,418.14 per annum.
(11)	Service to Mile End station (morning train from Quebec), $4,530 per annum.
(12)	Service from Bonaventure station to postal stations Hochelaga, N.C., De Lorimier, R.E., Outremont, SI,252 per annum.
(13)	Street letter boxes collection and special service to postal stations, $3,130 per annum.
(14)	Street letter boxes collection in Notre-Dame de Grace (extra service), $2,750 per annum.
(15) Service to postal stations "D" and Verdun, $475 per annum.
(16) Sendee to postal stations "D" and Verdun (evening service), $1,806.75 per annum.
(17)	Service to Westmount, $765.
(18)	Relay bundles in Westmount, $1,437.75.
(b)	J. E. Laurent-Street letter boxes collection in Cartierville, St. Laurent, Mount Royal, SI 200 per annum.
(c)	A. Trudeau-Parcel post delivery service in St. Lambert, Longueuil, Greenfield park, $2,401.50 per annum.



POST OFFICE LOCATIONS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Were the locations of any post offices changed' on grounds of political partisanship or for any other cause whatsoever, fro-m June 28, to September 25, 1926?
2.	If so, how many?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	8; as follows:
Questions

Date of removal
Post Office	Postmaster	of office	ReasonLanark, NR:	William Dunn	August	16, 1926	Change in site.Maryvale, N.S	Wm. Power	September 11, 1926. ..Reinstatement.Monastery, N.S	S. W. Hagerty	September 11, 1926. ..Change in site.Pleasantville, NR.	.	. Allan Rafuse	August	14, 1926	Reinstatement.Fredericton Jet., N.B.. T. B. Hartt	July 31, 1926	Unsatisfactory management.Metis Beach, P.Q.. .. Mrs.Eug.B.Pettigrew. August, 20, 1926	Shortages.The Slash, Ont...Wm. Bowerman.. .. August	2, 1926	Change in site.Gretno, Man...Edward Ellis	August	10, 1926	Shortages and unsatisfactory management.



LAMINATED GLASS DRAWBACK

Mr. HANBURY:: What was the amount of home consumption drawback paid to Canadian manufacturers of laminated glass during the fiscal year 1934-35 under drawback item No. 1067 schedule B?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 



$96,785.58. HOSPITAL AND SURGICAL TREATMENT FOR VETERANS

Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	In cases of great emergency occurring when government offices are closed, are there any special arrangements made by the Department of Pensions and National Health to provide veterans entitled to treatment through the department with the hospital and surgical attendance required?
2.	If so, what are those special arrangements.'
3.	Have pensioned veterans been informed as to whom they should oall at night in cases of emergency, so as to receive the prompt hospital and surgical attendance required?
4.	Is there any special indication amongst the government's list of telephones in the Ottawa telephone directory with reference to that special official on duty from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m., if any?
5.	If, from lack of information, a veteran entitled to treatment through the department and requiring an immediate operation is rushed to a near hospital and is operated upon by a surgeon not on the official list of the department, will he have to bear all expenses incident to his hospitalization, or will the department accept the responsibility of such expenses at the pro rata of what would have been paid, had the patient been treated through the department?
6.	What is the hospital in Ottawa exclusively recognized by the department?
7.	What are the names of the surgeons in Ottawa exclusively recognized by the department for treatment of veterans?
8.	Have veterans of Ottawa been informed of the existence of such preference, if any, and how?
9.	Has a list of medical and surgical men on the official list, if any, been supplied to all pensioned veterans of the Ottawa district?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: With regard to this question, I would like to know whether the hon. member in the first three paragraphs
[Mr. Sauve.l
refers to Ottawa or generally throughout Canada?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: To Ottawa.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Stands.
Question stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HOWDEN:: 1.	How many patent medicines are registered which contain schedule drugs and what precautions are taken to safeguard the public in the case of preparations containing such drugs?
2.	Are preparations containing schedule drugs manufactured under the supervision of a registered pharmaceutical chemist?
3.	What check is being made under the Food and Drugs Act to ascertain that drugs used in patent medicines are chemically pure and biologically active according to government standards?
4.	What machinery exists under the Department of Pensions and National Health to control the issuance of patents for medicines?
5.	How many patent medicines are now registered under the department?
6.	What number of patent medicines have been registered each year for the past ten years and what number of cancellations have occurred during that period?
7.	Do patents granted for medical apparatuses come within the scope of the Department of Pensions and National Health?
8.	What precautions in respect to public safety does the government exercise in the granting of patents for apparatuses for the treatment of the human body?
9.	What percentage of the personnel, time and pay-roll of the Department of Pensions and National Health, is devoted strictly to items of health ?


CUSTOMS TARIFF
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the total number of items in the customs tariff on August 1, 1930?
2.	What is it now?
3.	On how many of those items was the customs tariff increased each year since August 1, 1930, (a) by parliament, and (b) by arders-in-council ?

Motions for Papers
4.	On how many of those items was the customs tariff decreased each year since August 1, 1930, (a) by parliament, and (b) by orders-in-council ?
5.	How many of customs tariff items have been left untouched since August 1, 1930, and are still in force?
6.	Are there any of customs tariff items which have been changed more than once, (a) by parliament, and (b) by orders-in-council since August 1, 1930?
7.	If so, how many during that period?
8.	Did the government have investigations made before the above mentioned changes in customs tariff?
9.	If so, by whom, each year since August 1, 1930?
10.	Did the government secure any information about the effect of such changes in customs tariff?
11.	If so, from whom, each year, during the same period ?


ADVANCES TO BANKS
Mr. CHEVRLER:: 1.	What was the annual advances to chartered and savings banks under the Finance Act from August 22, 1914, to March 11, 1935?
2.	What were the rates of interest charged?
3.	What was the total amount advanced to each of the chartered and savings banks from August 22, 1914, to March 11, 1935?
4.	What was the total interest paid for the above period?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. RALSTON:: For a copy of all letters, memoranda and documents referring to proposals for settlements effected in the province of Nova Scotia under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act; also a statement showing the names and addresses of the official receivers in Nova Scotia for the purposes of said act, and the salaries and other compensation payable to each in the years 1934 and 1935, 'and the respective amounts for salary, compensation and expenses actually paid to each during such years.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are two objections
to the first portion of this motion. One is that if we are to adopt any procedure with respect to all cases, the voluminous character of the return would involve the services of a large number of persons for many months, because at the moment the number of proposals before official receivers runs into the tens of thousands.
The second objection is that it is not in the public interest to disclose the names of individuals together with statements covering their private affairs, particularly in view of the character of the proposals and the fact that settlements may not arise out of them. I have spoken to the hon, member and I think he concurs in the objections that
I have just made. His suggestion is that the understanding should be that the return will comprise only the number of cases, the amounts of assets and liabilities in each case, and a summary of settlements in cases where settlement was effected. I assume by that my hon. friend means a succinct statement-


James Layton Ralston: A precis.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -of case, number one or nuntber two, whatever it may be. With that understanding there is no objection to the motion passing.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend spoke to me about this matter before the house met. I should like it understood that in assenting to the motion carrying in the amended form. I would not want to be taken as waiving the right of production of papers as called for in the resolution, but I assure my hon. friend and the house that for my purposes in connection with this motion there is no desire to have the identity of the debtors in any way disclosed. With that understanding the motion amended as suggested is satisfactory.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must say a word with regard to the latter portion of my hon. friend's remarks. It must not be understood that his exception should indicate that we accede to his position, that a member of right should have the full information.
Motion as amended agreed to.



CIVIL SERVICE STATISTICS

Mr. AHEARN:: For return showing:
1.	The names and ages of all civil servants who have been retired with annuities at ages less than forty years since the present government assumed office, together with the amount of the annuities in each case.
2.	The names of those included in such a list who have been reemployed in the federal civil service.
3.	The number of persons who have been appointed to the federal civil service since the present administration assumed office, excluding part-time employees, labourers, and' mechanics.


Mr. CAHAN:: There is no objection to
the resolution passing as to clause 1 and clause 2. My impression is that a return asked for by another hon. member is being prepared which will cover clause 3, but it involves a considerable amount of work and it will be some time yet before it can be completed. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he allow the motion to pass as to clauses 1 and 2, and reserve the question as to whether clause 3 is covered by the return which is now in course of being completed.
Motion as amended agreed to.
The King's Silver Jubilee



SALARY DEDUCTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize a deduction of five per cent from the amount of certain salaries or other compensations or indemnities payable by the government of Canada during the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1930, and to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of such amounts as are necessary under the proposed legislation.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide that the members of the judiciary, and the members of ihe military, naval and air forces of Canada, and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, other than enlisted men. shall be liable to pay a special income tax of five per cent upon their salaries received during the fiscal year 1935-36, in addition to any other tax payable under the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: A few days ago there was
laid upon the table the report of the royal commission in connection with the building of a post office in Waterloo, Shefford county, province of Quebec. I would ask the government whether they propose to follow the recommendations of the commission with regard to action against those guilty of fraud, and to recover moneys unlawfully obtained.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: The report has been forwarded to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who is considering the same with a view to what action shall be taken in the light of the recommendation from the royal commissioner.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I ask the
minister to refer this question to the Minister of Justice, with the idea that we might have a definite answer in regard to what action might be taken.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That has been done.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: At page 2332 of Hansard the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), referring to the unemployment insurance measure is reported as saying:

and there was the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot), who said he did not know what it was all about.
May I refer the hon. gentleman to page 1513 of Hansard of March 7 of this year, where I declared in regard to this legislation-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must call the hon.
member to order. This is not a point of order. The hon. member can seize an opportunity in the house at the appropriate time to contradict any statement made by any hon. member, but not on the orders of the day.



THE KING'S SILVER JUBILEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto):: I wish to direct a question to the government concerning the nature of the proclamation of May 6 next as a day of general thanksgiving. I have received a telegram from J. W. Somers,
O.B.E. City Clerk, Toronto, asking:
Has Monday, May 6, been proclaimed a public holiday? Gazette states that it is to be a day of general thanksgiving and' rejoicing. Will it only be a bank holiday? Please advise me as soon as possible.
I would ask the government what is the nature of a day of rejoicing and thanksgiving? May 6 is not a statutory holiday. Will the banks close, will it be a public holiday all over Canada?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May 6, which is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the king's accession to the throne, will be a public holiday throughout Canada. It has been so declared by a proclamation which was issued on February 27 and published in the Canada Gazette of February 28 and posted in every post office in Canada on the succeeding days. That proclamation makes Monday, May

The Budget-Mr. Boyes
6,	a public holiday in so far as the federal parliament has jurisdiction. It is also what in common parlance is known as a bank holiday. In the Bank Act there is no special provision with respect to holidays, as the banks observe all statutory holidays. The Bills of Exchange Act, chapter 16 of the revised statutes of 1927, provides in section 43 that in all matters relating to bills of exchange:
Any day appointed by proclamation for a public holiday, or for a general fast, or a general thanksgiving throughout Canada,
shall be observed as a legal holiday.
Therefore May 6 is a legal holiday with respect to usual banking transactions.
Hon, ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East): In that connection, I was reading this morning in the British press that an appeal is being made to all employers of labour in England that they should pay the salary or wages of their employees on that day even though it is a holiday, so that no workers would lose any part of their wages because of participation in the festivities accompanying that jubilee. Could not the same appeal be made in Canada to all employers of labour?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: By whom was the request made? By the Home Office or some department of the government of the United Kingdom?


Ernest Lapointe: No, I think it is rather in the press. I am not sure whether the government itself has taken any part.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman and I might make an appeal to all the people of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: We may both make the appeal.



CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton):: If I am not forestalled by the answer given by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) to the hon. junior member- for Ottawa (Mr. Aheam) I desire to ask the Secretary of State when I may receive a return to the question asked by myself on March 6 last:
1.	How many civil servants have been removed from their positions since the present government came into office by: (a) dismissal; (b) superannuation; (c) death; (d) other causes?
2.	What are the names of the deputy ministers removed from their positions since the present government came into office by: (a) dismissal; (b) superannuation; (c) death; (d) other causes, showing the department of which each was deputy?
May I ask when I may expect an answer to the question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Every effort is being made to secure from the various departments of government a complete answer to the hon. gentleman's question but I cannot now state on what date it will be ready for submission to the house. It is a very voluminous return.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 2, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. N. Rhodes, (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Ralston, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coote.
Frank Boyes: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Frank Boyes: In continuing the debate on the budget may I say that in the riding which I have the honour to represent we have a considerable number of market gardeners, many of whom produce vegetables in greenhouses. During the campaign many Conservatives, including myself, promised that protection would be given not only to industry but also to farmers and market gardeners, which would include those engaged in the production of vegetables. I am glad to be able to say that this legislation has been provided, and under it our imports of certain vegetables have decreased more than fifty per cent. These include potatoes, lettuce, cucumbers and tomatoes, and I am sure those who are engaged in this business have received considerable benefit through this legislation.
I wish to thank the government also for having introduced legislation providing seasonal protection for market gardeners and fruit growers. There is, of course, a certain season during which vegetables should be allowed to come into the country, but there is another season when our producers are able to supply the demand, and during that season I say these foreign vegetables should be shut out. May I say, however, to the minister who has charge of this seasonal protection that I believe there have been times when the protection has not been applied sufficiently early to protect those engaged in the
The Budget-Mr. Boyes

growing of vegetables, and I should like -to ask him to see to it that this protection is made effective in sufficient time to enable our producers to secure that business. If there is any doubt as to the .time at which these tariffs should be put into operation, I submit that the producers of vegetables should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Then there is another act which I am sure is receiving a great deal of attention at the present time; I refer to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. In the county of Middlesex I believe more than 120 applications have been received for information in regard to this measure. A great many applications for adjustment have been made; meetings have been held and adjustments have been arrived at which have been satisfactory not only to the farmers but also to their creditors, sometimes involving thousands of dollars. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation enacted by this government.
Another matter to which I have devoted some attention is the agitation which has been carried on by some of the members in the far corner, the independents and those belonging to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, in regard to the capitalistic system. I am convinced that the capitalistic system is the right system for the Dominion of Canada. I do not believe that it is one hundred per cent perfect, but why destroy the system because it is not perfect? This government have gone ahead and brought about changes in that system; some of the acts passed for that purpose are already in force, and further enactments will be made which I am sure will be very beneficial. I am strongly in favour of the capitalistic system, with certain reforms which can be brought about.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am convinced that this budget will be received with great favour by the people of Canada. When the government appeal to the country for reelection I am convinced that the electors will show their approval of this budget and of the legislation which has been enacted by this government, and will return to power the Conservative party, with Right Hon. R. B. Bennett as Prime Minister of Canada for another term of five years.


Mr. GEORGE SPOTTON (North Huron):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Spotton: I see I have the consent of His Majesty's loyal opposition to address a few words to you, sir, in connection with

the budget, and I wish to thank hon. gentlemen opposite for the courtesy they have extended to me. While I was in the house for a few moments last night I noticed that hon. gentlemen opposite were much more anxious to conclude this debate than they are to-day, and, I am vain enough to believe that that is out of courtesy to me, so I will not impose upon them at any great length.
Last night when one of the members on this side rose to address the chamber I heard one of the younger members opposite, who perhaps was christened by his mother "colon" instead of "period," call out, "Bring on the election." There is one reason, Mr. Speaker, why I am glad the election is not going to be brought on with undue haste. In the Dominion of Canada there are about 650 persons born every day, and, in a year that amounts to something like 225,000 or 230,000 persons. If 200,000 of those attain their majority it means that almost that number of boys and girls, who are impatiently waiting for the day when they will be twenty-one years of age, would have been disfranchised if the leader of the opposition and his followers had been given their way in this matter. I believe I can trust the young people of Canada. About 750 or 800 of these young people, who would have been disfranchised if this government had been stampeded into going to the country, will be able to vote in my riding, and I am going to trust those young people. They are the people who will have to carry on when you old fellows, who are going down the western slope facing the setting sun, pass out; then it will be up to us younger people to carry on.
There is one other reason. I have listened to Liberal orators and spellbinders stating that the Liberal party was the party of the masses and the Conservative party the party of the classes.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: You should be over
here then.


George Spotton: I hear the professor again, but don't blame him, Mr. Speaker; it is his profession. We have always been told by these Liberal spellbinders that the Conservative party was owned body and soul by the big interests. Yet we have it from the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, speaking in Kingston, that he thanked God and took courage that the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was the first leader of either of the major parties that had ever attacked capitalism. And I am glad too, as a humble member who was elected by a farming constituency, and by the way at a by-election. We have heard so much about by-elections

The Budget-Mr. Spotton
[DOT]this session that I suppose it will not be out of order for me to refer back to the last administration. They lost a by-election once when they had eleven cabinet ministers in the riding, also Hon. Duncan Marshall, Hon. Nelson Parliament and every Liberal member, I think, of the Ontario house and of the legislature in Quebec. They brought in the whole circus, the calliope and the whole troupe. They brought in the Minister of Finance to hold up the treasury of Canada in the one hand and the credit of Canada in the other, and told them just to ask for what they wanted. But they lost that by-election. I am not twitting them over it or boasting about it, because I have often lost myself; and I think I have been a good loser just as I have striven to be a modest winner. But when the Liberals lost that by-election they did not say that the Liberal government was discredited and should immediately go before the people. I was twitted by the then Prime Minister that I was a minority candidate. I wish to say to him to-day that he has never been other than a minority prime minister in this country. I listened to him in the 1925 election when he made great promises, and in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, he is the record promise-breaker in Canadian history. He promised that if after that election he did not have a clear majority in the House of Commons he would refuse to carry on because he had in the back of his head, and in a book, beneficent legislation which the Progressive group had not permitted him to put upon the statute books. Well, he went to the country 116 strong and came back 101 strong, and yet his lust of office was so great that he broke that pledged word, and by the way gave me several votes from Liberals who had heard him make that promise.
He also said that he was going to reform or abolish the senate, and I remember that he brought with him to my county a concrete example, as it were, the late Senator MoCoig, who stood up after the right hon. gentleman had made that declaration of reforming or abolishing the senate and said, "Yes, it was upon that understanding I was made a senator." He was to do the bidding of Bunty when Bunty pulled the strings. But we heard nothing more about the reform or abolition of the senate.
We listened the other day to the Labour member from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) putting on Hansard planks from the Liberal platform of 1919, sixteen years ago, and it has remained for this government to put most of those planks into operation. That platform declared for limiting the hours of work 92582-152
to eight per day and forty-eight per week, along with a weekly day of rest of at least twenty-four hours. That promise was not fulfilled, but that legislation has been placed upon the statute books of Canada by this government. The Liberal platform of 1919 also called for:
Abolition of child labour and the imposition of limitation ^ of the labour of young persons to assure their proper education and physical development;
Abolition of sweatshops by setting legal standards for conditions of labour which should have due regard for the equitable economic treatment of all workers;
Industrial control to safeguard workers' interests and shape industrial policies;
An adequate insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age and other disabilities:
Steps to overcome questions of jurisdiction between the dominion, and the provinces on these matters;
And the right hon. leader of the opposition is still harping on that subject to-day, and saying that we should not pass the unemployment insurance measure until that question of jurisdiction has been determined. The Liberal platform also declared for government action to deal with the high cost of living, and so on, and so on. I just wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that mo prime minister ever attained office by so many promises and fulfilled so few as the right hon. gentleman opposite. I am glad that this government has the stability and the gumption and the courage to place on the statute books in an orderly manner this legislation for which the people have been asking.
In a small measure I pledged myself when I was first elected that I would go out and do battle against the combines which had been formed under the King administration, 120 in number, and embracing 550 firms. My own town was ruined through them. It was during the Liberal administration, when the Liberals were saying that they were the friends of the masses, that trusts and combines flourished as they never had done before. In my first speech in this house I attacked the packing houses and the stock yards, the department stores and chain stores. In season and out of season I have done my little part to create an atmosphere so that some day this whole matter should be fully investigated. As we talked over the line fence or the garden gate we thought we knew what was going on, but as it says in the good book, we know now in part, and some day we shall know in -full. And now, Mr. Speaker, we do know in full from the accountants and the auditors and the bookkeepers, from the presidents and general managers of these firms testifying under oath,

The Budget-Mr. Spotton

Railway contractor to run an election, and the sons of those old pioneers now lick their lips and smile to think how smart their party was, when by a secret order in council, when this house was in session, they enabled the Liberal party to get $720,000 for campaign purposes. Yet they go about the land as Simon Pure apostles.
But let us take the evidence that we get from the independent comer. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), speaking in Toronto, made certain statements which I am going to quote. There they were carrying slogans on the trucks: "Beat Bennett; vote against Tommy Church"-because Bennett was a millionaire. But they did not use that language in North York where there was a millionaire behind every bush. However, this is what the hon. member for Wetaskiwin1 said:
"Beat Bennett" not C.C.F. plan.
William Irvine, M.P., warned that the C.C.F. was not interested in any plan to "beat Bennett."
"Mr. Bennett has been a far better Prime Minister than Mr. King. Voting only to 'beat Bennett' would make fools of us."
"Bennett has been turned out by St. James street because last year he gave us the best legislation in fifty years," asserted the speaker. "I'm not supporting him; don't mistake me. The only thing we have in common is that we both eat. But the new measures he introduced challenge the power of St. James street. That's why they're through with Bennett. And that's why you should vote to 'beat King,' as he's on the job for them now."
These are not my words but the words of an independent member of this house. Then I would quote the opinion of the talented lady member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), who said that Mr. King could do nothing in grander style than any person she had ever known.
I am not going to attempt to preserve any continuity in this speech but I am going to discuss a few things which we notice in the press. None of the members here would say some of these things, and I know that no United Farmer in Ontario would say them, but there are Liberal candidates and some Liberal speakers, mostly from the west, who do not know the temperament of the people of Ontario, and they have said that the Prime Minister refused to see the farmers who came to Ottawa. Well, there are many members here who accompanied that delegation. I was asked to introduce a deputation to the Prime Minister, and as we went into that meeting we were handed pamphlets, one of which I have in my possession, that set out the different orders of business. This deputation, at a particular hour, was to wait on the Prime Minister. We were an hour

late, but the Prime Minister-and some Liberal gentlemen were with us-gave us a hearing. It is true he refused to go down and address the meeting; that was not a part of the arrangement. The arrangement was that he should meet a deputation, a committee from that meeting. I know whereof I speak because I introduced the deputation, and I shall be glad to have my statement backed up by the United Farmers of Ontario. He refused to go to the coliseum, but he did not refuse, as arranged, to meet the deputation, and he did see the committee that was appointed. The United Farmers of Ontario are not kicking about this, but there are Liberals who are striving to make political capital by falsifying the premier.
A former minister of trade and commerce used to say that the Liberal government kept the dollar at par. I wonder what he would say now that this government, during this period of stress and strain, has brought the dollar above par. Is not this government to get some credit for the fact that, whereas in 1930 the superstatesmen left uE the sixth trading nation in the world, we are now fifth? Is it not to the credit of the government and of the country that we had such a financial genius to steady the financial structure of Canada? What does it matter if you gain the whole world and lose your own soul? What does it matter if you own the city of Ottawa and the Dominion of Canada is bankrupt, as we are told many western provinces are? The credit of Canada has been preserved, and it is sounder to-day than it has ever been since confederation. If it were not so the Prime Minister would be blamed for it; and when it is so should he not get some little credit for it?
There is another matter I must refer to. Campaigners have been going through Ontario saying that this government has clogged the channels of trade. Let me quote what Mr. Dunning wrote in a Liberal campaign paper. He said:
All major European markets are now closed to us as a result of prohibitive tariffs following the war.
There is Charlie's picture and there is Charlie's signature.


An hon. MEMBER:: When was that?


George Spotton: That was July 14, 1930.
I do not think I will take up the time of the house discussing the Fordney-McCumber tariff, the Hawley-Smoot tariff, or other tariffs. I am just going to leave it to the country that

The Budget-Mr. Spotton
the greatest finance minister Canada ever had, according to the Liberals, made this statement in the midst of the last election:
All major European markets are now closed to us as a result of prohibitive tariffs following the -war. Only one market remains-the British market. If we lose it, there is no other market. Losing it, Saskatchewan farmers would be ruined. Are we in danger of losing it? Yes, 1929 proved unless we act now. How can we secure and hold the British market? There is only one answer.
And I will not read any further. But he states clearly and definitely from period to period that one observation which I wish to read to the house. I am going to make my own speech, such as it is, but for the benefit of the member for all Vancouver I shall read that first paragraph again:
All major European markets are now Closed to us as a result of prohibitive tariffs following the war.
And then the next:
Only one market remains-the British market.
I shall be glad to show my hon. friend the paper. In fact I am going to have it photographed so that all may be able to see it.
I can well remember some years ago in the house when, the leader of the opposition used always to speak about "us like-minded people." That is the time he was courting the Progressives. I can well remember that he twitted me as being a minority member in the house because "us like-minded people" had divided.
To come back to my leader, I would like to leave this one thought with the younger people of Canada. In 1911, the present Prime Minister, in seconding the address, placed before the house practically every piece of forward and upward looking legislation that we have had during the last two sessions. I do not know that I shall take the time to read his remarks in full.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Did he support reciprocity with the United States?


George Spotton: Well "reciprocity" is only a word. We might as well say "man," but there are different types of men. We might say "Do you like apples?" "Well, some kinds of apples." The word "reciprocity" does not mean anything unless there is some equitable trading arrangement behind it.
Speaking of the Liberal party-and when I say "the Liberal party" I want it to be understood that I am speaking not of the Liberal party at large in the country or of all hon. members on the other side
of the house, but of the men who are temporarily in control-I wish to say this to the country:	The same old crowd that
was cast aside in 1930 are in control of the Liberal party to-day. If this government is defeated the people know just exactly whom they are getting back.


James J. Donnelly: We will come back at the next election.


George Spotton: At school I always noticed that the fellow who walked around with a chip on his shoulder wouldn't fight. I never saw the fellow around the barroom who took off his coat and rolled up his sleeves, fighting. I never boasted that I would be back; I do not know whether I will or not. That rests with my people, but I do know this, that from headquarters here they have sent up their chief-well one of the fellows in my riding calls him the chief statis-ishun; he got the word "statistician" mixed up-in the last ten days saying that Barkis was willing if they would give him the nomination. But I have nothing to say as to who will have it; that is not my job.
In 1911 twenty four years ago the present Prime Minister said in this house:
Too often it has been found that child labour and the work which has been undertaken, especially by married women, in the older countries has involved a loss of vital force in the succeeding generation, and' we Canadians- we in this young country-must, it seems to me, if we are true to our best traditions, realize that at best we hold this great land with its brilliant opportunities and its splendid resources as trustees for that posterity which will one day weigh us up in judgment 'for the manner in which we have discharged the trust reposed in us.
I do not think there has been a time in the history of the Canadian people when it was more apparent that we should have a band of trained experts capable of gathering at first hand full and accurate information for the benefit of the Canadian farmer, manufacturer and' workman than in the election that has just passed.
In my judgment, in this complex civilization of ours, the great struggle of the future will be between human rights and the property interests; and it is the duty and the function ot government to provide that there shall be no undue regard for the latter that limits or lessens the other.
It is of transcendent importance that this house and this parliament should be seized of the fact that the people demand that some tribunal shall be created that will have control over the extent of the issue of securities by public utility companies, and that the capitalization of industrial concerns should bear some just proportion to the outlay, and to the physical value of the enterprise which it represents.
It is essential that we in Canada, as the greatest partner, should extend our trade so far as possible among the British dominions and with the motherland.
The Budget-Mr. Spotton

If any hon. member has any doubt, I will give him a report of that speech. I would also refer him to a speech for which I thank the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). We in Ontario thought him a very fiery politician in days of old, but I am glad to know he was fair enough from his place in the house to pay a tribute to the sincerity of o'ur leader, the Prime Minister of Canada.
I would like to have said a word or two about the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, but I will give just one incident that happened in a neighbouring county the other day. A young farmer was bowed down with a first mortgage of 85,000 with 8800 accumulated interest, and was paying six and a half per cent to some money Shylock. He had a second mortgage of $1,000 with $400 accumulated interest and was paying six per cent on it. Each year his back was bowed down by a burden of $461 of interest. The $5,800 mortgage was reduced to S5,000 and he gets that for five years at three per cent. The $1,400 mortgage was reduced to $1,200 and he gets that for ten years at two per cent, so that instead of having an interest burden of $461, which no farmer could bear, he went home happy making a new start in life with an interest charge of $174. I wish to thank the Minister of Finance on behalf of the farmers of Ontario, who have been turned down coldly on the word of the deputy minister of agriculture for Ontario, for increasing the amount to $90,000,000.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, the question now before the house is a subamendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). At the beginning of my remarks it is not my intention to deal with that question, but I will deal with it later on. It is my purpose in rising this afternoon to discuss the very serious situation that we find in certain parts of western Canada, more particularly in the district where I live, in regard to drought conditions. I wish to take some of the time at my disposal to discuss that matter. Some little time ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) stated in the house that it was the intention of the federal government-at least that was as far as they had gone-to deal with that important question. But the statement of the minister was so indefinite that I feel it my duty as representing one of those dried-out areas to discuss the matter a little more fully and more particularly with the intention of laying before the government and the home some proposals that may be of value in that regard. tMr. Spotton ]
One of the first things that I wish to discuss with regard to that matter is the question of responsibility. Last session I suggested to one of the ministers of the crown certain things that might be done in order to alleviate the distress, but I was very soon informed that this matter came under the jurisdiction of the provincial government and consequently the federal government, having no jurisdiction, did not think it advisable even to consider the suggestions I made.
Now I want to take the house back to the time when this area was thrown open for settlement. At that time the government of Canada controlled all the unalienated crown lands. In 1909 it was decided by the then Minister of the Interior that this particular area should be thrown open to settlement, because many new settlers were then coming into the country and it was thought advisable to direct them to this area rather than send them farther north where frost conditions were bad at that time. The then Minister of the Interior was from Alberta, no doubt he believed that it was advisable to increase the population of that province as quickly as possible. He finally decided that this area should be opened up for settlement. Before it was opened up, according to information which I have received from officers of the department, not only did the officers of the department advise him against opening this territory for settlement, but people who had been resident in the area for many years also sent in protests advising against opening it for settlement because severe drought conditions prevailed periodically over a large part of it. Notwithstanding all these protests the Minister of the Interior proceeded to invite not only the people of Canada but of the United States or indeed any person who cared to go into that area to follow agricultural pursuits. In so doing he practically intimated to those people that this was a fair agricultural district.
Inasmuch as the federal government then controlled the land in this area, and opened it up and invited the people to go in and follow agricultural pursuits there, I hold that the responsibility for what has occurred rests wholly and solely with the federal government and not the provincial government. That being so it is very important as far as the people in that area are concerned to know as quickly as possible just what the federal government intend to do. I understand that a committee of government officials has been appointed and is studying this matter. I suggest that as soon as passible information as

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner
to what is likely to be done should be made public. Last year certain works were constructed in that area which may be of some advantage, namely, the building of dams to impound the spring water. But that is not sufficient. Furthermore it will be remembered by hon. members that there was some discussion in government circles last year as to the possibility of the federal government declaring this area a federal district, and that they would take full responsibility for that district for some time until their plans were completely carried out. Recently we have had no intimation from the government as to whether they are going to follow that proposal or not. In fact the proposals coming from the government are so indefinite as to leave us quite in the air.
One thing to which I wish to call the attention of the house is the tremendous loss occasioned to the people who went into that area. Those of us who have had the experience of homesteading, recognize that some of the new settlers did not fit in with that way of life. But in this particular area, after a few years, the people of that class had been practically eliminated, had left the district, and there remained a very fine type of settler, people who knew how to farm, who followed the most intensive farming practices according to the recommendations of our agricultural department and more particularly of the officers of the experimental farms. But notwithstanding that the people in there have suffered severe loss, so much so that many of them have left the district. The district is now becoming depopulated. To the credit of those who went in there early, they left with practically nothing, notwithstanding that many of them went in with considerable sums of money. In most cases the farmers of th? area of which I speak followed the recommendations of those who knew something about intensive agriculture in western Canada, but notwithstanding that, we learned from experience that some of those practices were very detrimental in the final analysis. Take for instance the recommendation of the officials of the Department of Agriculture that in an area subject to drought the land should be summer fallowed every other year. That practice we have found to be very detrimental, but we did not know it at first, and so we have to meet its consequences. The result has been that through intensive summer fallowing and intensive cultivation the fibre in that part of the country has been lost, most of it has been blown away by the high winds. The settlers cannot be blamed
for having followed practices recommended to them by men supposed to know. I do not blame the officials of the department for making those recommendations, I know that as far as western Canada generally is concerned those recommendations proved very satisfactory.
The situation then is that one of the first things that we must try to accomplish in that dry area is to restore the fibre to the soil, and the only way that can be done efficiently is to seed it down to grass. But as far as the settlers now there are concerned they have no funds to provide grass seed nor are they in a position to secure any. I submit to the government, having in mind particularly the fact that some study has been given by the officers of the Department of Agriculture to the most suitable types of grass seed that should be sown in that area, that the government must make provision whereby most of the settlers at any rate can gei a small supply of grass seed for the purpose of seeding without cost to themselves. Unless some such policy is followed and until such time as we have restored the fibre to the land in that area, I submit that any of the other proposals, no matter how important they may be, will prove of much less value than they otherwise might be. We have to keep that land from blowing, and there is no doubt in my mind that we cannot do so unless we get fibre back into it. That being so I submit that one of the first things the government must do is try to secure a supply of grass seed. I do not ask that large quantities be given each farmer, but I do suggest that a reasonable quantity be given the farmer so that he can have a plot and develop his own seed until he has sufficient for the future.
The next suggestion I wish to make is that strip farming be encouraged. I must admit, of course, that this practice has been followed in some parts of the drought areas in the west for some years. In travelling over those dry areas, however, 'I have found that many farmers have not as yet realized the possible benefits that may be derived from strip farming. By means of strip farming, and having stubble a certain distance apart, to some extent you do break up the surface winds which move the soil, and that helps a little. In my judgment it is not as good a method as restoring the fibre 'but it will help until such time as that fibre can be restored.
The next proposal I wish to make is one which I made in 1922, when the drought area was comparatively small in relation to the drought area of to-day; that is. the
The Budget-Mr. Gardiner

planting of trees. I do not mean the planting of trees in large blocks; I mean the planting of shelter belts at least on the west side of every farm, and those shelter belts should be at least four rods wide. In 1922 I suggested that in order to encourage the farmers of the dry areas to plant trees the government should give those farmers some financial assistance. Soms may object to that, but I see greater possibilities in tlhe planting of trees than in almost any proposal other than the sowing of grass seed. 'If we had a policy under which it would 'be possible for the government to make a small contribution to the farmers to enable them properly to cultivate their land before planting the trees; to see ;o it that they get the proper kind of trees .'or that area, and that after planting the trees they cultivate them for a few years, until no further cultivation can be carried on because of the growth of the trees, I think a great deal of good would result. If we had the shelter belts on one side of the road allowance running north and south, which would mean every mile, I am sure that when the hot winds oome along from the southwest and blow through those trees, soon it would be cooled down and the atmosphere would be much cooler than it is at the present time. It is plain that when a hot wind passes through plants or trees, evaporation from the leaves takes place and tlhe wind is cooled; consequently this would 'be beneficial to agriculture. But there is no use in individual persons trying to accomplish this result; it must be of government policy. The farmers must be assisted to some extent by the government in order that they may be induced to see to it that their land is properly prepared in the first place and that they get the trees recommended by the officers of the department for planting in that particular area. In some areas the land is a little on the light side; that land might properly be planted with large tree plantations, which would be veTy 'beneficial also. I do submit, however, that we need tree belts or shelter belts at least every mile, running north and south, and when this is properly carried out I am sure we will not have the severity of drought in that area that we have experienced in the past.
I remember that last winter I had a conversation with a friend of mine living at Claresholm, during which we discussed by and large the whole question of this drought area and wthat was likely to happen in the future. This gentleman told me of an experience he had on his own farm. He said, "You know, we had some hot winds in our area this year,
fMr. Gardiner.]
such as we never had 'before. I have a shelter belt on the west side of my farm, and I sowed oats right alongside that belt. For the first forty or fifty rods in I had a crop of 60 or 70 bushels of the finest oats I ever grew, but as I got further away from the shelter belt the crop began to dwindle until at the far end there was no crop at all." That is a practical experience which substantiates what I stated1 in this house in 1922, that it is very essential that we extend assistance to the farmers in planting trees and in directing them as to the best manner in which to take care of those trees, which should be a part of the government policy in regard to this drought area. It may take a good deal of time to accomplish this end, but in view of the fact that that country is really worth while and that when we get reasonable moisture conditions there is no part of western Canada that can produce more efficiently or more heavily than that territory, I submit that it is certainly worth while. We have wonderful soil there, and I submit that it will be to the future advantage of Canada to give really serious consideration to this matter.
I have already referred to the construction of a few dams last year to impound the spring floods, but the amount of work done last year in comparison with the territory to be covered was so small that it appears to me that if this phase of our activity in trying to reclaim our drought area is worth while it will have to be taken up on a very much larger scale than it was last year. We made a beginning then, but the point that has been exercising my mind is this: Are the federal government making any contribution to that work, or is it being left wholly and solely on the shoulders of the provincial government? At this late date, after the federal government who controlled the natural resources of our province until very recently have disposed of the greater portion of those resources, it is hardly fair that the provincial government should be left with this burden, unaided by the federal government. I still take the stand, and I wish to reiterate what I have already stated, that in my judgment the responsibility rests very largely with the federal government inasmuch as the federal government was responsible for inviting people to settle in that area.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Will the hon. gentleman permit one question for the purpose of information? Was there any objection on the part of the province at the time to that land being opened up by the dominion government?

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner


Robert Gardiner: The province had no jurisdiction over it and so far as I know the province was not consulted. As a matter of fact I do not suppose the provincial government of that day had any information as to the nature of that country. I believe this land was opened for settlement in 1908 or early in 1909, consequently the provincial government would not have much information.
The next suggestion I wish to make unfortunately would not apply to the entire drought area, but in 1922 or 1923 the Department of the Interior surveyed the section of the country in which I live in order to determine whether or not it could be irrigated. I know that when I mention irrigation the minds of some hon. members of this house who know something about the subject will revert immediately to the problems we have had in connection with the irrigation districts of southern Alberta. However, this is not simply an irrigation proposal. In 1922 and 1923, as I have already stated, the Department of the Interior surveyed this territory to determine the possibilities of irrigation from the Red Deer river, and they found that it was quite feasible. They found that if they could impound enough water in the Red Deer river from the spring floods and the melting of the snow in the mountains in June and July, they could run the .main ditch so as to take in all the territory I represent and right up almost to Saskatoon.
There has been a proposal made in the last two years, and this proposal I submitted to the government last year, that this Pierce stock watering scheme, as it is termed, be undertaken by the federal government. The proposal is simply this: to dam up the waters of the Red Deer river, to impound all the surplus water that comes down that river and goes eventually out to Hudson bay, and to make use of it for the settlers within that area. As I have already stated, it is not proposed to make simply an irrigation scheme of it. What the settlers in that part of the country suggest is that the dam be built and the main ditch dug, and that in so far as any other development is concerned it be left to the municipalities, with engineering advice to guide them. The idea of the proposal is simply this:	We have many lakes
which in the last few years have gone dry. When these lakes and the large sloughs were full of water, we had generally speaking a reasonable amount of moisture and splendid atmospheric conditions. The people of that area believe that with the development of this Pierce stock watering scheme, and the bringing of the water into the low places,
some of the humidity will be restored that has been lost on account of the lakes having dried up. I do not know what the cost is likely to be, but I submit that if the cost is reasonable it is a project which the government might well consider, because it would serve two important purposes. First it would assist in restoring the humidity in that part of the country, and second, it would provide ample water for the watering of stock, which can be raised fairly well in that part of the country, but into which people are now afraid to go very deeply because of the shortage of water. The scheme I believe is well worth considering. I am satisfied that it would be of great advantage, and taken in conjunction with some of the other suggestions I have made I am sure that in time it would help us to overcome the worst effects which the drought situation has created in that part of the country.
I do not propose to say any more in this regard, other than to remind the government that the people in these dried out areas are looking very anxiously for the government's program, and if the government is in a position to announce that program at an early day such an announcement will have a very beneficial effect on the minds of the people living in those areas. We realize the immensity of the job that lies before us. We do not expect to overcome the situation in a year or two years; it will take time, but, may I repeat, in my judgment it is worth while in the interests of Canada as a whole that the best brains available should tackle this big problem and let the people know the results as soon as possible.
I wish to devote a few minutes of my remaining time to a discussion of the question that is now before the house, namely the amendment moved by the hon. member for Maeleod (Mr. Coot;) It is not necessary for me to read the amendment. Suffice it to say that the amendment calls the attention of the house to the fact that we have in Canada immense potentialities for the production of the food, clothing and shelter which the people of this country require. It also invites the attention of the house to the fact that there is an apparent shortage of purchasing power, which means that the people cannot buy the goods that are available or the goods that can be produced. There may be some difference of opinion as to whether there is a deficiency of the purchasing power necessary to purchase all the goods that are available, or whether it is that the purchasing power which is available is not properly distributed and that
The Budget-Mr. Gardiner

through this maldistribution many people are not in a position to satisfy their requirements. But we do know that there is a maldistribution of purchasing power, and we do know that there are people who have too much purchasing power, or at least more than they can use. We know also that there are many people who have no purchasing power at all, and in consequence many families to-day, as has been so often stated in this house, have to deoend either upon the dole or upon charity.
The question of purchasing power is a very important one, and I regret to say that with one slight exception, the surtax which the finance minister proposes to place on unearned incomes over 814,000, the budget does not even begin to deal with the most important question that is facing the Canadian people to-day. I appreciate what the minister has done in respect to the surtax on unearned incomes, but it is so small in comparison with what is required that I am amazed that governments refrain from doing that which they have the power to do, the things which are necessary in the interests of the people.
I realize of course, Mr. Speaker, that the present situation is a product of the capitalist system, and is bound to continue just so long as we permit profit to be exacted. There can be no question about that. Just so long as we permit profit to be exacted, just so long will this condition continue, and no legislation that does not touch the real problem, namely profit, can ever do more than touch the fringe of the problem we have to meet. Profit has been described as monetary or financial gain for which no goods or services are given in return; that is to say, those who make a profit get something for nothing. By virtue of the fact that they get something for nothing they are in a position to .pile up wealth, and through that accumulation of wealth they have a control of purchasing power equal to their accumulation of wealth. That being so, the house must recognize the fact that all these measures so called for the benefit of the people, while they may be of some value, will soon have their value dissipated because under the profit system people eventually will make a profit out of them.
The question then arises, are we going to continue the profit system? Just so long as profit is permitted, and people who make profits get something for nothing, as I have already said they do, the concentration of wealth will continue. In addition the concentration of purchasing power will continue, so much so that people will say, whether it is

correct or not, that there is a definite shortage of purchasing power, and that therefore the necessary purchasing power should be made up from some other source than the present available sources. I am satisfied that the worst factor at the present time is the concentration of wealth with its consequent concentration of purchasing power. I think it was two years ago that I suggested to the Minister of Finance that during the depression he might take all incomes over $25,000 and use them for the state. This was not done. I think this was a logical suggestion, having in mind the purchasing power which is concentrated in the hands of the few. I put figures on record last year which showed conclusively that three and a half per cent of the people of this country own sixty-seven per cent of the wealth. If that is so, it naturally follows that three and a half per cent of the people possess sixty-seven per cent of the purchasing power.
The situation to-day is different from what it was ten years ago. At that time there were still opportunities for safe and profitable investment, not only in Canada but in other countries. Because of the development of industrial plant and equipment in all the countries of the world, with the exception of Russia and parts of Asia, the opportunity for the investment of surplus purchasing power is no longer available. This surplus purchasing power is in the hands of people who already have more than they can spend on their own personal needs. The goods which this surplus purchasing power might buy remains on the shelf and there is unemployment. Until this purchasing power is forced into circulation, through legislation, some form of taxation or by other means, these goods will remain on the shelves and many of the people of Canada will be without profitable work. In the face of conditions such as these I cannot get wildly enthusiastic over the budget.
Hon. members opposite have referred to this budget as a poor man's budget. I do not think they ever made a truer statement in their lives. It is a poor man's budget because it will keep the poor man poor. Under these circumstances I feel it my duty to support the subamendment moved by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Macleod. I believe that this subamendment deals with the crux of the situation, the distribution of the purchasing power of this country to permit the people to buy what they require. I do not believe it is advisable to distribute this purchasing power to the people without their giving some service in return, provided they

The Budget-Miss Macphail
are physically able to do so. With all the machinery of government and with all the power that parliament enjoys, I think we could devise ways and means whereby this purchasing power could be distributed to the people in return for their labour.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Mr. Speaker, I desire to assure hon.
members that I am not going to make a speech. I should be finished' in five or ten minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do not think hon.
members should be so enthusiastic over that statement.
I did not want to interrupt the hon. member for North Huron. (Mr. Spotton) while he was speaking but I do feel that I should make a statement in connection with the delegation appointed by the mass meeting of farmers of Ontario and Quebec who came to Ottawa two years ago to interview the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for North Huron. I remember seeing him at this meeting and I know he was interested1 in its success. I understood him to say that he believed1 that the farmers who attended this mass meeting did not expect either the Prime 'Minister or any other minister to come to address them. I know that the hon. member believes that his understanding of the case is the right one, but he is mistaken.
This matter has been discussed before but I should like to give the facts again so that they will appear in the same Hansard as the remarks of the hon. member. Many meetings were held throughout Ontario and1 I believe I addressed at least twenty. I might mention that the audiences were quite large. At all times I adopted a nonpartisan attitude as I was interested only in the monetary question. I wanted the British pound sterling to be worth at least parity in Canadian, fundte, or even more than par. It must be remembered that we are competing with Australia, the Argentine and Denmark and the British pound is now and was then worth more in the currencies of those countries than it is here. I do not think anyone listening to me could have told what were my politics. I tried to be absolutely fair to the government and in many instances the people who presided over the meetings I addressed were members of the Conservative party. Four thousand farmers came to Ottawa at their own expense and in some cases this expense was considerable. I do not believe anyone would expect 4,000
people to come to Ottawa to discuss matters of exchange without being able to see any member of the government. The arrangements with the Prime Minister were made by Mr. R. J. Scott, who comes from North Huron. I know Mr. Scott quite well and I suggested to him that as the Prime Minister was very busy any delegation which might go to invite him to the large assembly should' be exactly on time. I had nothing further to do with the matter nor did I have any further conversation with Mr. Scott. It was not until afterward's that I learned that the delegation had been one hour late for their appointment. This should not have happened.
They went up to ask the Prime Minister to come to the large assembly. He did not come. The astonishing thing is that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) was with the Prime Minister when he was interviewed by this small group and he did not come down to the large assembly either. This group asked the Prime Minister to address them or to send someone in his stead. Up to this point this large audience of 4,000 had been remarkably friendly to the Prime Minister but they were anything but friendly when their representatives came back and told them that ho member of the government would be down to address them. I have talked over this matter with the Prime Minister who tells me-I accept his explanation-that he did not understand that he or any other member of the government was expected to go to address this large assembly. Apparently he and Mr. Scott had misunderstood each other and the Prime Minister did not know otherwise until the small group interviewed him. I accept this explanation but I say to the hon. member for North Huron and to the government that they must accept full responsibility for not addressing the assembled farmers. These 4,000 people had come to Ottawa from two different provinces to see the government in connection with a matter which vitally concerned their industry. I was surprised that anyone should make such a political blunder. I felt that day and I still feel that the government has caused a loss to the farmers of millions of dollars through keeping the value of the British pound so low in Canadian funds. Had the Prime Minister interviewed this gathering he would have found an audience anxious to put before him a matter which was vital to them, and in all probability this might have had some effect upon the Prime Minister's subsequent action in con-
The Budget-Miss Macphail

nection with exchange. I felt I must say this in order that the hon. member for North Huron and I would understand each other.
I think we should have an immediate election. I see no reason why the house should adjourn for five weeks. We have carried on now for some time during the Prime Minister's illness, which the whole house regrets; the whole house wishes him restored to his usual buoyant health, and we will welcome him back. But since the house has carried on for a considerable time now without him, I see no reason why we should not continue to do so until the end of the session. We owe this to the people, because after all we are all representatives of the people, from the Prime Minister down or from the private member up, whichever way you like to look at it. We have been elected by the people to attend to their business and there is no doubt that the people of Canada want an election. That being so, I cannot see any reason why an election should be delayed until the autumn, because by that time we shall be well into the harvest, and an election then is difficult in country districts, certainly for the west. June is the time for an election, because it is the month in all the year when the farmers are freest. The general opinion is that June is the best month. July, which the last government found a favourable month, is certainly a hot one -I mean the weather

and there are all sorts of difficulties, in connection with teachers, and vacationists generally; they are inconvenienced. No one is less certain of what the Liberal party intend to do if they are elected than I am; in fact, my greatest concern is what that party will do if they are elected. If they become the government it will be a serious thing for Canada, should they not know their own minds any better then, than apparently they do now.


Ernest Lapointe: She knows we are going to be returned, though.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It almost looks that
way, and for that reason I think the Liberals ought to make up their minds on policy now. At any rate, I submit that we ought to have an election as soon as possible, and for that reason I will support the Liberal amendment- not for any meat there is in the amendment, I assure you.
The hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Picket) said some interesting things in his speech last night. I read it over carefully to-day and I wish to make one or two comments on what the hon. gentleman said. He is worried about the young people. I quote:
(Miss Macphail.]
If you tell them to gee they will haw, and if you tell them to go east they will go west.... I do not know how we are going to discipline them; to my mind' that is certainly a serious question.... To my mind our most important problem is our young people, girls as well as boys; one is as bad as the other. Where are they going?
I was wondering whether youth has any real reason- to revere and trust age at this particular time. This generation has seen youth tricked and betrayed in the world war and in the peace which has followed it. The young people went to the war and the old people stayed comfortably at home and died in bed, though not soon enough, unfortunately. And then the young people have had to go through a period of five or six years, the blackest years we have known. No one has suffered more than youth. We want them to be diligent at school and to study, but when they get through what have we to offer them? We know that some of the older people are directors in twenty-five or thirty companies, drawing a remuneration for every directorship. There are people in high places in Ontario who are certainly very old, while the young people can find no place at all. I must say I cannot see why at this moment youth should be very enthusiastic about following the vision of age. I have respect for age, but I have respect for youth also, and I do think that the outlook of youth is more likely to be one that wTill help us in the present and in the future than the outlook of age. I do think too that young people are losing faith as they never did before, because they see all around them an abundance of everything and want at the same time. They realize that we have enough but that we have not learned how to distribute it. The best way any of us can keep youth is by precept and example, and this age has been a peculiarly hypocritical one. One likes to hunt for words that sound mild enough to be spoken, but it is difficult always to find the right ones. At any rate, no one can deny that our whole educational system, our religious system, our business, politics, finance and commerce have all been to a degree hypocritical. We know that we have worshipped one set of ideals while our practice has been quite another thing.
The young people are not fooled. They know that if teachers in universities to-day discuss the things they really do believe they may not be teachers much longer. This is not true universally but it is all too true in high places, whether in journalism, politics or commerce, and sometimes even in religion. The youth know that these people are not always doing the things they profess when they are talking to them about high ideals; they

The Budget-Miss Macphail
know that when they are talking high ideals they are doing so with their tongue in their cheek. This is one of the things that one does not have to prove. There are of course individual exceptions. There are exceptions in all the fields I have mentioned, and that makes one happy.
Youth was never finer or more courageous than to-day; it is adventurous. The young people are ready to do and suffer for a better day. But there have been illusions about reaching the top. In the last twenty years we have heard a good deal about ambition and striving for great wealth and getting to the top. I never know where it is, however -the top of this profession, the top of this, that and the other-but probably one thing that has disillusioned youth is some of the stuffed shirts at the top. Perhaps looking at the top in all our Canadian life has not been very edifying to youth, and the young people are wondering whether it is worth the effort to get to the top. I hear many of them say that. What they want to do is to live harmonious, happy lives wherever they are among their fellow men, whether at the top or halfway down, or wherever they may be.
I was thinking too, if youth can undergo the stuffing which we call education and the advice and domineering which we call discipline, and still retain its personality and spirit, that speaks well for it, and we have nothing to fear from the future because after all youth can serve only if it moulds institutions, ideals and customs to its uses and needs. Youth never serves by following age. Age always thought youth was, well heading off in some very dangerous direction, but always youth is leading out and on. So I felt, since there might not be anyone else to say it, I would say what I feel is in the hearts of a great many young people throughout Canada.
I am not going to discuss the budget at all. I thought Gerry McGeer, Mayor of Vancouver, really struck the secret of budget making the other night when he as one of the mayors addressed some of the members in the railway committee room. He said: "If you cannot make a budget balance, take out of it the items that cause it not to balance and put them into extraordinary account." That is the secret of budget making these days.
I have only one thing to say on the whole subject of finance and that is that it is very clear to me-in fact it is so clear I cannot interest myself in many other aspects of our national problem, because after all it is one great problem-that we must from now on begin to finance consumption and not only production of goods. We have so far thought all we needed to do was to finance the production of goods, and consumption of goods would take care of itself. I do not think that is true and we are all beginning to realize it is not. We are now just about ready to contemplate the short-circuiting of money from the source of supply to consumptive channels without passing through production. I believe in that general statement lies the progress which we will make in the future. It seems at the moment too odd to be seriously contemplated and classical economists still are pooh-poohing it and saying we must not think of anything that is quite so simple. Yet I suppose that if, when Watt first discovered that steam would lift the lid of a tea-kettle, he had told anybody he thought that power would some day revolutionize industry, people would have looked upon him as a madman. It is no more unusual than that to believe there is a 'bad gap in our financial system. If it is true that dividends, salaries and wages paid out in any industry are never sufficient to buy back at the ticketed price all the goods produced by that industry, there certainly is a gap and it will have to be bridged by methods which we have not used before. I believe the solution of the agricultural and unemployment problems lies in this new theory of money. I expect to see it growing in favour as time goes on until finally it will be accepted as orthodox and will then become quite the thing.


Mr. DESLAURIERS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Tetreault). Had I voted, I would have voted against the sub-amendment.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Ver-ville). Had I voted, I would have voted against the sub-amendment.


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: I was paired with the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment,


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin).
fMiss Macphail.]
Anderson (Toronto-High Park) Anderson (Halton) Arsenault Arthurs Baker Barber Baribeau Beaubier Belec
Bell (Hamilton West)
Bell (St. John-Albert)
Bourgeois
Bowen
Boyes
Bury
Cahan
Carmichael
Chaplin
Charters

The Budget-Division
Church	Myers
Cowan	Peck
Davies	Perley (Qu'Appelle)
Dickie	Perley, Sir George
Duguav	Pettit
Duranleau	Plunkett
Edwards	Porteous
Embury	Price
Esling	Quinn
Fraser (Cariboo)	Robinson
Gagnon	Ross
Gardiner	Rowe
Geary	Ryerson
Gobeil	Sauve
Gordon	Shaver
Guthrie	Short
Hackett	Simpson
Hanson	(Simcoe North)
(York-Sunbury)	Simpson
Harris	(Algoma West)
Hay	Smith
Irvine	(Victoria-Carleton)
J ohnstone	Smith (Cumberland)
Kennedy (Winnipeg	Smoke
South Centre)	Speakman
Lafleche	Spence
Larue	Spencer
Laurin	Spotton
Lawson	Sproule
Loucks	Stanley
Lucas	Stewart (Leeds)
Macdonald (Kings)	Stewart (Lethbridge)
Macdougall	Stinson
MacNicol	Stirling
McDade	Stitt (Nelson)
McGibbon	Sullivan
McGillis	Sutherland
McGregor	Tummon
McLure	Turnbull
Malonev	Weese
Manion	Weir (Melfort)
Matthews	Wrhite (London)
Morand	White (Mount Royal)
Mullins	Willis
Murphy	Wright-104.
PAIRS	
(The list of pairs	is furnished by the chief
whips.)	
Messrs:	
Barrette	Rheaume
Bell (St. Antoine)	Raymond
Bennett	King
Beynon	Euler
Burns	Butcher
Cantley	Cardin
Casselman	Howard
Cotnam	Hurtubise
Dorion	Verville
Dupre	Ferland
Fortin	Fafard
Ggnong	Michaud
Garland (Carleton)	Goulet
Gott	Rutherford
Jones	McLean
MacDonald	Urquhart
(Cape Breton)	
MacMillan	Mackenzie
(Saskatoon)	(Vancouver)
Moore (Chateauguay-	Dubuc
Huntingdon)	
Pickel Rhodes Seim Stevens Stitt (Selkirk) Tetreault Thompson (Simcoe East) Thompson (Lanark) Wilson '
Boucher
Ralston
Sanderson
Malcolm
Weir (Macdonald)
Deslauriers
Jean
Luchkovich
Vallance.


Mr. SENN:: I was paired with the hon member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Arza Clair Casselman: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Follin Horace Pickel: I was paired with the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Boucher). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I was paired with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I was paired with the hon. member .for Russell (Mr. Goulet). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


James Herbert Stitt: I was paired with the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


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


John Vallance: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I voted, Mr. Speaker, but I should not have done so. I did not notice that my pair was not in the house at the time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was paired with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted for the subamendment and against the amendment.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I was paired with the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Hermas Deslauriers: I was paired -with the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Tetreault). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the
Edwards
Embury
Esling
Fraser (Cariboo)
Gagnon
Geary
Gobeil
Gordon
Guthrie
Hackett
Hanson
fYork-Sunbury)
Harris
Hay
Johnstone
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre) Lafleche Larue Laurin Lawson Loucks
Macdonald (Kings) Uacdougall MacNicol McDade.
McGibbon
McGillis
McGregor
McLure
Maloney
Manion
Matthews
Morand
Mullins
Murphy
Myers
Peck
Perley, Sir George
Pettit Plunkett Porteous Price Quinn * Robinson Ross Rowe Ryerson Sauve Shaver Short Simnson
(Simcoe North) Simpson
(Algoma West) Smith
(Vietoria-Carleton) Smith (Cumberland) Smoke Spence Spotton Sproule Stanlev
Stewart (Leeds)
Stewart (Lethbridge)
Stinson
Stirling
Stitt (Nelson)
Sullivan
Sutherland
Tummon
Turnbull
W 0Qg0
Weir (Melfort)
White (London) White (Mount Royal) Willis Wright-98.
++NAYS
Messrs:
amendment.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I was paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for St. John's-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


John Vallance: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was paired with the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Bums). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendmemt, for the amendment and against the motion.


Arza Clair Casselman: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted for the main motion.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion-.


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


Mark Cecil Senn: I was paired with the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LUCAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Thomas Cantley: I was paired with the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. Ma-cDONALD (Cape Breton South): I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


John Clarke Moore: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Michael Luchkovich: I was paired with the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment, against the amendment and against the main motion.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I was paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I was paired with the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Hermas Deslauriers: I was paired with the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Tetreault). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.

Questions



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 4, 1935