1935-03-28

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald) moved:: That the petition of the Wapiti Insurance Company of Wawanesa, Manitoba, presented on the 27th instant, praying for an extension of time in which to apply for a licence to operate, 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 and 93 (3) (a) and (c) in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I would like to direct the attention of the committee on the British North America Act to the fact that there seems to be an inadequacy in the number of reports printed. I have received only one set and yesterday when I had occasion to request a second set, I was unable to secure it, being informed by Mr. Doyle, secretary of that committee, that the number available is exhausted; that is, they have all

been allocated. I suggest that this matter is of sufficient importance to justify the committee considering printing additional copies.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What is the average rate of interest payable on our federal debt:	(a) direct; (b)
guaranteed; payable in:	(a) Canada; (b)
England; (c) the United States?
2.	What is the average rate of interest payable on our entire outstanding federal debt including direct and guaranteed?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	(a) Average rate of interest on direct debt:
Payable in Canada	 4-23%
Payable in Canada and New York.. 5-00%
Payable in New York	 4-05%
Payable in London	 3-62%
Average rate of interest on total direct debt-4-15%.
(b)	Average rate of interest on guaranteed debt:
Payable in Canada	 4-43%
Payable in Canada and New York..	4-50%
Payable in New York	 6-18%
Payable in London	 3-84%
Payable in Canada and London.. .. 3-50% Payable in Canada, London and New
York	 4-48%
Average rate of interest on total guaranteed debt-4-52%.
2.	4-24%.


GREECE AND ROUMANIA
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What were the original loans made to Greece and Roumania respectively?
2.	How much has been repaid' to date?
3.	What are the balances owing in each case, including interest and principal?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Greece	 S	7,521,300	67
Roumania	 20,449,083 94
2.	Greece	 S	1,475,000	00
Roumania	 Nil
3.	Greece	 S	7,736,026	80
Roumania	 24,329,262 00


INCOME TAX COLLECTIONS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the amount of income tax collected, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1934?

Privilege-Mr. Gordon
2.	How many paid income tax with incomes from-
(a)	$1,000 up to $3,000:
1.	Individuals.
2.	Corporations.
(b)	$3,000 up to $20,000:
1.	Individuals.
2.	Corporations.
(c)	$20,000 up to $50,000:
1.	Individuals.
2.	Corporations.
(d)	$50,000 and over:
1.	Individuals.
2.	Corporations.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 
BANK OF CANADA-AUDITORS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Who are the auditors for the Bank of Canada?
2.	When were they appointed?
3.	On what terms and conditions were they appointed in regard to salaries, etc.?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	G. T. Clarkson and J. A. LaRue.
2.	January 24, 1935.
3.	Auditors' fee was left for determination at a later date when some experience has been acquired of the nature and extent of work involved.


TRANSLATION OF PRIME MINISTER'S RADIO ADDRESSES
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	Was the translation of any or all the addresses broadcast in January last by the Prime Minister of Canada through the network of the Canadian radio commission made by the staff of the general translation branch or by the blue books translation division?
2.	If so, who gave the instructions to make that aforesaid translation?
3.	Were the translators paid any extra salary for that additional work?
4.	Was that translation work given to the translators as part of their official duty?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1. The translation of a number of addresses which were broadcast by the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada, in January, 1935, was made by members of the staff of the bureau for translations, debates division.
2.	The copy for these addresses was received by the bureau for translations in the usual course from the office of the right hon. the Prime Minister.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.


DISMISSALS OF POSTMASTERS
Mr. DUGUAY:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed, from 1921 to 1930: (a) without a charge being laid against them; (b) without investigation; (c) under the heading of "in the interest of the service"; (d) for the reappointment of a former incumbent; (e) without any specified reason?
2.	How many postmasters were dismissed, from August, 1930, to March, 1935?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	From 1921 to 1930, 215 postmasters were dismissed without complaint and without investigation, as follows: interest of service, 120; reinstatement, 7; no reason given, 88.
2.	From August, 1930, to March, 1935, 4 postmasters were dismissed without complaint and without investigation, as follows: interest of service, 1; reinstatement, 3; no reason given, 0.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	How much of our federal debt: (a) direct; (b) guaranteed; is payable: (a) in Canada; (b) in England; (c) in the United States?
2.	What are the maturing dates of outstanding obligations of federal debts: (a) direct; (b) guaranteed; payable in:	(a) Canada; (b)
England; (c) the United States?


Mr. RHODES:: Return tabled herewith.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	To what amount are our federal government bonds:	(a) direct; (b) guaranteed;
capable of being redeemed on call?
2.	To what amount are such federal government bonds which are redeemable on call payable (1) in Canada; (2) in England; (3) in the United States?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Return tabled herewith.



PRIVILEGE-MR. GORDON PAYMENTS FOR RELIEF BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Toronto Globe of the 23rd instant carries a report of discussions in the provincial legislature of Ontario on the 22nd instant.

Supply-Railways-Freight Rates
The article to which I want to draw attention appears under the caption:
No Ottawa help for relief works-Ontario has not received "one red cent" from federal government, Croll tells legislature.
The article commences with a quotation from Mr. Croll's speech as follows:
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bennett's relief policy is not a five cent piece-it's not a darn cent.
Now let us examine the facts.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: You have to take it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Let us see. First in regard to direct relief expenditure prior to August 1, 1934, there was paid by the federal government to the province of Ontario $5,227,143.98.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I submit this is not a question of privilege, it is an argument. If the minister is allowed to do that every member will have the same privilege.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Why do you want to shut it off?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Take your medicine.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the hon. minister has a right to give a brief statement of the facts.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall have the same latitude?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) will get exactly the same treatment as any other hon. member.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 

PRINTING OF ELECTORAL LISTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon- W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition): I think I saw the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) take a little slip from his vest pocket.

Hon. C. H. OAHAiN (Secretary of State): The inquiry I assume is in regard to the electoral lists. The electoral lists for the 243 electoral districts comprising 5,808,684 qualified electors have 'been all set up in type at the government printing bureau except the lists for two polling divisions in the electoral district of Skeena which have not been received. I have not yet been able to ascertain whether these polling divisions are still in existence or not.
The electoral lists for 214 electoral districts have been printed, bound and delivered to the franchise commissioner for distribution, and distribution began, or instructions were given for distribution a week ago to-day. Lists for the 29 other electoral districts are already in type, a large number have been printed and they are at present being bound, and I trust they will be completely bound and ready for distribution during the present week.
That hon. members may appreciate the enormous amount of work involved, I may say that the type alone used in the printing of these lists, which is kept standing, amounts to 350 tons, and the paper required is a very large quantity indeed. This additional work has been performed by the printing bureau while maintaining its ordinary services for government departments and for this parliament. I think that the officials and employees of the printing bureau, both men and women, have shown a degree of interest, speed and efficiency which is entirely commendable. There are no other two or three printing establishments in the Dominion of Canada combined which could have carried through this work in the same time.
Mr. DUFF:: When are you going to have the election?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Might I ask the Secretary of State how he proposes to find: out whether those two missing polling subdivisions are in existence?


Mr. CAHAN:: I think some Indian guides should be sent out to inquire.
Mr. MdINTOSH: I think the hon. member in that riding is safe anyway.

railways and canals
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Maritime Freight Rates Act-Additional amount, in excess of the sum of $1,440,000 already appropriated, required to provide for the payment from time to time during the

Supply-Labour-Annuities Act
fiscal year 1934-35 to the Canadian National Railway Company of the difference (estimated by the auditors of the said company and certified by the said auditors to the Minister of Railways and Canals as and when required by the said minister), occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff toills and the normal tolls (upon the same basis as set out in section 9 of the said act with respect to companies therein referred to) on all traffic moved during the year 1934, under the tariffs approved, on the eastern lines (as referred to in section- 1 of the said act) of the Canadian National Railways, $338,239.21.


Mr. VENIOT:: I should like to discuss this item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Minister of Railways
is absent to-day, but my hon. friend will appreciate that there are other railway items standing on which he can discuss any matter he so desires.


Peter John Veniot: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway Company of the net income deficit including profit and loss, incurred by the system during the year 1934, as certified to by the auditors in the annual report of the company for the year 1934, but exclusive of all non-cash items, including interest on dominion government advances, as further certified to by the auditors and approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals; this payment to be applied in reduction of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund under authority of the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1934:
Canadian National Railways, excluding eastern lines. $42,589,824.96.
Eastern lines, excluding Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, $5,434,133.74.
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, $383,942.
-Mr. EULER:	May I ask the minister
whether the department is to follow the practice adopted for the last two years, I think, of charging the Canadian National Railway deficits directly against the general account rather than against the national railways account?
Mr. RH-OD-ES:	Yes, my h,on. friend is
quite right; we are pursuing the same practice with respect to this vote as we followed last year. We are merely voting now that sum which was included in the Canadian National bill, which was passed upon also by the railway committee. We are merely voting the amount required now, and it will be charged up to the general fund.
Edward Joseph Garland: If no inconvenience would be caused anyone connected with the Canadian National system I submit that this item might well stand, involving as it does this large amount, until
the Minister of Railways is here and a discussion can take place on the whole question of the Canadian National system.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that there are other items in the main estimates which would permit a wide discussion as far as railway matters are concerned. This, of course, is a matter for the committee to determine, but unless we pass these supplementary estimates for this year and put through the bill covering them the votes will not be of any -benefit to those to whom the money is supposed to go. Under the ordinary practice we put through the supplementaries for this year and then pass a bill based upon them. The supplementaries for next year will follow in the course of a few days or -weeks as the case may be.
Mr. -GARLAND (Bow River):	Then if it
is understood that the widest possible scope will be afforded in connection with the other items I have no further objection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly. This is merely
to enable the accounts to be paid within this year, because my hon. friend will appreciate that the fiscal year ends March 31.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Annuities Act - further amount required, $50,000.
Mr. POULIlOT: I should like to point out that there are many sections of the Annuities Act which are in conflict with the unemployment insurance 'bill. I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not here, because he might be able to give us some light on the matter.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope my hon. friend
from Temiseouata will be content if he has full freedom of discussion on another item which appears in the main estimates. I have not the details before me, but as I understand it this sum is required for expenses in view of the circumstance that larger numbers of annuities are being taken out, so this sum is required to make good that increased expenditure within this present fiscal year.
-Mr. PO'UDIOT: Certainly I will agree to the request of the Minister of Finance, but I should like to direct another question to him. I should like to ask when the returns in connection with taxation will be tabled. That is a different matter, but I should be glad to have the information.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will
appreciate that I have no knowledge of the matter at the moment, but I shall be glad to make inquiries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Printing

[Stage Direction]
Printing, binding, etc., the annual statutes- further amount required, $10,713.64.
Mr. BOUCHARD:: Under this item may
I ask the minister if the speeches broadcast by the Prime Minister last January were printed and distributed to members of the house? By the answers given me to-day I gather that the translations of a number of addresses broadcast by the Prime Minister in January of this year were made by members of the staff of the bureau for translations, debates division. In reply to my second question, as to who gave the instructions, I am informed that the copy for these addresses was received by the bureau for translations in the usual course from the office of the Prime Minister, that being so should not any member of this house be entitled to obtain those speeches in both English and French, since they are considered official documents? Personally I have always considered them political propaganda.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman's
question was answered in that way, then those translations were made by the bureau for translations. I am not the collector of accounts, but I assume that if it was a personal matter the Prime Minister would be billed for the work. This item covers printing of statutes at the printing bureau. I have no idea as to whether or not any printing to which my hon. friend refers was done at the bureau; I cannot follow every item. I do know, however, that on two occasions-as hon. members will have noticed in the reports of the printing bureau-when I have sent matter to the bureau to be printed, the printing bureau always sends me a bill and I pay for that printing at the end of the month if it is not deemed to be official work or closely related to the official work of my department. This item simply covers the printing of the annual statutes. Last year the statutes were very voluminous, but the receipts from the sale of those statutes go into the treasury. I must have a vote to take care of the extra printing that was done last year.


Mr. POULIOT:: I do not object to this
vote, but I should like to ask the minister whether, since the typesetting of the voters' lists was started, any printing has had to be done outside the bureau in connection with official publications.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: None at all.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: Could the minister give us any idea as to what amount comes to the treasury through the sale of the statutes?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I could ascertain that amount, because I believe it appears in the annual return, if my memory is correct. Except for the so-called official list and those which go to several of the universities of which a list has been established over a long series of years, the statutes are paid for as they are distributed, and as payments are made the cheques go into the consolidated revenue fund from day to day.


Ernest Lapointe: Following the answer given to the hon. member for Kamouraska do I understand hon. members of the house may avail themselves of the services of the bureau for translations? If hon. members are willing .to pay for the translations, may they ask the translators to do the work, as it was done for the Prime Minister?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As a matter of fact I had no personal knowledge that that translation work had been done. I do not follow the day to day work of the translation bureau, but if that bureau receives work from any department of the government it is not for the superintendent to decide as to whether or not it is personal or official. Therefore the superintendent did exactly what he should have done under the circumstances; he put through the translation. I think possibly if the right hon. leader of the opposition or the former Minister of Justice had some text which either of them wished to have translated, and if there were time to do it, undoubtedly the translation bureau would do it for him. If it appeared that the work was of a personal nature I am sure the comptroller of the treasury would see that compensation was paid for the work.


William Duff: It seems to me the hon. member for Kamouraska has made a serious allegation. He has stated a private speech made by a private citizen of Canada was afterwards sent to the bureau for translations, and that this country paid for the work. Does the Secretary of State mean to say that if I make a speech in English at Port Felix, Harbour au Bouche, or some other point, I may send that speech to Ottawa, to the department where the translation is done, and have it translated by the public translators? It seems to me that is a rather strange way to do the business of the country. My understanding is that the public bureau for translations paid for by the taxpayers, is to be used only in connection with public documents. Surely the Secretary of State does not mean to say that any private member could go out and get off a lot of bedtime stories or make speeches throughout the country and then send them

Supply-Public Printing
to a government department to have them translated,-even if such private member were willing to pay for the actual translation? I hope the Secretary of State will investigate the matter and find out whether or not the Prime Minister or any other member of parliament, no matter how meek or little he may be, may take advantage of the bureau for translations or the public printing bureau to have his speeches printed at cost price.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As a matter of fact any translation' that was done by the bureau either in whole or in part of any addresses given by the Prime Minister was performed before any speech was delivered. In the ordinary course the bureau for translations received certain documents from the Prime Minister's office with a request that they be translated. The bureau translated them. The matter was not referred to me nor did it come within my knowledge, but the bureau acts at the request of a public department as they receive work to do from day to day.


William Duff: The question is as to whether or not the work to which reference is made constituted a governmental document. If the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State or any other minister wished to issue a governmental document to the public it would be all right to have that document printed in English and French by the public printing bureau, or to have it go to the translators to have translations made. I understand the allegation made by the hon. member for Kamou-raska is, however, that the Prime Minister was taking advantage of the fact that he was Prime Minister to have a private and political speech made by him in a certain part of this country translated into French at the expense of the people of Canada,-although I will admit he may have been willing to pay for the actual cost of translation.
I wish to say to the Secretary of State the taxpayers are not paying translators who translate into either the French or the English language to translate speeches of private members of parliament made outside of this house. My understanding is that the translators, whether they translate into English or French, have to translate only what happens within the precincts of parliament, and not anything which may arise from a happening in Halifax, Vancouver, Montreal or the Prime Minister's quarters at the Chateau Laurier.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I had no knowldege of the matter raised by the hon. member for Kamouraska, and his having done so brought to me the first intimation that any such question had arisen. I rise for the purpose of
saying that the fullest information will be gladly disclosed, and that we will secure complete information. I feel quite certain that as has been the case hitherto, if any printing or translation was done for the Prime Minister he would have arranged in advance to pay for it. There was no printing; it was a question of translation. I have risen to state that the item now under discussion has to do with printing and binding of the statutes, and the moneys required therefor. Those moneys are necessary in the present fiscal year. There will be an item in the supplementary estimates for the next year; this will come down in the course of the next few days, and will provide ample opportunity for complete discussion of this matter. Therefore I hope that under the ciroumstances hon. members will permit the item to pass on the understanding that full opportunity for discussion will be available when the item comes down, as undoubtedly it will.


Ernest Lapointe: Before the minister
secures the information may I draw his attention to the answer which was given. The question was asked, "Were the translators paid any extra salary for that additional work?" and the answer was "No." They were paid no extra salary; they have only their usual annual salary. Then the question was asked, "Was that translation work given to the translators as part of their official duty?" And the answer was, "Yes."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is the first time I have had the matter brought to my attention. The statement is made that no additional salary was paid to the translators by reason of certain work having been done, but it by no means follows that because that statement was made the work was not paid for. So I think it would be unfortunate to have a wrong impression created without first having full knowledge of the facts. I suggest the discussion might take place to greater advantage in connection with an ensuing item at a time when we will have all the facts.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I am greatly relieved, because I was wondering how the broadcast we Liberals expect our leader to make at a later date would be translated. I now find the method of doing it.


Mr. POWER:: I should like to ask the Secretary of State if it is a fact that any member of parliament may go to the bureau for translations and have newspaper clippings translated for the purpose of preparing his speech? Is that the custom?
Supply-Public Printing


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know of any such custom. I shall make inquiries and ascertain the fact I should think that if any hon. member for the purpose of his speech wished to have a short translation made from English into French or from French into English and asked permission of me to have it done I believe I would see that it was done.


Charles Gavan Power: Would it be permissible to have translations of clippings for the purpose of having them inserted in party propaganda or electoral literature?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think if such a request were made to me I would refuse it.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the Secretary of State inquire as to the hours the traslators worked on these speeches? My information is that on the very speech which laid down the principle that we must have certain maximum working hours the translators were ohliged to work until two or three o'clock in the morning, and at ordinary rates of pay, in order to have the speech ready at the proper time. If that is the case I should like the Secretary of State to inquire into the matter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Slavery.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I say to the hon.
member that this item does not include translations, but refers to the public statutes of Canada. These are translated by translators in due course. So far as the hours of labour of the translators are concerned I have made a full report, to the minute, for each day up to the date of the inquiry as to the hours employed for the translation of debates. As to the ordinary documents of the house, they are translated in the usual hours. It is true that for the purpose of procuring the translation of the official Hansard the work is done at night, exactly the same as the printing of both Hansards is done at night.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not concerned with
the printing of Hansard, and it is really out of courtesy to the Secretary of State that I am suggesting these questions now because when the time comes to discuss them on the vote for the translation bureau I propose to question the minister pretty thoroughly as to the time employed by these translators who are doing this work of translating the broadcast speeches.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Then why not leave it
till that time?


Charles Gavan Power: Simply out of courtesy to
the Secretary of State. I want to warn him so that he may come here prepared to give

us all that information, and I am sure the Secretary of State will thank me for doing it.
While I am on my feet, may I ask the Secretary of State whether the communique that was distributed all over Canada by the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the Study Club of the Conservative members of the House of Commons was also translated by the bureau?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If that question is put on
the order paper or stands as a notice I shall make inquiry.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: As we were given so
many beautiful hopes last year about the translation service, I would ask the hon. Secretary of State if we may have a French copy of the estimates that are now under discussion. I asked for a copy, and the page told me that they were not available.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have nothing to do with
furnishing French copies of the estimates. When the estimates are laid upon the table they are sent to the translators, I suppose, by the officials of the house unless they have been translated prior to that time.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think there are
any copies in French of the estimates we are considering, Mr. Chairman, and I do not think we ought to proceed with them without a French copy.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
like to ask two questions. Does the minister regard it as part of the official duties of the translators to translate the speeches that he may make outside the house? That is No. 1. The second question is this: If he does regard it as part of their official duties to translate such speeches, are they entitled to additional remuneration? Or in the event of the minister regarding that as not part of their official duties, are they not then entitled to additional remuneration? And to whom does the privilege apply of having private speeches made outside the house translated by the translation bureau?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think, Mr. Chairman,
that I have given a full answer to these questions, as the record will show.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I am most surprised to hear this discussion about the translation from English into French of the right hon. the Prime Minister's speeches. I will tell you why. It is because some time ago the Tory correspondent of a Tory newspaper in Montreal wrote in very plain language that the Prime Minister was bilingual. Now if the Prime Minister is an accomplished

Supply-Pensions-War Veterans
bilinguist, that translation by the translators was superfluous. It would seem that the speech must have been prepared by someone else than the Prime Minister, by Mr. Finlay-son, Mr. Herridge or someone else. Surely it could not have been prepared by the right hon. the Prime Minister himself for he would have dictated it both in French and in English. I strongly protest against the answer which has been given by the government to my hon. friend from Kamouraska because the government should have answered that the Prime Minister dictates his speeches in English or French according to the occasion. I do not think the government has been respectful to the Prime Minister, and I strongly object to that. The discussion which has taken place is absolutely irrelevant.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
War veterans' allowances-further amount required, $20,000.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: May I ask the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Sutherland) when he expects that the report of the special committee that is considering the question of unemployment among ex-service men will be submitted to parliament, and is it the minister's intention then to submit the report to a special committee of this house?


Mr. SUTHBREAND:: That has not yet been considered. As the hon. gentleman knows, the committee has been sitting only about a week, and as soon as I have any idea of the time when they will make their report I shall be very glad to give the information.


Mr. COOTE:: There are quite a lot of war veterans' in Canada receiving the war veterans' allowance who are homeless men, and I would ask the minister whether his department would not consider using the old Brant house at Burlington, which I think is government property, and is now vacant. It could be fitted up as a home for these men who are now homeless and in receipt of war veterans' allowance. I think they would be far better off in a home like that where they could be eared for properly, and I do not think it would cost the department any more money. I think the suggestion is certainly worthy of investigation.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The idea has some merit undoubtedly, and sooner or later I am of the opinion that some step of that kind will have to be taken for that type of men. As to the particular building which the hon. gentleman suggests I am a little doubtful as to its suitability, and particularly as to
whether the building is a good fire risk, and of course every building of that kind must be almost fireproof because old soldiers like to take a smoke at two o'clock in the morning, and there is more risk of fire in consequence. That building was an old summer hotel, and I do not think it would be fit for the purpose.


George Gibson Coote: If that building is not just as fit as the minister thinks it should be, would not the department consider fixing up some building for the purpose? The only reason I suggest that building is that I know it is standing idle and it seems to me it is well located, but it may be that the fire hazard would be too great. The minister says that sooner or later something of this kind will have to be done. It is now more than fifteen years after the war and I think it is time that the department did establish some such home for the veterans. I want to take this opportunity of pressing on the minister that he give the suggestion very serious consideration with a view to providing an item in the estimates for that purpose next year.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: These patients are
being looked after to a certain extent by the civic hospital. My own opinion is that the existing hospitals will gradually become institutions of that character. Cases of acute illness will have to be dealt with by the general hospitals under some arrangement. The department is giving a good deal of attention to this matter.


George Gibson Coote: It is true that many of these patients are being cared for by the hospitals. I have in mind one man who has been in Belcher hospital for about six years. I understand that on three different occasions the hospital authorities have threatened to carry him out of the hospital and leave him on the door-step of the rural municipality. I have had to appeal personally to the minister to prevent this being done. There is no hospital in the municipality where this man can be cared for and he should not be in the position of being dependent upon a member of parliament going to the minister to prevent his being turned out of the hospital. Surely this problem could be dealt with in a national way. As a matter of fact Belcher hospital is not the proper place to keep a man of this type. It is located in the noisiest section of Calgary. An old business house was taken over which was located alongside a freight track while Eighth avenue, along which there is a Very heavy traffic in street cars, is on the other side. I do not want to hold up the work of the committee except to say that this is a problem which should have been dealt with
Supply-Trade-Price Spreads

long ago. I think the department should bring forward proper recommendations to deal with cases of this kind. Six years ago this man was declared to be one hundred per cent disabled, not being able to put on his own clothes. He could not obtain a pension and it was only through my representations to the former Minister of Pensions and National Health that he was admitted to Belcher hospital. I am sure that this case is typical of hundreds of others. This country is well able to take care of these men and I submit that at the next session the department should present some scheme for taking care of them in a better way.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have made inquiry and
have found that the French translation of these supplementary estimates has been available to members at the distribution office ever since March 20.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to the Brant military hospital at Burlington. During the last few years this group of buildings has been inspected several times by officials from the department. The buildings are in a very poor state of repair and it would cost probably thousands of dollars to make them habitable. There is one section which is in a fair state of repair but even that has not been used for a number of years. I think these buildings should be looked at to see if they would not be suitable for use. They are located on the shore of lake Ontario amid beautiful surroundings and I think they should be made use of. The Department of Public Works has considered the taking down of the oldest building while certain other buildings in the park have been removed. There are still three or four left, one of which is being used by the watchman. The Department of the Interior has been requested by the people of Halton to take over this park and make it a national park in memory of Chief Brant, whose old residence was located there, the one he used when he was living in that section of Ontario.


Charles Gavan Power: I am under the impression that all items for the Department oif Pensions and National Health have been passed; is that right?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I believe there will be a small supplementary estimate for the coming year. This item is for the current year ending March 31.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the minister undertake to provide an opportunity to discuss matters relating to pensions and national health, particularly those relating to relief for pensioners?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am glad to give an undertaking that such an opportunity will be provided.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Royal commission on price spreads and mass buying, $75,000.
Mr. MEROIER (St. Henri):: What has been spent on this commission up to date?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: There was a specific vote last year of $170,000, all of which has been spent. A sum of $155,000 was provided by governor general's warrants and orders in council, of which $6,674 is still available. A further amount of $80,274 is required for outstanding accounts and estimated expenditures. And this $75,000 additional estimate will cover the entire requirements. I am not sure but that there is some duplication in these amounts and I can only pass on the information I received from the chairman. I shall be glad to get the exact information.


Ernest Lapointe: What amount is being paid at the present time to counsel?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The counsel were let go as soon as the evidence was concluded, the only expense now is for clerical assistance, and I understand this is very small.


Jean-François Pouliot: The members of the House of Commons who composed this commission are deserving of credit because* of the long hours they gave to this work, but I contend that their work is still incomplete. In order to make it complete it would be necessary to have several commissions working for years and years. We will have only part of the story. Not only that, but I complain, for instance-


The CHAIRMAN:: I would suggest that a discussion on the report of the price spreads commission is out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let me tell the committee why I hesitate to vote this amount of money, $75,000, which is a very considerable sum. I am entitled to do that, I will do so shortly, and my remarks will ibe to the point. In the packing business, do you know, sir, that there are two sets of ledgers.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I cannot permit the hon. member to discuss something that is not before the committee and the report is not before us.


Mr. POUMOT:: I am not discussing the report nor anything which has come before the commission; I am mentioning matters that have not come before it, and I say that the appropriation should be considerably increased in order that the whole business throughout the country may be investigated. Although $75,000 is a considerable sum, we have only part of the picture.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunlbury):: May I interrupt? This is an appropriation for a royal commission and any discussion of the report or of the proceedings of a royal commission is out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member is discussing the mechanism of it and he is quite entitled to do that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If it were a committee of the house, I would say that the discussion was in order, but in the case of a royal commission, the matter is different.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: SureJy the committee is entitled to discuss the method of expenditure of any sums it is voting.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Provided that the hon. member is discussing the method of expending the money and not the report, he is in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not touching on
the report. If I were discussing McLean's evidence about the packing business, the matter would 'be different, but I am not discussing what he has said. I claim that more money should be voted in order that we may have information about their other set of ledgers for their own use in the hogpacking business.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That is not in order.
Surely the hon. member is an old parliamentarian and he knows that is not in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret I have to differ
with you, sir, but I always bow to the ruling of the chair, and therefore I shall not continue on this point. But may I say on the first point that although the members have done their best while they have been sitting on either the committee or the commission-and it was a very dull proposition to sit there-they have only part of the picture, and to have the whole picture, several commissions should be appointed to sit at 92582-138
Supply-Trade-Price Spreads
the same time and for years in order to present a complete report. Moreover, the evidence is so considerable that men have been employed to assist the members of the royal commission. I can discuss that because part of the salaries of the men who do that work is included in the item. That appropriation would never have come before the house had the profiteers not been protected by tariff walls since 1930.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Again I must insist
that such a discussion is certainly not in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a point of order I
will explain to you, sir, that it is quite legitimate to state the reasons for an appropriation. If you suppress the cause, you suppress the effect. Therefore if you suppress the cause of all that fattening of public exploiters, you suppress the effect, namely, the exploitation of the public by those men, and thus you save money for the people. What I am after is the saving of money, and I repeat -that due to present conditions the amount set forth in the appropriation is not sufficient. If however a different policy had been adopted by this government-


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Again that is not in
order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -we would never have bad this appropriation to consider in the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the minister advise the committee as to when the report may be expected?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have been making very honest efforts to ascertain that fact. Within the past hour the chairman of the commission interviewed me with respect to this appropriation and I asked him the question. The report is now in course of final preparation and it is expected that it will reach me early next week. That is the best information I can give the committee.
Mr. CA9GRAIN: W'hen will it be tabled?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
know whether I am supposed to read the report. I understand it will cover about 500 pages of printed matter. If I were to apply myself, I might get through and digest it in a week. Then it has to go to council. Due expedition will be used, I assure the committee, to get the report on the table of the house as soon after we receive it as possible.

Supply-Miscellaneous


Jean-François Pouliot: According to a return which has been tabled, part of the cost of that royal commission has been as follows:
Mr. Norman Sommerville. ...	$ 32,581 96
Mr. W. W. Parry, K.C.. ..	11,742 10
Total cost of auditors	 192,064 44
Total cost of investigators.. 30,016 68 Total cost of investigation to March 14, 1934	 354,951 38
This does not include cost of messengers, stationery, printing and other costs of government employees.
This is a good deal of money we have to pay in addition to taxation 'or the protection of profiteers.
Item agreed to on division.
Miscellaneous'-To provide for grants to veterans of the Northwest Mounted Police, who served in the Northwest rebellion of 1885, in lieu of scrip. $300 each, as authorized by the governor in council, $3,000.


Paul Mercier: How many veterans remain?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: It is assumed that there are a few. From time to time they are turning up in different parts of the country. The original vote was $30,000 and that is exhausted. It is assumed that ten will cover the remaining number of veterans; perhaps there will be only six or seven.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the
minister finally concluded his investigation and come to a decision about pensioning the few odd mounties?


Hugh Guthrie: I have a very elaborate report on the matter and when the estimates come up I shall be glad to discuss it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-Loan to the Chicoutimi harbour commissioners for the construction of harbour improvements and facilities, additional to the amount authorized by the Chicoutimi Harbour Loan Act, 1931. and to be subject to the provision of the said act, $256,500.
Edward Joseph Garland: I would like to ask the minister whether this harbour commission makes a report and also a financial statement to parliament. The sum of money advanced is very large and it is one of those nonactive investments of the government that it is very difficult to justify in general terms.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will realize that I had expected the Minister of Marine to be present and I am not in a position to give him as complete information as I would wish. With respect to the immediate item, my recollection is that this is to cover an amount which has already been expended by the

commission and which they have borrowed from the bank under the authority of an order in council. It is an item which has stood for some time. The bank interest naturally would be higher than our own, so we thought it the part of wisdom to advance the money at the interest rate which is available to us rather than pay a higher rate to the bank.
With respect to the other part of the hon. members question, the harbour commissioners do report to the Minister of Marine, and I assume, although on this point I cannot be certain because I have not had opportunity to inquire, that he in turn tables these reports in the house. But on that latter point I am subject to correction after verification.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would like to have a copy of that report and the financial statement. It is hardly fair-but I shall also ask the minister to request the Minister of Marine to advise the committee at another sitting as to the expenditure last year of this harbour commission, and the total amount voted by parliament since the commission was set up.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be very happy to undertake to see that a complete statement of the expenditure and commitments respecting Chicoutimi harbour is furnished, and I shall also direct the attention of the Minister of Marine to the hon. member's question. But I undertake myself to see that he gets a complete statement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time, and concurred in.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is on the order paper for the purpose of the budget debate a motion that we resolve ourselves into committee of ways and means. I ask unanimous consent that we may go into committee of ways and means for the purpose of passing the resolution to enable me to bring in the bill based upon these resolutions.
And consent having been given.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 47 for granting to His iMajesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1935.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-On the short title.
Jean-François Pouliot: I shall not discuss anything on this to-day if I am told when the External Affairs estimates will come.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I cannot inform my hon. friend. If he is anxious to know I shall endeavour to find out when they will be brought in.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I am asking is if
he will be kind enough to tell me if all the estimates for External Affairs are passed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot answer offhand.
I shall have to examine the list.


Jean-François Pouliot: If they are passed may
I ask the government if any minister or envoy plenipotentiary of Canada in other countries has been authorized to lend his name directly or indirectly to the advertising of any manufactured product?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend will
look up his estimates, page 55, item 203, he will see that there will be ample opportunity afforded him to put his question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I shall not insist
on that now.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: In that connection
may I say that on several occasions, whether purposely or inadvertently, the estimates of the Department of External Affairs have sometimes been presented without very adequate notice. I wish it were possible that the house should be given fair notice of when these estimates will be up so that we may have an opportunity to be present.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall do the best I can
to accommodate my hon. friend in giving notice.


Ernest Lapointe: There is a vote for
ocean and harbour services. Some time ago I asked the Minister of Marine whether in the public works which have been carried on
in the harbour of Quebec under the Public Works Construction Act public tenders had been asked, and he said no, that tenders had been asked only from certain local firms, in order to keep the work for local workmen. Afterwards I asked what firms had been invited to tender, and the minister gave me a list of six or seven names which did not include the most important contracting firms in Quebec city. I sent the minister a letter, because there is other work to be done under the same vote and under new votes this year, in which I gave a list of fifteen of the leading contracting firms of Quebec city, asking the minister, if he does not invite public tenders, at least to request tenders from these reliable firms. As yet I have not been privileged to receive an answer from the minister, but I should like my hon. friend to bring this very important question to the attention of the Minister of Marine and to assure him that I will not leave him free of this matter before the end of the session.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be very pleased
to undertake to direct the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Marine, to the question raised by my hon. friend from Quebec East. In that connection I would point out to him that in the main estimates two items still remain to be passed, and I trust that my hon. friend can look for his reply when those items are called.


Charles Gavan Power: I would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that while there may be some improvement in the. list of contractors when the names suggested by the hon. member for Quebec East have been added to those names already carefully selected by the Minister of Marine and his friends, it might be well if a few contractors in Quebec South were added to the list. I propose to make this suggestion later on also.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be very happy to direct the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Marine, to the remarks of my hon. friend from Quebec South.


Ernest Lapointe: I may tell my hon. friend that in order to make my list as imposing as possible I have included his contractors as well as my own.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed
[Stage Direction]
The Budget

Mr. Woodsworth

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 27, 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.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, in the course of his speech last evening the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) gave a very impressive list of the legislative measures which have been brought down by the government. I think some of us are quite willing to concede that, especially last year and this year, the government have broken new ground, but I submit that the program of the government offers no solution at all to our outstanding economic problems. Hence I agree with the statement contained in the earlier part of the amendment:

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-
In one point I agree with the Minister of Railways; that is in his appeal to the official -opposition to state their alternative proposals. It seems to me the opposition have taken an -exceedingly weak position in simply calling attention to the inadequacy of the government's proposals while giving no alternative program at all, merely calling for an election. It is all very well to call for an election, but before the people can intelligently decide any matter at an election they should have a definite alternative program placed before them. The Liberals are not playing fair with the electors unless at this session of the house they state definitely their program.
Apparently once again the Minister of Railways would give the impression that prosperity is just around the comer. I submit that the statement of the Prime Minister in his radio addresses was much closer to the real facts of the situation. It will be remembered that he said:
The truth is disturbing. The world is in tragic circumstances. The signs of recovery are few and doubtful. The signs of trouble are many, and they do not lessen.
If that is true of the world at large I believe it is also true of our own country. The signs of recovery are few and doubtful; the signs of trouble are many and they do not lessen. A review of the situation in

Canada such as was included in the earlier part of the budget speech would be hardly complete unless it frankly stated that there is continued stagnation in business, notwithstanding the array of statistics that are sometimes brought forth to the contrary. The ordinary man on the street knows perfectly well that he is still on the very ragged edge of things and that the present situation is by no means satisfactory.
We are faced, not merely in this house but also in the provinces and in the municipalities, with mounting debts. There seems to be no way out, and in addition we have a most serious unemployment problem, which is not lessening. Yesterday we had a conference of mayors meeting with a number of members of parliament, when they presented a case-and I think a very strong case-for immediate action on the part of the dominion government. I have no doubt that most hon. members have received from this body a comparative statement of the relief situation in Canadian municipalities in relation to municipal finances. It is not my intention to burden the pages of Hansard with many of the figures therein contained, but I should like to direct attention to one or two significant statements. In a total of some ninety cities and towns in Canada we find there is an average of 16-7 per cent of the entire population on relief. Further, the ratio of relief expenditures in the municipalities to their entire expenditure is 10-3. That is indeed a very serious situation. Then, turning to the gross total of bonded indebtedness of all classes of municipalities we find that Canada with a population of 9,860,400 has a gross bonded municipal indebtedness of $1,385,071,100, or a per capita of S140.47.
I believe no one could listen to the presentation made last night by the representatives and mayors without feeling something of a breath of reality that is not very common in this House of Commons. It has become the practice in this chamber to put the best face on matters or, on the other hand, to draw an exaggerated picture of the difficulties into which the government policy has brought us. But here was a group of men representing, pretty directly, as they themselves put it almost half the population of Canada. Some of them belonged to one party and soma to another, but they came direct from the people and from actual problems urging that some action be taken. In view of the visit of that delegation, the timing of which I do not think has any political significance, I do not think we can say that the situation in Canada is at all satisfactory. We have the growing debts and

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
the condition whereby municipalities are no longer able to maintain the care of the unemployed which hitherto they have given. I cannot see how this government can much longer avoid accepting the responsibility which the municipalities have urged we should assume. In fact we had the warning from the responsible heads of these municipal bodies that unless the government did come to the rescue it would be only a matter of time before there would be riots in our cities.
Looking at the economic situation in a larger way may I point out two very great changes which have taken place in comparatively recent years. The first is that to which the Prime Minister himself in his radio addresses called attention, namely, that we have no longer an open market. Free competition, with the amount of natural regulation which it entailed, has been swept away, and we find a certain measure of planned regulation or monopoly. For me that is the challenge which meets the Libera! party with its older Liberal traditions. I know that sometimes the leader of the opposition protests that he does not cling to the laissez-faire policy, but if he does not I say he has no right to call himself a Liberal of the old school. That is essentially the traditional policy of Liberalism, and one which I maintain is altogether inadequate to meet the situation now facing us. Undoubtedly the open market, with all that is involved by way of free competition in that market, has gone; for that reason I believe the government is quite right, in feeling its way towards greater regulation and planning. I take it that whatever government may be in power in the future will have to adopt a program of regulation.
There is another development in the economic world however which the Prime Minister did not stress, namely, the passing of world markets. Years ago when his party was seeking power the Prime Minister, as is well remembered, said that he would blast his way into the markets of the world. A year or so ago he returned from Europe a sadder and wiser man, because his message was practically this, "There are no markets." That, it seems to me, is about the truest statement the Prime Minister ever made, and one which is not fully recognized either by his followers or by hon. members of the official opposition. In view of the economic developments which have taken place in recent years I do not believe we can ever hope to have the expanding markets the world once enjoyed. Nearly all the leading countries of the world have adopted the capitalist system, producing not only for their immediate needs but to supply external maikets. Those countries wnich were
once our customers are now our competitors; that is a chronic situation. Under these circumstances it seems to me that we will have to revise our whole national economy. Those people who to-day talk about securing markets or rebuilding external trade fail to realize the very great economic changes which have taken place in our own day.
The budget it seems to me is quite in line with the so-called reform legislation which we have had this year, that is to say it is wholly inadequate; in fact, it is a bitter disappointment. In his radio speeches the Prime Minister divided all the recipients of income into two classes, the non-producers on the one hand, the people living on their investments, and the producers or workers on the other hand, the people living as the result of their labour. He suggested there was inequality in the incomes received by the producers and the non-producers. He suggested, further, that taxation might be used in order to redistribute the national income and to secure a greater measure of equality between these two groups. Let me read a paragraph from the Prime Minister's second radio speech:
I think there is from all worth while points of view' an inequality in the distribution of income; and I think, as between the nonproducer and the producer, there must be devised, by some plan of taxation to be considered at once, a better balance, not only in fairness to the producer but also in the interests of the non-producer.
And again:
It is both uneconomic and unfair to trespass, at least farther than we have already, upon the non-producer's income which is only sufficient to maintain the possessor of it in the ordinary necessities and comforts of life. Incomes w-hich are much in excess of this properly irreducible minimum are subject to another rule.
May I say parenthetically that the great majority of the people of Canada are not receiving incomes sufficient to enable them to obtain the ordinary necessities and comforts of life. However, that was the Prime Minister's proposal in the radio addresses. Those addresses have gone far and wide, but how does the Prime Minister now implement the suggestions made in those addresses? He or the Finance minister brings down a provision for a surtax on large incomes. I need not read the table, but the surtax in the case of incomes over 85,000 but not exceeding S10,000 is two per cent, and from $10,000 to $14,000 three per cent, and so on up to incomes of
8200.000	which pay a surtax of ten per cent. These sliding scales or percentages may look all very well on paper. It is quite true that the man with a large income pays a larger surtax than the man with a small income. Bu*
The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

this is really a delusion, Mr. Speaker, if it is meant to be an equalization of income. A man getting an income of 8200,000 may pay
S20,000	in surtax, but what is a tax of $20,000 on $200,000? It still leaves him $180,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend will permit me, his statement is not accurate, because he is dealing only with the surtax.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so. That is
what I said.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: But the hon. gentleman
said that he had left $180,000, which is not correct. Actually it is a very heavy tax.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Of course, he has
lo pay the regular income tax, but $180,000 is the actual amount he has left to be taxed with the ordinary tax.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, Mr. Chairman, that
nas no reference to it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The surtax, if I
jnderstand it, means a tax over and above the regular income tax.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, quite so, but its
measure is not upon the tax already paid but upon unearned income or upon a stated salary.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is quite right, and that is what I am trying to say. Using the Minister's own words would make my case all the stronger, for he points out that this is unearned income. That is what I want to impress upon the house, and the payer of that tax has a very substantial amount left.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: But not $180,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: months. According to their report it is quite possible with the present equipment in the United States for each family to have the equivalent of an income of $4,400 per year. No thought was taken of new inventions or new methods, they were dealing only with the present resources and equipment, which if properly organized would provide that income for each family. Similar conditions exist in Canada. So under a pro,per system Canadian families might receive an income of upward of $4,000 yet we have seen that the great majority of families have an income of less than $1,000. As long as this is true I cannot accept the policy of the government as satisfactory.
I should like to direct the attention of the bouse to the physical conditions under which so many of our population are forced to exist. Not long ago I received a copy of the report of the Lieutenant Governor's committee on housing conditions in Toronto, 1934. I think it would pay every hon. member to obtain a copy of this report in order that he might understand the serious conditions which exist in one of the wealthiest of our Canadian cities. Let me turn for a moment to the east, to Montreal, the largest of our Canadian cities. In the Gazette of January 29, I find a report of General C. E. McCuaig, given before the emergency unemployment relief committee and the Protestant employment bureau which met at the Mount Royal hotel. This report reads:
There is for instance, within what is actually a stone's throw from the centre of our shopping district, a block of dwellings built on a back lot and' closely surrounded by other buildings. It contains 19 four-room apartments with but three baths between them in which dwell no less than 148 persons, a concentration equal to 1,400 persons to an acre. In one of these apartments of four rooms there are 13 persons living; in another, 12; in another. 10; in two, nine persons, and in the others from four to eight persons.
Another paragraph reads:
Close to Sherbrooke street is a complete Mock of dilapidated dwellings with sagging walls and floors. Bad sanitary conditions, dampness, leaking roofs, vermin, in fact many conditions exist in this block any one of which should render it unsatisfactory as a dwelling place. Yet in it are crowded men, women and children, three and four to the room. In one five-room apartment there is a family of two parents and seven children, five of whom have been hospital eases this year and another is now suffering from pleurisy.
Families live in basements below the street level under cold and damp conditions. Old houses in the centre of the city have been converted by means of thin boards into apartments with as many as twenty people of four, five and six families sharing one community

bathroom, sometimes without a bath. These conditions exist within our city and despite our city and provincial laws. They are a challenge to our civic pride, not only through their effect upon the health and morals of those who are forced to live in them but as centres from which pestilence and vice may easily breed, to spread.' to your home and mine.
That is a challenge, not merely to that city and province but to the whole of this dominion. From this corner we have repeatedly urged that instead of providing a dole such as is done, we should have some definite construction work which would eliminate such conditions. We should at the same time provide the people with real work and higher living standards. There is no indication whatever in this budget that any far-reaching program of that kind is to be undertaken.
I should like to crave the indulgence of the house while I read a letter from the local council of women of Calgary, dated March 20, 1935. I have referred to conditions existing in the east but I should like to turn now to the west and listen to the voice of the women. This letter comes from the home city of the Prime Minister and it gives a careful analysis of the conditions existing there. It reads:
Dear Mr. Woodsworth:
As a result of tragic events an emergency meeting of the local council of women of Calgary was called yesterday and the following analysis of the situation is hereby submitted to you for the earnest consideration of yourself and your colleagues.
Within a period of two weeks. March 4. and March 15. 1935, two youths, aged twenty and eighteen years, of the city of Calgary, have taken their own lives. Both cases w;ere reported briefly in the local papers as accidents, doubtless with the considerate intention on the part of the press to spare the families avoidable pain. But both cases were stark suicide. How much mental anguish preceded the final tragic acts can only be surmised.
Those who dare to face the facts realize that, in these two cases, self-destruction was the reaction of temperaments sensitive to the impact of intolerable conditions, economic, social and psychological. These conditions today are general and to a greater or less degree gre alarmingly affecting the whole generation of our times.
Where does the responsibility lie? We have in Canada an abundance-indeed a glut-of material things. The intelligence quotients and the percentage of literacy o,f the Canadian people are notably high. We possess able and trained men and women ready and eager to attack and to solve our problems. Does our governmental system make it impossible to intelligently recruit and' coordinate the services of able, selfless men and women in the great cause of the public interest?
We bring our children along through childhood and early youth with a highly motivated devotion, in our homes and in our schools. We teach them by implication at least, that life

The Budget-Mr. Fraser (Cariboo)
is sacred, a worth-whjle and a glorious experience; that the individual is valuable; that to each belongs the privilege and the obligation to make his or her social contribution; that the contribution of each is acceptable so long as it is his or her best.
Our children pass out of childhood. They reach the biological age when it is essential to normal development that they emancipate themselves from the shelter of homes and schools and when the biological urge is strong and suppression is disastrous and dangerous. Under the conditions of to-day these young people are confronted only with frustration and denial. They find themselves-like our vast stores of wheat in a country of hungering people-a cause for public perplexity and embarrassment, simply because they exist.
Everywhere a vast diversity of services is needed to make the lives of our people tolerable, healthy and secure, services which, with an intelligent organization, these young people could be directed to render.
Where does responsibility lie? How many young lives must be partially or wholly blasted before their cry will be heard by those who have accepted responsibility for managing and directing our social system?
We, therefore, unanimously urge that emergency action be taken, while long term plans are evolving, to provide our young people with normal opportunities in life.
Very truly vours,
M. A. Hall,
Corresponding Secretary.
The reading of a long letter like that may not be considered a sign of a good speech, but some of us have reached the point where we are more interested in getting these questions discussed than we are as to the particular quality of our speeches.
I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). It seems to me that we have in this country abundance to provide for the needs of all our people and to meet such conditions as are outlined in the letter I have read from the women of Calgary. Canada is not a poor country; she is as wealthy as she ever was, wealthy as she was in the boom times. The real wealth is all here. The trouble is that the wealth is not available for the people. We in this corner of the house have tried again and again to show some of the reasons why that wealth is not available. The fact of our abundant wealth cannot be doubted or controverted by anyone. Let me put the case very simply: we have piles of leather that frequently are rotting on the farm because the farmer cannot receive anything worth while if he takes the hides to market. We have the machinery that is capable of transforming that leather into boots, but the machinery is rusting through disuse. We have over yonder large numbers of people, even boys and girls, who are going with poor shoes. Why cannot that leather be put
into that machinery and made available in the form of boots for the needs of the people? That exemplifies the real situation existing to-day in every department of our economic life. We may put it in more general terms than that, but that illustration may suffice to drive home the case. We have reached the point when we shall have to regard the great resources and equipment of this country as essentially the property of the Canadian people to be administered in supplying the needs of the masses.


Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: I should
like to add my words of commendation to the excellent effort of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) in presenting the annual budget. It cannot be questioned that the budget is a story of definite and unmistakable progress, and I think the people of this country will realize that a budget which shows such definite and unmistakable progress is entitled to some measure of commendation.
Before I proceed with the remarks I have to make. I would like to spend just one minute on the observations of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). As the leader of a party in Canada who is submitting his proposals to the people for their approval in the approaching general election, he says that the government has no program that is adequate to meet existing conditions. He makes that statement definitely and he spoke for forty minutes. I want any hon. member to point out to me any one proposal he mentioned that would cure the situation that we have at the present time, or that would improve it in any shape of form. Let me go further: I have listened in this house and in the country to the remarks of hon. gentlemen who sit in the extreme left corner and who call themselves the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and I fail to find in anything I have ever heard them say where they have any policy of any kind to submit to the people that will improve conditions in this dominion. What remedies does he offer? The last remark he made was: Why cannot the leather be put into the machines and passed on to the boys in the shape of pairs of boots? Can he show us the way to do that sort of thing?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: Did he attempt
in any shape or form to show this house how that could be done?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, often.


John Anderson Fraser: Well, we have
not heard it.

The Budget-Mr. Fraser (Cariboo)


An hon. MEMBER:: Where has the hon.
member been?


John Anderson Fraser: Perhaps I was
one of those who were asleep the other day according to what the financial critic of the opposition said, but upon my word anything that I have ever listened to from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group in the extreme left corner in the way of proposals to improve conditions in this country will not have effect in that regard.


Edward Joseph Garland: Did the
hon. gentleman ever hear the quotation: ''There are none so blind as those who will not
see"?


John Anderson Fraser: Well, I am getting pretty well on in years, but I have a little eyesight left yet. I have spent a little longer than a minute and I do not want to take any more time with this, because after all they do not and they never will amount to anything, for there is not a practical suggestion they have ever made in this house or outside and I do not think they have a practical idea in their heads from one end of the group to the other.
I said that the budget was a story of definite and unmistakable progress. That is confirmed by our own bureau of statistics which indicates that the physical volume of business is up by 48-5 per cent as compared with what it was at the low point. That is some advance. We are getting along fairly well. In addition to that an outside authority, the League of Nations, says that Canada leads all the nations of the world, with its index figure of 46-2 per cent. If we are to be blamed for going down surely we must get some credit when we commence to go up. I think there is a great deal of credit coming to the government for the policies they have pursued. The improvement has been the result of the intelligent action of this government. Let me point out some of the signs of improvement in this country. Take the export of lumber. Our lumber exports last year were at the all time peak.


Mr. MUNN:: Would the hon. member permit a question? He speaks of the all time record, does he refer to world shipments or United Kingdom shipments?


John Anderson Fraser: All exports.


Albert Edward Munn: World shipments?
Mr. FP.ASER (Cariboo):	Export shipments, yes, I did not confine it to the United Kingdom.


Albert Edward Munn: Well, that is different.


John Anderson Fraser: It is not different from what I intended to say. As a result of the shipment of that lumber there came into this country a sum of $278,000,000 of new money. The export of a great deal of that lumber is a direct result of the policies of the present government, and I think the people of British Columbia particularly, and my good friend who is an operator out there appreciate that fact. I would not be surprised to find my hon. friend voting for this government next session; he cannot help himself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For the government, but not for this government.


John Anderson Fraser: He will be voting for us, and it would be a good thing if other hon. members would use a little common sense and do the same.
Then the next thing is wheat; the value of the wheat crop is up 33 per cent. The value of the field crops of Canada is up 16-7 per cent. Live stock prices are up, and so it is all along the line. For the information of the house I should like to read a record which I have just got of live stock prices during last year:
Cattle and Calves
Stockyard sales of cattle were 700,817 head, against 604,077 in 1933. Calf sales were 371,110, against 317,110 in 1933.
The weighted average price of all cattle combined, for all stockyards combined, was $3.10 per hundredweight, against $3 in 1933. Calves -$4.10, against $3.75 in 1933.
Good to choice butcher steers averaged $4.85 per hundredweight at Toronto and $4.40 at Winnipeg.
The total value of stockyard sales of cattle in 1934 (estimated) was $21,015,336, against $17,575,996. Calves-$2,815,638, against $2,914,876 in 1933.
Exports of cattle to the United Kingdom were 53,852 head, against 50,317 in 1933.
Exports of beef to all points were 15,092,200 pounds, against 10,007,700 pounds in 1933.
Hogs
Sales at yards and plant were 3,038,155 head, against 3,172,980 in 1933.
Average price of select bacon hogs-$9.10 at Toronto and $8.12 at Winnipeg, against $6.17 and $5.36 respectively in 1933.
Average weighted price of all hogs at al. yards combined-$7.70, against $5 in 1933 (includes all grades and weights).
Stockyard value - $14,950,000, against $10,352,544 in 1933.
Exports of	bacon-119,707,600	pounds,
against 71,524,700 pounds in 1933. Value- $18,754,113, against $8,071,803 in 1933.
But still we hear hon. members talking about lack of results, nothing definite received by this country as a result of the Ottawa agreements. Then we have sheep and lambs. Here is a remarkable showing:

The Budget-Mr. Fraser (Cariboo)
Slaughterings-852,222 head, against 868,679 in 1933.
Average prices at stockyard's, $5.60, against $5.35 in 1933, for all grades.
Average price for good handyweight lambs at Toronto $7.17 and at Winnipeg $4.75. Toronto price range $4 to $12, Winnipeg's $2 to $10.50.
Exports practically nil. Listen to this, those of you who remember how much mutton we used to import from New Zealand not long ago; Canada is now on a self-supporting basis as far as mutton and lamb are concerned. Some record, I say.
The next thing to which I have to direct the attention of the house is the improvement in the fruit and vegetable markets. They have been steadied by the intelligent application of the dumping and exchange duties and things of that kind, not the harebrained application that prevailed during the time of my hon. friends opposite. As a result of the proper application of tariff measures of one kind and another there were imported into Canada last year 700 carloads less of apples than in 1930. Would any hon. member tell me that the fruit growers of the Okanagan or of any fruit-growing district throughout Canada do not realize what that means to them? That is all a result of a little good judgment, of knowing how to apply the tariffs intelligently so as to get major benefits from their application.
Mineral production was very close to its all time peak, I think in the neighbourhood of S278.000.000, but I shall have something more to say about that in a minute.
Since the low point of the depression in 1933,	340,000 people have been put to work.
Then I turn to some financial measures, for instance, the establishment of the Bank of Canada, a major operation I should say, one which will have a very material effect on the commercial and industrial life of this country. Bank interest rates are down. That is because i he government applied pressure to the banks. Heretofore the situation was that we had on the statute books an act that provided for a maximum interest rate of 7 per cent, but there was no penalty provided and the consequence was that that provision was flagrantly violated. Now, severe penalties are imposed for evasion of the statute in any form. Since 1933, this government has converted1 $1,100,000,000 of outstanding debt to lower rates of interest with a resulting saving of $14,600,000 in interest charges. That is an accomplishment, something for which this government certainly should get credit. In these days we hear a great deal of talk by irresponsible people with regard to the reduction of interest rates, but the government of this country has been
carrying on quietly, going its way from day to day, discharging its ordinary duties and doing something concrete to improve conditions in that way. People who had money to loan were encouraged to charge these high rates of interest during the tenure of office of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Then we have increased car loadings on both railways, together with an improvement in their earnings. The government also provided assistance for the agriculturists of this country. Last session we passed the Natural Products Marketing Act. I need not say anything about that at the present time, because it is only commencing to operate, but I venture to say that when full advantage is taken of the provisions of that act it will mean a great deal to the agricultural communities of this country. We also passed the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. the value of which to the farmers of Canada it is difficult to estimate at the present time. But when you look at the farm mortgage debt of this country you can imagine the benefit that is going to accrue from that act. We also amended the Farm Loan Act, under which credit is to be advanced to those farmers who are in need of long term money. And mark this, Mr. Speaker; the former government provided an amount of only $10,000,000 under this act. They did not want to get their feet very wet, but we have increased that amount to $90,000,000. and we are not afraid that the agricultural communities of this country will misuse that amount of money. Last year we also provided for a public works program amounting to $40,000,000 of which $8,000,000 has been expended already, with the remainder to be spent during the present year, and this is such a reasonable and businesslike government that I am very hopeful that we will have an additional amount provided before the end of this session.
In addition to all this we have the assistance that has been extended by the central government to the provinces and municipalities that found themselves in difficulties. I am not going into this matter to any great extent, but I should like to note what has been done for the province of British Columbia, from which I come. On March 28 the net loans outstanding to the province of British Columbia amounted to $15,014,234. The total cash given British Columbia for relief amounted to $14,158,837, while $3,643,682 had been spent on relief camps in that province. In addition $352,987 had been expended in connection with the national parks and public works contruction relief program. And I do

The Budget-Mr. Fraser (Cariboo)
not think for a moment that British Columbia has been treated any better than any other province that was in necessitous circumstances.
Then we have the outstanding feature, so far as I am concerned, of the whole relief program; that is, the assistance that has been extended in the drought stricken areas of Saskatchewan. For a considerable period of time we took care of practically 300,000 people in that area, and at present I believe something like half that number are still being supported by the government. That is a national responsibility; these people have suffered calamity and they are entitled to the support they are receiving. We only hope that in a very short time conditions will be such that they will be able to take care of themselves. As nearly as I can figure it out, and I may be wrong, the total amount spent by the government in connection with relief is about 8175,000,000, but the demand for relief seems to be worse at present than it has been in the past. I do not understand why that should be so. With improved conditions and with the assistance that has been extended to the provinces and municipalities I do not understand why we do not see some improvement in general conditions, but apparently, from what has taken place in Montreal during the past few days, these people in the provinces and municipalities seem to have thrown up their hands entirely and said they could not go on any longer. I canuot see that angle at all. I think they should have a little more courage; with all due deference to those gentlemen I think if they put a little more effort into their work of taking care of local matters of this kind they would not have to call on the federal government so much.
I think all hon. members will remember what happened in 1932 when the house was considering the Ottawa agreements. The opposition claimed that we were ruining our foreign trade. They said we were not going to have any more foreign trade, that no one would do business with us. Since that time, however, we have gone on and made trade treaties with foreign countries to the advantage of both this country and those foreign countries. We have done just as the Liberals did when they were in office, except that we have made better and more equitable trade arrangements which will stand up under any sort of criticism they have to offer. The most astonishing feature of the whole situation is that when these treaties come up in the house for review we do not hear any opposition to them. Hon. gentlemen opposite know they cannot be criticised.


Albert Edward Munn: Did you make any treaties with our nearest neighbour, the United States?


John Anderson Fraser: I shall have a word to say about that in a moment, if my hon. friend will be patient. We have entered into trade agreements with France, Poland, Germany, Austria and Brazil, and the other day we were told that treaties are pending with two other important foreign countries. I do not know whether or not the United States is one of those countries, but we all know that negotiations with that country are under way at the present time. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem rather afraid that we may be rather successful in making a good treaty with that country.


Albert Edward Munn: No, I am all for it.


John Anderson Fraser: Certainly my hon. friend is all for it. He will be all for it after we pass it, too; he will not have a word to say about it, but just the same he will go out in the country and say this government is no good.


Albert Edward Munn: They will leave it to the next government.


John Anderson Fraser: The next government wil be all right, too.
Now I should like to say a few words in regard to tariff matters, and I should like my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) to put down his newspaper and listen to me for a moment. He is the chap who talked about the rampaTts of ruin that were thrown around this country by this government, and I want to tell him something if he will listen for a moment. To listen to hon. gentlemen opposite one would think this government had imposed unbearable taxation on the people due to the application of excessive duties. He sipoke about the duty collected per capita. Hon. members could get this information themselves. I think this fellow, this hon. member, is pretty intelligent, and the other day when he made his ram-parts-of-ruin speech he must have known the facts. In 1911 after fifteen years-or some-think like that-of Liberal government they collected from the people of Canada per capita in tariff duties S10.17, and in 1934, after this government had raised the ramparts of ruin, 'the collection was only 86.75. There are your ramparts of ruin! Those figures indicate the exaggeration which hon. members opposite have to use in order to make any ease at all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have no trade; that is why.


John Anderson Fraser: In 1911 the per capita taxation, so far as the tariff was concerned, amounted to $10.17, and in 1921 if

The Budget-Mr. Fraser (Cariboo)
had risen to $19.89. Mark this, from 1921 to 1930, the party opposite was in power-this low tariff party, the party which is going to reduce the tariff every time it comes into office, and the party which promises to remove oppressive taxation from the shoulders of the poor people of Canada. In 1930, after nine years of office they had reduced the per capita taxation, so far as the tariff is concerned, from $19.89 to $19.50. In other words they reduced the figure by 39 cents in ten years. That is some record! And mark this, while in 1930 the per capita tariff taxation was $19.50, in 1931 after we had raised the ramparts of ruin it was $14.37.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Trade
went down.


John Anderson Fraser: In 1932 it was further reduced to $10.85; in 1933 to $7.23 and in 1934 $6.75.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Slipping all the time; trade going down.


John Anderson Fraser: How does it sound? Then, another gem from the observations of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre; I mean his reference to the greatest example of tariff raising in our history. I have given the record-from $19.50 down to $6.75.
I am not through with the hon. gentleman. Let us turn to the average rate of duty, another very interesting study. I shall not go into many details, but shall be content to go back to the year 1921. In 1921 the average rate of duty on total imports stood at 14-1 per cent. In 1930, with a low tariff government in power it was 15-9 per cent. That indicates an increase of T8 per cent, if my mathematical calculation is correct. In 1931 it had gone up to 16-4 per cent, an increase of -5 per cent. In 1932 it went up to 19-7 per cent; in 1933 it went down to 19 per cent and in 1934 it stood at 16-9 per cent. The ramparts of ruin which we have raised around this country between the years 1930 and 1934 are, so far as rates of duty are concerned, exactly one per cent. The increase has been from 15-9 per cent to 16-9 per cent.
Another factor which has something to do with export and import trade, and a difficulty which this government tried to correct by way of the Ottawa agreements, is that of deflecting our excessive exports and imports- or, only imports, if you like

from the United States to a country more friendly to us in a trading way. In 1921 the percentage of total imports from the United Kingdom stood at 17'3 per cent. In 1931 the percentage had
been reduced to 16-5 per cent, and in 1934 as a result of t'he Ottawa agreements, and for mo other reason, the proportion had increased to 24-2 per cent. Our exports too had increased. In 1921 we exported to the United Kingdom 26-3 per cent of our total exports, in 1931, 27-2 per cent and last year 39-3 per cent.
We have heard a great deal about the duty against imports from the United Kingdom and the excessive rates of duty we have levied on textiles particularly. The total rates of duty levied are as follows: In 1930 we imposed a rate of 20-5 per cent; in 1931 19-6 per cent, while in 1932 the rate was 20-5 per cent, an increase of a little more than one per cent. Then in 1933 the percentage decreased to 18-6, while last year it was back to 20-5. Notwithstanding all the hot air we have heard about the increase of duty on goods from the United Kingdom the fact is that we have reduced the rate by nine-tenths of one per cent on the total imports.
In all reasonableness why should the financial critic of the opposition say that the tariff policy of this government has been futile when that policy has been the means of increasing our trade? We are not substantially increasing restrictions on trade. If I understand the signs of the times we propose from time to time to reduce duties. We are not going around the country telling people that we are going to reduce them and then, upon taking office, failing to carry out our promises. We say before we take office, "We are going to impose a reasonable and a fair tariff," and when we take office we impose that reasonable and fair tariff.
I do not see why the financial critic should say that these tariff policies are futile when they are increasing our trade. They are improving the position not only of Canada but of the old country and they are hurting no person. Then we have the criticism that the Prime Minister did not blast his way into the markets of the world. The statement is made that he promised to make tariffs fight for Canada. I think he has been doing just that very thing; I do not know what else one could call it. If one were to study the situation and if he were to take the trade returns received from time to time he must conclude that for some reason or another from day to day the trade of Canada is increasing. Of course, being a good supporter of the government I say the government should receive the benefit for that increase in trade.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Prime Minister was
K.O'd in that prize fight, and he still thinks he is OK.

J'he Bridget-Mr. Fraser (Cariboo)


John Anderson Fraser: Now I come to a subject which is of greater concern to the province of British Columbia than are matters which have to do with agriculture. I refer to the mining industry, and in this connection I shall try not to take up too much time of the house. I believe the mines of Canada furnish one of the most important natural resources we have, resources capable of vast expansion. If cared for they will add very materially to the progress and prosperity of the dominion. The production in 1934 was very close to the all time peak of production in Canada. We produced minerals in Canada last year to the value of $278,337,000, and that was up twenty-five per cent from the preceding year.
Now for the place that Canada occupies in the mining world. In the production of asbestos and nickel Canada stands in first place ini the world. Canada stands second place in the world in the production of platinum, cobalt and radium. Canada stands third place in the world in the production of gold and copper, and Canada stands fourth place in the world in the production of lead and zinc. There is another factor which I should like to bring to the attention of the house, and that is that Canada produces more nickel than any other country, and probably more than is produced by all the rest of the world put together.
Now to come to British Columbia, in order to show that the mining industry in British Columbia is feeling some of the benefits of the policy of this government, I want to put on the record the production in our province.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do you
include the gold tax as a beneficent policy?


John Anderson Fraser: I thought we
fixed that gold tax.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
glad you did.


John Anderson Fraser: I think we will have to take some measures to fix you.
The mineral production in British Columbia in 1934 amounted to 307,700 ounces of gold and' by the way let me remind my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre that the government did not impose a tax on placer mines, and placer gold mining is the principal industry in Cariboo. British Columbia, as I say, produced 307.700 ounces of gold in 1934, valued at $10,480,000, and prior to 1933 British Columbia had never produced over $6,000,000 in gold in any one year. In that same year, 1934, British Columbia produced
8,907,000	ounces of silver valued at $4,197,800;

340,700,000	pounds of lead valued at $8,313.080, and 49,400.000 pounds of copper valued at S3,566,630.
Let me give one other item with respect to the mining industry in Canada before I deal further with the province of British Columbia.
There are in operation in Canada at the present time seventy-three metallurgical mills reducing the ores of this country and extracting from them valuable metals. Of this number thirty-one are in Ontario, twenty-one in British Columbia, nine in Quebec, eight in Nova Scotia and four in Manitoba. Here is a remarkable thing, and I wish hon. members would take note of it and think over it for a few days and see what they feel about it. In all the seventy-three mills that are in operation in Canada at the present time the metallurgical processes in operation in each and every one of them have been passed on by the Department of Mines in the city of Ottawa. You have in the city of Ottawa to-day one of the most up to date and one of the most efficient mining departments that you can find anywhere in the world, and I think this government is to be congratulated on the efficiency of the staff which they have been able to secure to direct and experiment in connection with the mines of the Dominion of Canada. In British Columbia in January, 1933, we had eight of these mills in operation; at the end of 1934 there were seventeen, and at the present time there are twenty-one.
Just to give the house some idea of some of the mines we have out there in British Columbia let me call attention to the record of the Pioneer mine. The Pioneer mine in 1934 produced $3,045,000 in gold. It has produced altogether $7,957,800 in gold. It has paid in dividends $2,940,540. The Pioneer mine employs three hundred men and supports six hundred persons. Its milling capacity is 400 tons per day. In 1924 this property changed hands for $8,000. To-day its estimated value is $21,000,000. Listen to this, you speculators!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What about the government?


John Anderson Fraser: Order, Mr. Speaker, please. Listen to this. An investment of $100 in the Pioneer mine in 1925 is now worth $265,500.


William Duff: Not enough.


John Anderson Fraser: Better than fish. Then the Bralorne mine produced in 1934,

The Budget-Mr. Gershaw
$1,560,000, and its production to date is $2,740,878. Bralorne paid in dividends in 1934, $775,000. It has a milling capacity of 400 tons per day.
Take another mine, Cariboo Gold Quartz. This mine produced in 1934, $470,000 worth of gold, and its total production to date is $700,000. This mine, which began large scale operations only two years ago, bas now five miles of underground workings and a capacity of a hundred tons per day.
Other gold mines in the district which I have the honour to represent are Vidette, which milled in 1934, 7,217 tons of ore and produced 3,589 ounces of gold, 7,242 ounces of silver and 9,189 pounds of copper, with a total value of $129,415; the Island Mountain mine, which went into operation early in November and has produced $55,000 in gold-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman's
time has expired.


William Duff: Finish your sentence.


John Anderson Fraser: Then we have the following mines, all situated in the Cariboo district, Minto mine, Wayside, Taylor, Windpass, Grange Mine, Windfall, and Nicola, and scores of other mines which are only at the present time what you might call prospects.
A most remarkable phenomenon of the depression has been the implicit confidence that has been shown in gold all over the world. Wherever possible people converted their resources into currencies whose convertibility into gold seemed secure, and, when this convertibility was in doubt, into gold itself. Nobody has shown any reluctance to accept gold in settlement of debts. The demand for gold always seems to be greater than the supply. Governments, bankers and bullion merchants are ready to take all offerings. There seems to be no let up in the demand. Every gold mining engineer can now get employment. Prospectors range in every conceivable quarter of Canada, wherever traces of gold are indicated. Higher [DOT] prices of gold caused the producing companies to tackle low grade possibilities. The total output of gold has not risen appreciably, but the life of existing mines has been considerably extended. Let me say in that connection that the rise in the price of gold has made it possible for these low grade mines to continue and extend their operations. I do not know of any one factor in this country which could add so much to the stability of the country as the extension of that gold mining, because this is the history of gold mining in my own district:
The gold was first discovered and attracted people there. A large number of people came in to mine the gold; some of them were not successful and were attracted to the fertile areas of land in the district. They proceeded to clear those lands, and when the mines were worked out the lands were still producing. That is the history of gold in every part of the world. Wherever you find a gold mine you have a valuable asset for a little time, a wasting asset, but alongside it you will find valuable natural resources and land which will continue to produce for all time.
I have not said one-half, Mr. Speaker, of what I had intended to say; I have only got started, and I think you must have cut me off a little short.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to omit the preliminaries. At the present time there is an uncertainty in the conducting of business affairs, there is hesitancy on the part of business men to make commitments; war clouds are hanging over Europe, and for these reasons I am of the opinion that the people of this country want a general election at the earliest possible moment. I believe that a parliament fresh from the people would restore confidence and be able to deal more adequately with the great problems which are presenting themselves.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) pointed out in his budget that there has been an improvement in business conditions in Canada. He told us of the mounting revenues, the increase in transportation and production, at which we on this side of the house rejoice. As good Canadians we are glad to know that these changes have occurred, but we Should also remember that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has said that the signs are few and uncertain. We should remember also that the mayors of the various cities of Canada came here last night and the message they presented was not one of optimism, but rather one of doubt and pessimism. We must remember also that at the present time we have a great problem of unemployment, there being more than 1,000,000 people on direct relief. We cannot expect that the line marking the upward trend of business will go uniformly or continuously upward without there being dips and depressions. We must realize that some of the great basic problems have not yet been solved.	.
If the farmers of the country are prosperous the retail merchants, the wholesalers, the transportation companies and the bankers will share in thiat prosperity. Forty-six per cent of the people of this country are employed on
The Budget-Mr. Gershaw

farms, and we find that many of them are either in bankruptcy or rapidly heading toward that state. In 1928 the average farm income was $1,600, but in 1933 it had dropped to $640. The farmer may not be the forgotten man but I think he is the submerged man. He is submerged in a sea of debt, charges, taxes and tariffs. He is helpless against the high prices which he must pay for the things he needs and the low prices which he receives for the things he produces. He has been discouraged by crop failures and lack of feed and seed, and has no credit. He has been producing products which he has been forced to sell at a price below the cost of production. It costs 65 to 68 cents to produce a bushel of wheat but he has been forced to sell his wheat for 40 to 50 cents a bushel, or even as low as 26 cents per bushel.
Another great industry is cattle raising, and I should like to put on record the costs of production in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan. Twenty-five ranches were investigated, each having from 300 to 3,500 head of cattle. The investigation covered a total of 10,000 head of cattle. It was found that it cost $28.13 per head or 7-25 cents per pound to produce calves of an average weight of 388 pounds. Yearlings averaging 710 pounds cost $49.58 per head or 6-98 cents per pound to produce. The cost in the case of two year old steers averaging 1,000 pounds was $64.16 or 6-42 cents per pound; while for three year olds averaging 1,275 pounds the cost was S78.44 or 6-15 cents per pound. These figures were based on a 70 per cent calf crop and 50 acres of range land for each animal. I think the calf percentage is high while the other is low. A study of one ranch which was considered as typical of many ranches in the two provinces showed the following costs:
Per ewt.
Cows	
$6	36Two year old steers	
8	50Three year old steers	
8	00


Mr. MULLINS:: Where did the hon. member get those figures?


Frederick William Gershaw: They were compiled at the Manyberries range station.


Henry Alfred Mullins: That is my old ranch and my costs were never that high.


Frederick William Gershaw: They were compiled by Mr. Hargrave.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick William Gershaw: When !he house rose at six o'clock I had given some reasons why I thought the Canadian people wanted a general election at the earliest possible moment. I had pointed out that the farm problem and the unemployment problem had not yet been solved and I gave some figures that had been worked out showing costs of production on certain farm commodities. 1 would like to indicate that at the time those costs were operating, the selling prices of those same products were down very low, the price of meats being down to from one and one-half to three and one-half cents per pound. We have been told that a reciprocity agreement with the United States may be consummated in the near future, and I hope when that time comes the live stock industry of western Canada will not be forgotten, because the United States is the natural and usually the most profitable market for our live stock. Even at the present time, when there is a duty of three cents a pound against our cattle going into that country and one and one-half cents for expenses, our products are being sold there. Last year practically all of the 50,000 head of cattle that we exported went into the United States. In the week ending March 7, four carloads of Canadian live cattle sold for eleven cents a pound, while the following were the prices at different points in Canada:
Per
100 lbs.
Edmonton	
$5	75Prince Albert	
4	75Moose Jaw	
6	00Saskatoon	
5	00
Hogs are also bringing a good price in the United States. During the same week they were selling at Buffalo at from $9.90 to $10, while at Toronto the price was $7.25 to $7.75 per hundred pounds.
We have gone and are going through a very serious stage, and it is to the credit of the governments of Canada that while some people have been broken down by worry and some have been undernourished, practically no one in this country has been starved. At the same time I will say without hesitation that there has been a lack of uniformity and an unfairness in the administration of relief in the dominion. The leader of this party (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested some three or four years ago that an unemployment commission should be set up to look after unemployment for the whole country in the interests of uniformity, and I believe had that suggestion been carried out, money would have

The Budget-Mr. Gershaw
been saved and the relief would have been distributed more evenly. In Canada there are cities in which a sum of $48, S49 or $50 per month is given to a family of five. There are others where $10 or $11 per month is given to a similar family. At other places in the country the prevailing rate for a family is $8 or S10.
The constituency which I represent borders for two hundred miles on Saskatchewan, and year after year I have pointed out to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) that there was a great difference in the way in which relief was administered in those two adjoining provinces; that whereas it seemed to be fairly easy in Saskatchewan to get relief, yet right across the border where the same climatic conditions prevailed it was extremely difficult for the most deserving to secure relief because of the difference in the maimer of administration. Probably there is as much money as ever in Canada, but most certainly that money is not in the hands of the people who need food, clothing and shelter, not in the hands of those who need furniture, equipment and farm machinery, and for that reason the purchasing power of our people is at a very low ebb.
I wish to discuss briefly a few methods by which I think the purchasing power of the country could be improved. First of all I will deal with tariffs. In 1930 the present government seemed to think high tariffs were the panacea for all our troubles, and duties were raised as may be indicated by the following examples:
Increase From	To
Commodity-	Per cent Per cent
Cotton print	. . 19	34Flannelettes	. . 16	33Agricultural implements	. . 7	25Blankets	.. 21	50(nearly)These high tariffs have	not solved our prob-	
lem and nothing is clearer recognition of that than the course the government has pursued in bringing down this budget. During recent months economists have spoken and written much; there has been chaos and little agreement on anything, but there is one point on which they are all agreed, namely that budgeting for scarcity will not solve our problem. All agree that economic nationalism and high tariffs will not cure the present depression.
The last speaker, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), said that tariffs would fight for the farmers of this country. I want to give at least one illustration by way of showing the extent to which a class of people are benefiting by high tariffs but dodging 92JS2-139
their obligations. In 1932 I had the honour of moving in this house a resolution calling upon the government to investigate and support the sugar beet industry in Canada. They were kind enough to send that resolution to a committee and the subject was investigated. The report that was brought in ends thus:
Your committee further recommends that if no succesful attempt is made in the immediate future by the refineries to increase the facilities for the manufacture of beet sugar, the government will take into consideration means to accomplish this end.
Since then we have had hard times. One factory has signified its intention to build another branch in southern Alberta, but the government has taken no steps to enforce the findings of the committee. I claim that in Canada there is much room for the expansion of this industry. In 1933 the consumption of sugar in Canada was 871,590,054 pounds and of that only 131,000,000 was made from home grown raw material. While Great Britain and the United States manufacture around twenty per cent of their requirements from home grown raw material, we in Canada, a strictly agricultural country, make only fifteen per cent. So there is great potentiality for expansion of this industry. For instance, one factory in Canada, manufacturing only five per cent of the sugar consumed, employs 350 men in the factory, 2,200 workers in the fields, and 700 growers. So as a means of helping employment, because of its advantage in the rotation of crops, the help it would give to the transportation industry and to the live stock industry through the use of the tops and the pulp, the quantities of fuel, lumber and lime that would be required, and the benefit to the irrigated districts, this industry should receive more consideration. It has great potentialities for good in the economic life of the country.
As showing the fall in the consumption of sugar I may say that in 1930 each man, woman and child in Canada consumed 97-83 pounds; in 1931, 96-77 pounds; in 1932, 90-51 pounds, and in 1933, 80-47 pounds.
One other means that could be adopted in order to increase purchasing power would be an adjustment of exchange rates. Here I would point out that the primary producers of this country have been impoverished by adverse exchange rates during the last few years. When Great Britain went off the gold standard Canada did not follow, and the result has been that during all those years the British pound in Canada has been worth $3.60, $3.80, $4 and up to $4.87, whereas in the countries that compete with us in

The Budget-Mr. Gershaw

agricultural products in the markets of the world-Denmark, Australia and the Argentine-the British pound has been worth $6, S6.10 and even up to $7. These countries have thus been able to undersell us and take from us our markets in oriental countries.
Now we'come to the reform measures which have 'been brought down at this session. Such reforms as the unemployment insurance bill, the forty-eight hour week, the weekly day of rest, the minimum wage, are all right in themselves but they are of no immediate help to the people who are in the greatest distress at the present time; they are not intended to be. In my opinion the greatest reform of all was that put into operation by the Liberal government when they were in power; I refer to the Old Age Pensions Act of 1927. By it men and women of seventy years of age, subject to certain conditions, can get a pension of $20 a month for the rest of their lives. This brings comfort and security to them in their declining years and is a small recognition of what they have contributed to the welfare of this country. I have seen many people approaching the sunset of their lives made happy by the sense of security which that pension has brought them. We spent last year $12,314,000 on old age pensions. According to the last census statistics there were in Canada 344.907 people over seventy years of age. Of people over sixty we have 870,000, and if the same proportion qualified, pensions could be given to those over sixty at an annual cost of $31,047,600. Again if the veterans' allowance were changed so that the age of entitlement was fifty instead of sixty, it would cost $7,500,000 instead of S2 500.000. We have many different kinds of pensions in Canada. I believe in the idea of having pensions or dividends, for a very definite reason. We have judges' pensions, civil service pensions, and many other kinds. It seems to me that these should be reviewed, with the purpose of seeing to it that those who have the best organization and are in the best position to press their claims do not necessarily obtain the best treatment. I believe in the idea of giving dividends, because in no other way can purchasing power be put into the hands of a deserving class of people. We want these people to have purchasing power; we want them to have a reasonable standard of living, and in no other way can that be accomplished. Everyone will agree that the average man should earry insurance, also that if he can he should contribute to an old age pension, but there is a large class who find that quite impossible. It is hard for us to imagine a state in which

all have the same degree of comfort; owing to the difference in our endowments some are better providers than others, and fortune does not smile with equal favour upon all. This condition of poverty for some has always been regarded as inevitable. Those of us who found ourselves in that position had either to work through or around it or to endure it. But I find in a book by J. A. Spender these words:
The self-consciousness which recognizes poverty as a curable evil is of comparatively recent growth, and may well be held hereafter to have been the most beneficent of all the changes of thought in the nineteenth century.
If we are to regard poverty as a curable condition we must make some preparations for curing it.
To whom should dividends be given? I would say first to the blind. We are all glad to know that at least some of the blind people are likely to get a pension in the very near future. I would say, second, to the fathers and the mothers who have children who should be at school. No' one wishes to see young boys and girls forced out into the hard work of life when they should be in school. I would say, in the third 4place, to those who cannot provide sanitary homes for their families; to the under-privileged; to those who have given meritorious service to their country; to the disabled. Let us suppose the bread winner of the family is disabled; had he been killed his wife would have received the mother's allowance and would live in comfort, but as it is the disabled head of the family is left at home to be dependent upon charity. Then most particularly I would say that when men and women have reached a certain age they are entitled to a pension if they will retire from the labour market and make way for the younger men and women who are growing up. You may destroy the morale of a young person by a pension, but you would not destroy the morale of a person sixty or over.
Now, why should dividends be given? Because the classes of persons to whom I suggest they should be given are citizens of a solvent country and are entitled to share in its natural resources. During the last fifty years great changes have taken place; machines have been invented; there have been advances in scientific thought. Drudgery is no longer necessary to the extent that it was, and more time should be given to leisure and to artistic pursuits. Dividends would give people an opportunity for enjoyment, and their cultural heritage is their claim on a share of Canada's assets.

The Budget-Mr. Shaver
Then the question is where the money would come from. If a war broke out tomorrow the money would be forthcoming, and peace has its emergencies no less than war. Again, if we are to say that first things should come first, as my hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Moore) has said, and if we are to put forward a definite national purpose, what better objects could we have? Could we not divert some of the money now being used for the construction of barracks or public works, which we do not need, and devote it to these worthy veterans who would make good use of it and to whom it would be a great blessing? Then, while the business people of this country are taxed almost to the limit, at the present time there are pools of wealth which have been accumulated by special privilege, by the watering of stock and things of that kind. Those pools should be found and taxed. A slight increase in business would mean a great increase in the revenue of the country.
Then there is one other source to which we should look for money. We have in this country a central bank, which we on this side of the house desired to be owned by the government. The governor of that central bank has been given something like $107,000,000 in gold. According to the regulation that amount of gold would provide currency to the extent of $420,000,000 at a valuation of $20.67; if the valuation were put at $35 it would increase that amount of currency by three-quarters, yet in Canada to-day we have only $220,000,000 in currency and of that amount only about $35,000,000 is actually in circulation. So surely we should look to the central bank to provide some of this money, and more and more as time goes on, because of the assets that have been given to it. That could be done without the security of government warrants bearing three per cent interest.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that in the last analysis the object, the aim and the end of all legislation should be to make conditions better in the homes of the people of this country, and we in this parliament should not vote for anything unless it will make those conditions better. I say the younger men and women of this country are crying loudly for equality of opportunity. All are calling for greater equalization of wealth and for the stamping out of selfishness and greed in high places. If we are to be worthy of the age in which we live we must try to preserve democracy, personal initiative, liberty and freedom, and if we are to be true 92582-1391
custodians we must guard what has been attained by the long, long struggles of the past.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. F. T. SHAVER (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I observe that many hon. gentlemen opposite desire to have the question put, but there yet remain a few of us on this side who, having held our peace for quite a considerable time, desire to express our opinions.
I am sure that while many congratulations have been extended to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) upon the able and comprehensive way in which he has explained the financial position of Canada and upon the budget which he has presented to the house, we all agree that he well deserves those congratulations, to which I desire to add my own. I think the Minister of Finance not only deserves the congratulations of the members of this house; I believe he deserves the thanks of the Canadian people for the very efficient way in which, during the last few years, he has handled the difficult portfolio which he holds.
I trust that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), who preceded me, will pardon me if I do not refer to his remarks at any length. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. gentleman; he is always fair, moderate and courteous in debate, but there is one point to which I should like to refer. Once again the hon. member brought up the question of the beet sugar industry, which I presume is quite a considerable industry in his constituency. I give my hon. friend credit for being interested in that industry ; I think any member of this house who has in his constituency an industry which employs a number of people should not be ashamed to rise in the house and stand up for those people. But as I mentioned last year it seems rather strange that the hon. member should expect some particular consideration to foe given that industry, aid by way of bonuses, assistance by way of reduced freight rates or something else, while at the same time he finds fault because the textile industry, which gives employment to several thousand people in my constituency, receives protection against the textiles which would be dumped into Canada from every other country in the world if that protection did not exist.
There were a few high lights in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance to which I should like to refer briefly, because to me they seem very important, since they indicate that conditions are improving. There was the fact
The Budget-Mr. Shaver

that the physical volume of business was 48-5 per cent above the low point of the depression; that the League of Nations' comparison of increases in industrial production from January, 1933 to the end of 1934 placed Canada in first position with an increase of 46-2 per cent; that last year our field crops increased in value by $91,000,000 as compared with 1933; that there was a marked increase in mineral and forestry production and an increase of 65,000 in employment over 1933, with an increase of over 340,000 as compared with the low point of the depression. It was gratifying also to note that Canada still occupies fifth place in export trade; that there was an increase in trade during the eleven months period amounting to $169,000,000 and a favourable trade balance for the same period of 8134,000,000. It is also gratifying to note that the good effects of the empire agreements are still making themselves felt, as evidenced by the fact that our export trade with the United Kingdom increased in 1934 by 52 per cent as compared with 1932.
Many hon. gentlemen opposite have urged the necessity of holding a general election as soon as possible, and that point was also mentioned by the hon. gentleman who preceded me; as a -matter of fact it was his first point. It did seem to me that this evening my -hon. friend spoke with a rather greater degree of pessimism than he usually shows when speaking in this house. It appeared to me that the idea of an immediate general election-and no doubt the possible effects of that general election-had saturated his whole consciousness to such an extent that he exhibited an extreme feeling of pessimism. While we are all aware of the fact that this is the last session before a general election, we know that the electors throughout the country from one end of Canada to the other are beginning to consider, and no doubt already have considered, the issues upon which this election will be fought. It seems to me that the electors are asking themselves, perhaps not in express terms -but in their minds, certain oasi-c questions with regard to the government of the country. It is quite natural that the electors should ask themselves about the record of the government appealing to them for support. The budget which has been presented gives answers to many of these questions. The first question the electors will be asking from now until election day-and it is the most important question they will have to answer-is this: "Has the present government administered the affairs of Canada with honesty, efficiency and economy?" To this question I believe any person who has studied
FMr. Shaver.]
the situation carefully or has reviewed thoroughly and dispassionately the record of the government must give an affirmative answer.
The Minister of Finance was able to point to a reduction in the interest rate on our funded debt, and a civil service reduction amounting to 12,700-which was effected without working any hardship upon civil servants-and a consequent saving in salaries of over 812,000,000. The fact that the per capita basis of controllable expenditure was last year practically the same as in the year 1913-14, before the war, is the best evidence that the government which has been conducting the affairs of Canada since 1930 has administered those affairs with the most rigid economy.
Hon. members opposite have spoken about the increase in the public debt. We admit that; but they did not for a -moment consider the fact that other countries in the world have increased their public debt. They did not consider Canada's public debt from the standpoint of comparison with the debt of other nations. They seem to have forgotten the wealthy nation to the south of us, I suppose the wealthiest nation in the world, which has now before congress a work relief bill amounting to nearly five billion dollars, which will have the effect of increasing the debt of that country to thirty-four billion dollars, or nine billions more than the peak of the war debt. We are informed, from very reliable sources, that there are now 20,000,000 people in the United States supported either in whole or in part by public funds. This is a much greater proportion than that existing in Canada. Compared with our great sister nation we are only small and comparatively undeveloped. Yet, in all these respects, we are in a much better position than is the United States.
The next question the electors will ask, and to which they will deserve a clear and definite answer, is this: "Is the present government responsible for the depression?" To hear the observations of some hon. members opposite, hon. members who utter lurid fulminations against the government, one would be led to believe that the present government was responsible for the depression not only in Canada but in every country of the world. Yet they know and every Canadian citizen knows that the tide of the depression was running across Canada like a flood for almost a year before this government took office. The government of hon. members opposite were to a great degree responsible for that condition. For nine years they had floated along on the tide of -world prosperity. For nine

The Budget-Mr. Shaver
years they had seen the markets of the world closed against the products of Canada, and particularly was that true of the great market to the south of us. However, they did not do anything. They just sat quietly and drifted along. Therefore when the depression came, all those nations which were trying if possible to get rid of their surplus goods began to dump them into Canada. Immediately those nations, the buying power of which was cut off by the depression, stopped buying from Canada, with the result that in one year while hon. members opposite were still in. power there was a drop in Canada's exports amounting to $243,958,005. In arriving at this figure I have compared the figure for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1929, with the figure for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1930. Hon. members opposite were still in power in those days, and even for a few months after that.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) referred to the reduction in exports which had occurred while the present government held office. If there had been a reduction of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars each year this government has held office our exports would have been nearly wiped out. There was not the same reduction in our imports, because with our low tariff barriers the nations which were trying to get rid of their goods found it possible to ship them into Canada at distress prices. The result was that the reduction in imports amounted to only S17,405,509. The total decrease in our foreign trade in that one year, while hon. members opposite were still in power, was $261,363,514. The favourable trade balance of $123,216,984 which we had in 1929 was changed in the fiscal year ending March 31. 1930, to an unfavourable balance of $103,335,512.
The next question the electors throughout the country will have the right to ask is this: ''Has the present government taken the proper action to lighten the effects of the depression, and to help end it?" The first action-and.it is the action for which I highly commend the government-is that when they took office they had the courage sufficiently to protect our industries, a protection to which they were entitled. There was an increase in the tariff on textiles. If one tariff has been attacked more than another by hon. members opposite, I would say it has been the textile tariff. When we consider that the primary textile industry in Canada is the main industry in 160 municipalities, comprising a total of 450 mills, and that in the last year it supported a pay-roll of $40,000,000, we will have some idea of the importance of the industry. Then, there was
protection given against dumping; this is one of the main charges hon. members opposite lodge against the government. They say unfair dumping duties were placed against textiles from other countries. Hon. members will recall the classic example given by the late Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Ryck-man, who told of an importing firm in this country which wanted to bring in 10,000 dozen children's dresses. The cost of production in Canada was one dollar per garment, but they could be imported at thirty-three cents each; therefore it was necessary to threaten a dumping duty of two hundred per cent to keep the dresses out. I am absolutely in favour of that practice because the manufacturing of
10,000	dozen dresses in Canada would give employment to a great many men and women, not only in the primary textile industry where materials are fabricated, but in the factories where the dresses were completed.
May I draw the attention of the house ter the fact that the rayon industry has received-a protection which has assisted it greatly. The woollen industry, which had almost been destroyed by hon. members opposite, has been-restored. Then, the Canadian farmer has been given protection which has meant a great deal to him, a condition with which I shall deal in more detail in a few moments. Wider markets under the empire agreements have been offered. Trade agreements have been completed with France, Germany, Austria, Brazil and Poland.
The manner in which this government has handled unemployment relief, to which reference was made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat has been attacked vigorously by hon. members opposite. If they study the conditions in other countries they will find no government which has had the interests of the suffering, the destitute and the unemployed more at heart than has the government of Canada. Further, they will find no government which has made more practical efforts to relieve conditions. Last night we had an example of the type of attack made against the present government when the mayors from different Canadian cities met with members of parliament. They put forward the proposition that all unemployment relief should be financed by the dominion government, that the municipalities should be relieved entirely from any share in caring for the unemployed. A most unreasonable proposition, unreasonable on the face of it because, as anyone can see, if the dominion government were to advance all the cost of relief, immediately every municipality from the Atlantic to the Pacific
The Budget-Mr. Shaver

would be grabbing to see who could get the most out of the dominion government's pocket. I was pleased to see that the mayor of a city located in my own constituency, the town of Cornwall, was one of two mayors who stood up in Montreal and said that they were not in favour of that sort of thing. The mayor of Cornwall said that it was not a fair or businesslike thing to suggest, and that so far as he was concerned he stood for the principle of the municipality paying a portion of the relief. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if Mayor Parisien of Cornwall, who is a self made business man who has made good on his own initiative and energy, had been selected as one of the men to address us at the meeting last night, it would have made a greater impression on the members there assembled than the addresses of some of the impractical spellbinders who did speak.
The next question, Mr. Speaker, which the factors are asking is this: Has the government adopted adequate safeguards, so far as possible, against another depression? We know that the channels of foreign trade have been opened. We know that progressive measures of social justice have been introduced, and many of them put through, to a greater extent than at any other period in Canada's history, in order to meet the needs of to-day; for instance, the Bank of Canada Act, the marketing act, the Canadian Farm Loan Act, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Eight Hour Day Act, the One Day's Rest in Seven Act, the federal Minimum Wage Act, the setting up of an economic council, the price spreads investigation and the legislation which undoubtedly will arise therefrom. All these are measures to assist in securing social justice for all the citizens of our country. I approve of these measures, particularly because they seek to assist the farmers and the working people who are the very backbone of our national existence.
While it is true that the electors will ask questions concerning the government that will demand a clear and definite answer, they will also ask questions about the opposition. Do not let the opposition members any longer think, as they did a few months ago, that the people of Canada are going to accept them holus-bolus, and allow them to slip into office without considering their record at all and without their placing before the people a definite plan. The first question which the electors will ask of the opposition is what action did the government of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King take to

avert the depression that was rolling over Canada for nearly a year before his government gave up office. As I said before, they took no action at all. They left our country exposed as a dumping ground for every other nation of the world, as the trade figures I have given indicate. For a considerable period of time they even denied that a depression existed, and in the setting up of relief measures the Prime Minister of that day refused aid to provinces which might happen to have a Conservative administration. The Canadian people passed judgment on the government of the right hon. gentleman opposite on July 28, 1930. The people considered their record; they looked at what they had done to assist our country in that crisis, and decided that the government should be turned out of office.
The next question they are going to ask is this:	Has the Liberal opposition during
the intervening period done anything to cause the electors to change their minds or alter the verdict they rendered on that occasion? What has the Liberal opposition done to assist Canada during the past four years? I think that every member will agree that the responsibility rests on every citizen to do his share, and from the individual standpoint every member of the opposition has done his share just as much as every member on the government side of the house. We are all interested' as individuals in the welfare of our country, and we all do what we can. But what have hon. gentlemen opposite done as a party? They have had very many opportunities, headed as they are by a leader with long political experience, with a wide economic training, a training which entitled him to write a book on certain social questions which some claim is a masterpiece, and supported by many men sitting behind him of wide business training and long political experience. But what have they done? Those who have been present in the house during the last four years know how they have hampered and delayed the passing of legislation.
When tariff changes were brought in to assist the agricultural industry, they were opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite. When the empire agreements were brought into the house, one of the best measures which was introduced on behalf of the Canadian farmer, for two months hon. gentlemen opposite opposed them. When the marketing act was introduced, one of the most advanced pieces of legislation to assist the 'Canadian farmer ever introduced in the House of Commons, they opposed it. This has been their record all the way through.

The Budget-Mr. Shaver
Another question which the electors will ask is this:	What constructive suggestions
has the combined genius of the Liberal party to offer? We have heard only two from the right hon. leader of the opposition. One of them was lower tariffs, the old panacea which the Liberal party have always preached, and sometimes they have practised it and sometimes not. I am old enough to remember the time when they were preaching commercial union and free trade as they had it in England, and so forth, but there has always been that question of lower tariffs.
The other suggestion of the leader of the opposition was that the Liberal party want a commission to deal with unemployment. Those are the only two proposals that I have heard the right hon. leader of the opposition propound, although he did surround those two ideas with a great multiplicity of words.
What has been the attitude this session of hon. gentlemen opposite? They profess a belief in reform and then try to destroy the reform measures with constitutional difficulties. They vote with the government in the house, and then go out to their meetings and attack the government. The other evening a great meeting of the Liberal party was held! in the Chateau Laurier, a banquet to their leader, and I opened the newspaper the next morning with a great feeling of anticipation. I expected to find the report of a constructive policy laid down by the leader of the opposition on that occasion, and what was his policy?


Albert Edward Munn: The meeting was not called for that purpose.


Frank Thomas Shaver: That is perhaps a very good excuse, 'but at any rate we would have expected, and the people expected-several people so expressed themselves to me-that he would lay down a policy.


Albert Edward Munn: You will get it.


Charles A. Stewart: Don't worry, there will be a policy.


Mr. COTNAM:: It's in cold storage yet.


Frank Thomas Shaver: The people expected that the leader of the opposition on that occasion would present a program. Well he had a program, but it was in three words-moderation, conciliation and toleration. Those are very pious platitudes to which every member will subscribe. We are all agreeable to these ideas of moderation, conciliation and toleration, but what practical suggestion is there in those words to cure the evils from which .Canada is suffering?
1 desire to speak for a very few moments about conditions in the county that I represent. I have done that on former occasions in the house, and I make no apology for it. As I said at the beginning, I think it is the duty of every member to be interested first of all in the affairs of his own constituency and then in the affairs of the country as a whole. Each constituency throughout Canada is interested in some particular phase of industry. In Stormont we have the advantage of having a constituency partly urban, including the manufacturing city of Cornwall, one of the most progressive and up to date cities in Canada, and partly rural, including four townships, a mixed farming section which is an especially good agricultural area. As I have pointed out in the house before, there has been a considerable expansion of industry in my county since this government came into power, and that expansion of industry has assisted in providing a home market for the farmers of my own county and of the surrounding counties as well. Where you have an industrial town with a population of 20,000 people and a payroll running into many thousands of dollars per week, there is a considerable quantity of farm products purchased.
I should like to make a short comparison between two reports of presidents of the board of trade of Cornwall. The first one was issued on February 6, 1930, and covered the year 1929. It gave the activities of eighteen industries. Hon. gentlemen opposite were still in power in 1929. There were 3,780 employees in these industries, a decrease of 280 from 1928. Salaries and wages paid amounted to $3,703,737, a decrease of $42,559 from the amount paid in 1928. The depression had already struck our town. The next report is dated March 8, 1935, and covers the year 1934. This report covers only sixteen industries, as the information concerning two had not been included. There were 4,173 employees, an increase of 651 over 1933. The wages and salaries paid amounted to $3,749,061.69.


Olof Hanson: I suppose there is no one on relief in that town?


Frank Thomas Shaver: The number is comparatively small. The reason there are any on relief is the fact that the prosperity of Cornwall has been so widely advertised that many more people have flocked in than can be accommodated by the industries. The population of the town and its suburbs increased from 16,000 to 20,000 in that period. The buildings erected in 1929 had a value of $425,275 and the permits issued for 1934
The Budget-Mr. Shaver

had a value of $490,955. These figures do not include additions made to factories or new industries. I might mention that the two gentlemen from whose reports I have quoted are prominent business men of the town and are both members of the Liberal party. It cannot be said that their reports contain any partisan bias.
The rayon industry has been extended considerably since 1930 due to the increase in duty put through in the short session of 1930. Two extensions have been made to the plant at a cost of between five and six million dollars and the number of employees have increased from 1,000 in 1930 to 1,700. These employees receive good wages and work under excellent conditions. This industry like any other textile industry prior to 1930 had to face strong competition from Europe and especially from Japan. Were it not for the dumping duties imposed by this government, for which I give them great credit, it would have been impossible to meet this competition. Every hon. member knows how the Japanese manufacturers have been getting into the markets of the world. This is the case not only with cotton and rayon, but with other manufactures. When we realize that the wages paid in Japan in a textile industry range from SI .21 to SI .65 for a 60 to 72 hour week, we have some idea of the living conditions of the people. Japanese rayon yarn is selling to-day in Cuba for twenty-five cents per pound, which is less than half the cost of production in Canada.
There are three cotton mills in my constituency. These mills suffered considerably because of the tariff policies of hon. gentlemen opposite. In 1922 revisions were made in the tariff on textiles, and this occurred again in 1928. This brought about increasing importations from every cotton producing country in the world, which importations were greatly accelerated by the depression. This condition was remedied to a large extent by the specific duties which were added to the ad valorem duties at the short session of 1930. Because of the empire agreements a considerable portion of the textile goods imported from the United States was diverted to Great Britain and one large American firm found it advisable to erect a branch factory in Canada. In looking for the most suitable location they chose Cornwall. This industry now gives employment to 225 people.
The fine paper industry was benefited by the repeal of tariff item 1060 and the increased duty which was placed on magazines. I understand that one of the fine paper mills in my constituency is to erect an extension this

summer. Men's and boy's clothing manufacturing was protected by the dumping duties put through by this government. The manufacturing of furniture, fibre conduits and steel beds has received protection because of the policies of this government. Canadian Industries Limited have found it advisable to erect a new plant in my constituency at a cost of a million dollars. This plant commenced operations a few weeks ago.
During the fall session of 1932 the right hon. leader of the opposition stated that if he were returned to power he would restore duties to what they were when he left office and increase the British preferential to fifty per cent of the general tariff. He amplified this statement during this session. He is reported on page 383 of Hansard as saying that the Liberal party will abolish the extravagant increases in the tariff made by the present administration. As I have pointed out already, the increases in the tariff and the dumping duties put into effect by this administration have proved life savers for industry, not only in my constituency but in other places throughout Canada. During the same debate the right hon. leader of the opposition stated that duties were so high that goods were not coming in from Great Britain. This argument has been used time and time again. I should like to give some figures to show how incorrect this statement is. I shall give the imports from Great Britain of cotton yarn and cotton piece goods. The figures are as follows:
Cotton Yarn
Pounds
1930	 1,505,900
1932	 2,048,400
1934	 4,097,100
Cotton Piece Goods
Square
yards
1930	 32,423,100
1932	 27,238,000
1934	 63,821,000
While it may be true that a large part of these increases was due to a shifting from other countries to the United Kingdom, yet it seems to me that these imports have reached a stage where they are proving to be a considerable handicap to the Canadian manufacturer. I want to say quite frankly that I am opposed to the reduction of one and one half per cent in the excise tax on imports of cotton from Great Britain. I was opposed also to a similar reduction made last year. The Canadian cotton manufacturer has to pay a three per cent excise tax on his imports of raw cotton, on his imports of

The Budget-Mr. Shaver
dyes and the other things which he needs, and it seems to me to be only fair that imports of cotton goods should pay the same tax, no matter from what country they come.
This government has given considerable assistance to the farmers of this country by way of tariff protection. This point has been dealt with by other hon. members, particularly by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil). The hon. member referred to the advantages accruing to thie farmers of Canada by the shutting out of New Zealand butter. Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh veTy often when we mention New Zealand butter, but let us look at the facts. In 1930, 175,000,000 pounds of New Zealand butter were exported to the United Kingdom. That was the year in which they exported 40,000,000 pounds to Canada, but this country was never a large market for the New Zealand butter manufacturer. The United Kingdom was always his large market, the one upon which he depended to take the bulk of his butter export, so that he was always ready to accept from the Canadian buyer the United Kingdom price- plus one cent a pound duty and another -cent a pound added for other costs. The result was that at the time New Zealand butter was being flooded into our market, the Montreal price was always down within two or three cents, usually within two cents of the London price. I want to give a comparison of the average prices in 1934 and 1930. This is the average price for choice quality butter:
Montreal
Year
1934
Average
price
cents
22.4
There had been a drop in the intervening period of 8-6 cents per pound.
Year
New York
Average
price
cents
1930	 36.4
1934	 25.2
A reduction in price of 11 -2 cents.
London
Average
price
Year	cents
1930	 29
1934	 14.59
to
15.82
(average 15 cents) Or a reduction of 14 cents a pound. So that the fact that New Zealand butter has been kept out of Canada owing to our getting the
protection we have enjoyed for the last few years, has added at least three and possibly four or five cents at certain periods to the price of butter.
Reference has been made to hog prices. An hon. gentleman opposite not long ago compared the price of hogs in Chicago with the price at some points in Canada. I looked up the prices on the date mentioned, and I found that if you took the processing tax off the Chicago price, the result was almost the same as the price in Montreal. They have raised the price in the United States by artificial methods, first of all by destroying 6,000,000 hogs at a cost of 830,000,000 to the United States government, using most of those animals for fertilizer; by the processing tax and by arbitrary -methods of restricting production. The price in Canada has been raised by the natural method of creating a wider and assured market in Great Britain. As an illustration of what that means, may I call attention to the fact that in 1930 our exports of bacon and ham to Great Britain amounted to 13,114,000 pounds, and in 1934 this had increased to the large total of 119,707,600 pounds.
The same thing is true of eggs. The fact that the Canadian farmer is receiving protection; that-his market is not flooded with eggs from China and the United States, has brought about much better prices. Ever since the present government imposed the duties enjoyed by our egg producers, there has been an average annual spread between Montreal and Chicago prices of about ten cents per dozen in favour of Montreal.
What would be the result on our farm products if hon. gentlemen opposite came back into power? I assume if they remained true to the ideals they have proclaimed, they would reduce the duty on New Zealand butter. If they remained true to their ideals of lower duties, we would be flooded with farm products from every other country in the world.
With regard to the cheese industry, it is true that the price is very low, but as I pointed out last year it seems to me that if action were taken under the marketing act something could be done for the industry. A dairy products marketing scheme has been proposed by the national dairy council and the Canadian Farmers' Federation. This has been approved by the Ontario cheese patrons' association, and if it is endorsed by a sufficient number of farmers to put it into operation, it will undoubtedly have the effect of raising the price of cheese and other dairy products.
I see that my time is nearly up. Our Prime Minister just a few short weeks ago in his radio addresses sounded the clarion call of
The Budget-Mr. Spencer

progress and reform to the Canadian people. That has made a striking appeal to the youth of our country, young men and women of high ideals, many of whom will be voting for the first time during the coming election. Those addresses have also appealed to all men of progressive thought who desire conditions improved, who have at heart the interests of their fellow men throughout the length and breadth of Canada. The illness of the Prime Minister has indicated to him, I am sure, and to those of us who sit on this side of the house, how much his efforts have really been appreciated by the Canadian people. There have been expressions of sympathy and good will all across this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, voicing the desire of the Canadian people that he may soon be restored to health. I am quite certain that it is also the earnest desire of perhaps not all the Canadian people but at least a fair majority of them that he may be enabled to serve his country as prime minister for at least another five years.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: With the hon. members who have preceded me, may I compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) upon having so ably presented this year's budget in regard to which he has had a very difficult task. However with his great ability he presented that budget to the House of Commons and painted conditions in Canada in such colours that anyone who did not know the real situation might have thought all was well. I was interested also in listening to the critic of the opposition, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), who painted the other side of the picture and made it exceedingly blue. In criticizing the budget he moved an amendment which opens with the following words:
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.
Then in the second part of his amendment the opposition recommended that the people of Canada go to the polls to send back possibly another government. While we can agree entirely with the first part of the amendment, because the proposals in the present budget do not meet our problems, we certainly cannot see any good in supporting the second part, as it would have the effect, even if the opposition were returned at the polls, simply of putting them into power in place of the present government, and we are going to the polls anyway. I have had the honour of being in this house for fourteen years, and during the last five, although we

have not agreed with many proposals the government have put forward, I must admit, to be fair with them, that they have put far more progressive legislation on the statute books in the last five years than the opposition did during their nine years' regime. Therefore, in considering the budget as presented by the Minister of Finance, we moved through the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote)-who presented our subamendment in a very able way-the following motion:
This house regrets that the proposals submitted by the Minister of Finance on March 22 are entirely inadequate to meet the acute and serious situation prevailing in Canada and would appear to be based upon the assumption that poverty and debt are inevitable conditions within the country;
And whereas the real and potential wealth .of the nation, based upon our natural resources and our capacity to produce, is such as to make possible an abundant provision for all the requirements of our people;
Therefore, this house is of the opinion that the government should take immediate action to insure the fullest and most equitable distribution possible of our socially-created wealth and that, as a first step in this direction, the measures which may be necessary to meet the pressing needs of the farmers and the unemployed should be financed by the social credit of Canada, thus avoiding a further increase in the debt burden of the country.
Anyone who has followed the situation in Canada at all during the past few years knows perfectly well that we have some very serious problems facing us, problems in relation to agriculture, railways, trade, health, debt, and taxation. It is for that reason that we saw fit to move our subamendment; we could not see anything in the purely negative amendment and we wished to submit something constructive. The government intimates in the budget that poverty and debt are inevitable. With this we do not agree. Real wealth in Canada to-day is greater than it has ever been. All across this country in after dinner speeches one hears time and time again of the wonderful potential wealth of Canada. There is too much lip service given to the potential wealth of the country and not enough real consideration of how that great wealth might be properly distributed. Our problem to-day, as so many hon. members admit, although they do not act upon it, is one of distribution, not of production. Physically we are a very rich nation; we are poor only financially. Under our present economy we are in the extraordinary position that the more we produce or the richer we become in physical assets the poorer we become financially. In other words the more we produce the more poverty we have, particularly in our urban centres.

The Budget-Mr. Spencer
Take for example the wheat problem; if next year we have a large crop and there is also a good crop in the rest of the world, our farmers will find themselves in a situation as bad as or worse than they are in to-day, because the price of wheat will go down far below the cost of production if something is not doue to stop it. With our present possibilities of production, poverty in our midst is inexcusable. It is a social crime. And we have to admit that poverty is the mother of crime. I do not think for a moment that things are done perfectly in Great Britain, but I would remind the house that Great Britain discovered some years ago that if she could get rid of the extreme poverty that existed in some parts it would have the effect of getting rid of a great deal of crime. So she set to work to get rid of much of that extreme poverty, with the result that for several years she has been closing some of her gaols. Yet we in this young country, with a virile people, with great possibilities and enormous potential wealth, have actually been adding to our gaols instead of closing them. Last year, I think it was, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) admitted that the prison population had doubled in twelve months. Surely that situation is inexcusable considering the fact that we have in this country not only great real wealth but great potential wealth as well.
I want to refer to some legislation that has passed the house during this session and in previous sessions since 1930. I refer particularly to reforms with reference to so-called labour. We have put through a minimum wage bill, a maximum hours bill, an unemployment insurance bill, and some others. I supported them because I think they are good, and I welcome the effort to correct abuses. But I ask: what of the farmer? Some legislation has been passed with regard to the farmer, but I remind the house that the legislation that I have just mentioned will have the effect of increasing prices. It will I hope have the effect of increasing wages to the employees, but this only adds to taxation. It will affect those who are on the land and who have difficulty in passing on taxation. Then we have legislation in regard to agriculture; we have the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, an act passed in selfpreservation because it was feared that if something like that was not done we would lose large numbers of people off the land, and that would be a national loss. It is the purpose of that act to cut down the debts of the farmers, and I think it is working all right, only too slowly; at the present pace
it will take ten years to get all the debts written down to where they should be. I might remind the house here that farmers' debts have been doubled in weight owing to deflation. Their position has been made much worse on account of what has been termed the sound money policy; for dear money meant cheap goods. Then we have the Canadian Farm Loan Amendment Act, which will enable the farmer to get into debt, but at a reduced rate of interest. Then we have the National Products Marketing Act, in which there are great possibilities if the farmers will only take advantage of it and organize. Then for one year there was a bonus given on wheat of five cents a bushel, amounting to about $12,000,000. Added to that there has been some relief given in the drought areas, particularly in Saskatchewan, out of a total of relief money spent by this parliament of $175,000,000. I give the government credit for stabilizing the price of wheat; it was a good action and I think it has had beneficial results. But I would remind the house that it benefited not the farmer only but the whole business life of Canada; so it cannot be said that that was legislation passed specially for the benefit of the farmer. I think most people will agree that the greater part of the taxes come from the first six inches of the soil, and it is very difficult to pass them on.
We are to have the report of the price spreads and mass buying commission; as it is not yet before the house I cannot debate it, but I hope there will be sqme legislation based on the findings of that commission which will be of benefit to the farmer.
We have had in Ottawa during the last two days large numbers of mayors representing the cities of Canada. I attended their meeting last night and listened to them again to-day. They want the federal government to take over all direct relief. If the federal government does that, it is simply a matter of transferring the administration, but it is not going to reduce taxation, that is if the money is found in the orthodox way; for the taxable people are the same. However, they may expect, and I hope the expectation will be fulfilled, that the government will make use of the national credit through the central bank and provide the money in that way and not by taxation.
May I refer for a moment to some of the problems that face this country. We in this corner of the house have stressed the serious problems of debt and taxation. I want to remind the house again that the biggest single item we have to pay is the interest on our
The Budget-Mr. Spencer

national debt, amounting to about $140,000,000 this year. In addition, of course, we have the debts of provinces and municipalities, as well as private debts, in a somewhat similar ratio. The system itself is debt creating. I notice the Minister of Finance mentioned that sixty-three per cent of our total expenditures goes to pay interest, pensions and subsidies, but most of that money goes in interest. May I remind the house once more that since the war we have paid out in interest alone no less than $1,900,000,000, but we have not been able to pay any principal. Figures I received the other day indicate that of the debt of over $2,000,000,000 created during the war years, no less than $1,393,000,000 was in the form of tax exempt bonds. I do think something should be done in this regard. I know that any new bonds that have been issued have not been exempt from taxation, but there is no reason why the people who bought those tax-free bonds should not bear their share of the losses that have occurred in the last five or six years.
I should like to refer for a moment to another subject on which I have spoken in this house several times; I refer to the matter of health which is becoming an increasing problem in these times when many people are not living on a decent standard. I should like to remind the house that we have a daily sick list in Canada of no less than 180,000 people. Of course this costs a great deal, taking into consideration hospital and doctor bills, loss of work and so forth; in round figures, the annual loss is about $300,000,000. Yet we are only spending about $6,000,000 annually in connection with health, taking into account both federal and provincial expenditures. I make the plea that it would be a good investment to spend more money in preventive medicine and so keep down the loss from sickness. Uncertainty of employment, poverty, debt and the fear of penury and penniless old age all have the effect of developing ill health, and they are doing so at the present time.
Usually in my speech on the budget I have something to say with respect to the matter of immigration, and again I want to state my position in that regard, because I believe the subject to be important. I am not against immigration if it consists of volunteer immigrants of the type we desire, who come into Canada after a real mental and physical test, but I am absolutely against spending public money to bring people here by flowery promises with the result that many of them are disappointed and go back to their own country and Canada is given a bad name. I should like to give the house

some figures with regard to the number of people brought into this country between 1901 and 1931. In that period we brought in no less than 5,084,000 people, large numbers of whom were placed on the land. Unfortunately, due to disappointments of one kind and another, we lost no less than 3,409,000 of those immigrants, leaving a balance of 1,675,000. To bring that number of people to Canada cost this country no less than $50,000,000. There is no reason at all why Canada should not support a much larger population than we have at the present time, but so long as we have 500,000 people unemployed and have over one million on public relief it seems to me that it would be absurd indeed to try to force people into, this country.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, too many people in trying to solve this problem have looked upon unemployment as a cause rather than as a result. Until we realize that it is the result of certain factors and until we find out what those factors are we will not solve the problem. More people all the time are realizing that it is brought about very largely through the mechanization of industry, but we should remember that by this agency we are able to speed up production. That is so much the case that we find ourselves fifth among the exporting nations of the world. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth questioned that statement and said we were eighth among the nations of the world. Even if that be so it is not a bad position. But through the mechanization of industry we find that we can produce much more goods with less man power, and that being so there is no reason why we should increase our pauper population. We should realize that with our powers of production, which have been brought about not by one or two individuals but by the progress of society that has been made in past years, and that there is a cultural heritage coming to every one of us, and if we can produce this material wealth so easily we should find ways and means of distributing it. Unfortunately we lack purchasing power with which to buy these goods, and various methods have been adopted to get rid of them. Perhaps one of the most generally adopted methods is that of selling goods on time, with people going into debt for them. That has only a temporary effect, and every time a period of deflation develops the situation is made so much worse. Then some people suggest that we should export the surplus. It does not pay a country to export goods unless it is prepared to import goods, and allowing for what Canada owes in interest and for

The Budget-Mr. Spencer
services, there is no advantage at all in exporting more goods than we import, for if we do we simply give the goods away. People seem to eulogize the idea of sending goods out to supply foreign countries, without giving a great deal of thought to the necessity and the wisdom of supplying our own people. I do not know just what part of our total trade is made up by our internal trade, but I think it is something like seventy-six per cent. We know that our people are not living at a very giddy height or on a very high average, so it stands to reason that if we found the means to do so we could consume within the country a vastly greater amount of goods and services than we are consuming at the present time.
The budget that has been presented by the Minister of Finance, which is similar to other budgets presented not only by him but by other ministers as well, seems to stress the matter of debt and rather develops the scarcity complex. The country might be thought to be in a state of siege when you hear many people in high places advocate that people should work harder and harder in order to produce more and more, while at the same time they are cautioned to consume less and less. In other words it is the process of tightening the belt. I think those suggestions are entirely out of date. We have entirely different conditions from those we had in past years or past generations, and we have to find newer remedies. In Canada, with our vast productive possibilities and our smaller consumptive realities, it would seem that we are afraid of allowing the Canadian people to trade among themselves. What is needed is more spending money, more money in the pockets of our people. One way to supply that deficiency would be to circulate money through various government works such as those which at the present time are being carried on on a small scale. I understand the government has plans to enter upon a more extensive works program. This is all to the good, although it may not be the best way to put money in the pockets of our people. For it has the effect of temporarily quickening the business cycle and as soon as the program has been completed we drop down to a condition of slackness or deflation. When referring to public works may I remind the government that there are no less than 25,000 houses in Montreal classed as unsanitary by the board of health of that city, and a similar condition obtains in Toronto. The same story would be true of many of our larger cities. While referring to the cities I do not
for one moment wish to leave the impression that people in the country, and particularly those on the prairies, are housed satisfactorily or in houses people may be proud to call their homes. Much more work could be done in connection with such houses, and particularly in supplying the inside conveniences.
In the problem of income or purchasing power we have two situations. First of all we have the inequality of income which has been brought about through various reasons which, had I time to do so, I could enumerate. All hon. members know there is great inequality of income, as shown by income tax returns. Secondly, there is at all times a shortage of money necessary to buy the total of goods on the market. That is an all important factor.
I am pleased to note that in the present budget the government has increased the tax on larger incomes. It could have gone further, but what it has done is certainly a step in the right direction. In 1927 and 1928 similar action should have been taken, but in those years instead of increasing the tax we found that the tax on incomes was reduced by ten per cent. When all is said and done our problem is to a great extent a money problem. Money is a man made device, made for a certain reason, namely to get away from the slow and tedious system of bartering. The purpose is to speed up the exchange of goods and services between one person or one body and another. To the extent that it does not fulfil this function, just to that extent does it fail. At the present time, with on the one hand our vast riches in potential and real wealth, and on the other the great numbers of poor and many approaching conditions of poverty, we must admit that money has failed. Otherwise we are enslaving ourselves to money instead of making money the slave to mankind.
I should like to support most heartily the suggestion made by the hon. member for Macleod to the effect that all people over the age of sixty years should, if they wish, be pensioned. I support the hon. member without hesitation 'because it is a fact that in Canada to-day large numbers of people cannot obtain work. Among those numbers we find many in the prime of life who would be better at work and are anxious to get it. The census figures prepared in 1931 show that
460,000	boys under nineteen years of age were at work. We know that about 200,000 boys and girls are graduating from schools each year with little hope of work. Yet, at the same time we find that more than 80.000 people over the age of seventy years are still
The Budget-Mr. Spencer

at work. Surely it would foe good business to give the people who have reached that age the 'benefit of a pension. Let them take things a little easier; let them enjoy life and have a little rest in their later years, thereby giving the younger generation a chance to earn a living.
Again I state that we are physically wealthy; we are only financially poor. Until we recognize that fact and bring about a definite change, which we could do, we will continue to look upon ourselves as a poor country. If I were to make one or two recommendations I would say this: In making up our national bookkeeping we should pay more attention to our total production in relation to our total consumption. Each year when the budget is brought down we should consider for instance, the total production of Canada plus the total of imports plus the total appreciation, and against those figures put the total consumption plus the total of exports plus the total depreciation. If we subtracted one column from the other we would find a great difference between the two. In my opinion there is no reason in the world why, with the power parliament has, we should not, through the central bank, monetize to a safe extent the difference between those two amounts. We could open a national credit account, monetizing our social credit, just the same as a bank to-day monetizes the credit of an individual when it makes a loan to a client.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This
parliament has no control over the central bank.
Mr. SPElNGER: It has, if it wants to exercise it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not unless we change the present act.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I shall have a word to
say about that in a minute. The bureau of statistics has placed the total wealth of Canada at about thirty billion dollars. Our liabilities are about half that amount. In that figure I have not placed any value upon man power, although if you take the value of man power, a value which is worked out by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, we would find a very high figure. There is no reason why we should not put a value on man power, because we take a great deal of trouble to save life, and spend great amounts of money at times in an attempt to increase the population of our country.

I believe that henceforth the federal government should stop borrowing. I can see no reason in the wide world why we should borrow on our own credit through a third party, and a private commercial house at that. What is social or public credit? I would say it is the joint creation of (1) a stable government; (2) a functioning industry, and (3) a consuming public. With any one of the above missing there could be no such thing as public credit. To-day we have a stable government, and I hope we always will have. We have a functioning industry, but we have not a consuming public, except to about one-half our proper capacity. The formation of a national credit account-the mechanization of it-would be no more difficult than the creation of a loan in a commercial bank. In support of my contention may I quote one or two authorities. J. M. Keynes, world famous economist, states:
There can be no doubt that all deposits are created by the banks.
Here is another quotation from the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, chairman of the Midland bank, and at one time chancellor of the British exchequer. He says:
I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do. create and destroy money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits. ... They who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of governments, and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.
I am sorry I have not time to cite further, although I have here some excellent quotations that I should like to give to the house.
The central bank could be used, and I think we should amend a certain clause in the Bank of Canada Act which would allow it to monetize the credit of this nation, not at the limited amount of to-day, but limited only by the fullest needs of the Canadian people. This particular account that I suggest could be increased by the extent to which our production increases out of proportion to our consumption. In other words, the more the people of Canada produce of worth while goods that are wanted, the more real wealth they would have, and they could monetize it and draw upon it to meet their needs. If there was a slacking off in production the addition to the national credit account would be reduced thereby.
The greater the production of a nation the higher its standard of living should be, but unfortunately -under our present orthodox thinking the more we produce in most things the more poverty we have around us, the

The Budget-Mr. Willis
more unemployed there are to feed and look after, and in many respects the poorer are we financially. Every precaution, of course, could be and should be taken against any dangers of inflation, and I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that that could be taken care of.
The proposal I have put forward, which I might say is not new, is one on which I stand absolutely. It is criticized by those who have not looked into the subject, on the ground that it would lead to inflation, but I am confident that we could quite safely guard against that difficulty.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the house that the solution of the problems I have mentioned are entirely in our own hands. This parliament is all powerful. If it has not got the power, it can take it. The crisis through which we have been passing in the last five years is a man made crisis, and as a man made crisis can be man mended. Parliament will be held responsible to get us out of our present difficulties. If it fails to do so, the fault lies with parliament, and no doubt parliament will be blamed by the people of this country.
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) has asked the very important question, what about the farmer? To that largely I desire to address myself in my remarks this evening, and particularly so because of the remarks made by the official financial critic, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth (Mr. Ralston), in regard to the wheat situation in this country.
May I point out to him and to the house that before this government came into power the wheat markets of the world were already closed. On August 1, 1930, the duties against our wheat going to Italy were 86 cents, France 85 cents, Germany 97 cents, Greece 56 cents, the United States 42 cents and Japan 34 cents. May I indicate to the house as well that these duties are so high that it matters not whether you increase them by two dollars; the result is precisely the same. They are so high already that no wheat can enter those countries. In addition to that, there were restrictions on imports in Europe, and quotas, which made it entirely impossible for us to ship our wheat to those countries.
Mr. John I. McFarland was appointed to handle the wheat situation on behalf of the central selling agency on November 24, 1930. At that time the price of wheat in Canada was the lowest in the history of this country. It was then hovering around fifty cents a bushel.
The federal government immediately guaranteed the banks against any loss in supporting the market, on behalf not only of the western wheat grower but of the people of Canada from one end to the other. Since 1930 the federal government have been supporting the wheat market. In 1934 not only did they continue that support but they pegged the price at seventy-five cents a bushel for No. 1 northern at Fort William. By that pegging, in addition to the support which they had previously given, they increased the price at that time by sixteen cents a bushel over the price of the previous year.
May I point out that at the present time European imports are the. lowest they have been in thirty years, due to the tariffs which were put on as I have indicated, to restrictions in regard to quotas, and to the milling regulations.
May I point out to those in this house and in the country who advance the argument that we should dump our wheat on the markets of the world, take our loss and get out of the market, as the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth indicated on behalf of the official opposition, that forced sales of wheat still form part of the world's carry-over whether that wheat is here or whether it is in Europe. It matters not how much wheat we sell to Europe; if it is held in Europe in store it still remains part of the world's carry-over; it still remains hanging over the markets of the world. Therefore forced sales do not, as has been indicated, reduce the carry-over.
It will be well within the memory of this house that Mr. John I. McFarland appeared before the banking and commerce committee in 1934 and gave evidence with regard to his operations. Many on the opposition side indicated that he was gambling in the wheat of this country and that he was gambling with the taxpayers' money. May I quote what Mr. McFarland said at .the conclusion of his evidence, when he had convinced most of those people who stood before him, and who previously were his critics. He said:
But if you will only realize that in these three years, or a little more than three years, the western farmer has marketed upwards of one billion bushels of wheat-and he has marketed that under these operations-and again nobody knows to what extent he has profited on a billion bushels; I do not know what he has profited, but $100,000,000 would be a small guess, and all that has gone to the benefit not of the western farmer only, but to Canada as a whole.
How can anybody complacently stand by and see the western farmer eliminated when he has contributed some 31 or 32 per cent of the external trade of this country for the last twenty years? Could we stand by and let him
The Budget-Mr. Willis

be eliminated in a world that has barricaded itself against other exporting countries to support their farmers?
Apparently the contention of the press in some parts of this country, and apparently the contention of some hon. members who sit opposite, would be that that should be done.
May I again quote Mr. McFarland, perhaps the world's greatest wheat expert, who in a speech at Moose Jaw on February 14 last said:
Men say, "Let the price go down to any disastrously low level to which speculators may drive it," and proudly boast that that rvould reduce acreage and production. Yes, my friends, they are correct, that will do it. and would have done it, in Canada, and with a vengeance. Such men do not consider how cruelly unfair it would have been to our citizens to leave our farmers to fight such an unequal contest, when all other exporting countries have been assisting their farmers in various ways, so as to maintain them on the land.
And again:
With the world wheat situation nearer to normal than at any time for the past six years; with present subsoil moisture conditions on this continent far below normal, we should not regard a probable carryover in Canada of 80 million bushels or even more, as a calamity to be avoided by now attempting to force our wheat on world markets at a price below what it has cost to produce.
And he concludes:
No one will ever be able to estimate the great benefits the producer, and the people in general, have received as a result of the government's support of the price structure on the last five crops of Canada, which produced the grand total of 1,750,000,000 bushels. I want to say to you, without prejudice, and based upon my inside observations of our own market conditions, in conjunction with those of the world's market in general, that in the absence of government support, it is clear to me that there would have been such chaos, that I am sure I would not care to have been a resident in these parts of the world.
If I am correct in interpreting the arguments of hon. members opposite, that is precisely what they desire us to do. They say that this wheat should be dumped upon the markets of the w'orld at a time when there is a shortage and at a time when we will soon have an advantage because of the quality of our product. They are suggesting that we sacrifice the farmers of this country by throwing upon the markets of the world their wheat at a price below the cost of production. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth is one of those who advocates this action. I would not have the temerity to speak with regard to fish, which he may understand, and I do not think he should have the temerity to speak as a wheat expert.

In addition to carrying the wheat crop for the last five or six years this government has sent out additional trade commissioners who have been selling wheat in a way it has never been sold before. Then there was the bonus paid on wheat of five cents per bushel for one year. As a result of this bonus a total of $12,706,000 was paid in one year to the farmers of western Canada. It is true that some of the farmers did not receive this, but I think it is the first time in the history of Canada that a government has had the courage to bonus the western wlieat producers. This is also the first government which has had the courage to indicate that such a bonus was to compensate for conditions brought about by tariffs. Because of the Ottawa agreements we have a six per cent preference on wheat entering Great Britain, and this has permitted us to sell large quantities which otherwise would not have been sold.
I have a vivid recollection of the campaign of 1930 and I remember the former Minister of Education of the province of Manitoba going about my constituency and indicating to the people that if the Conservative party was returned to power they would never get the Crowsnest rates on the Hudson Bay railway. That was one of the first things done by this government but as a result of the speeches made by that gentleman-no doubt there were dozens of others saying the same thing-hundreds of votes were lost to me and I suppose thousands of votes were lost to other hon. members.
I should like to refer to the question raised by the hon. member who has just preceded me (Mr. Spencer). He asked: What of the farmer? I should like to direct the attention of the house to the functions of the federal government in connection with relief and particularly in connection with agricultural relief. The municipality has the first responsibility with regard to agricultural relief. The municipality has the machinery to handle the situation, the councillors and other representatives of the municipality are on the ground and know the situation. When the municipality is unable to handle the situation it must of necessity go to the province. Why is this? It is because the province created the municipality; the municipality obtains its legislative authority from the province. There is no connection whatever between the municipality and the federal government. The federal government begins to function when the province asks for assistance. At that time the necessary advances are made to the provinces with which to handle relief. The federal government does not handle relief, and particularly agricultural relief.

The Budget-Mr. Willis
The first policy of the federal government with regard to relief was that of public works. My constituency includes all the drought area of the province of Manitoba, and in one year some 846,000 was spent on public works in that area. Subsequently the public works were carried on under the joint responsibility of the provincial and federal governments. There are many who say that this should have been continued, and I should like to state to the house why this policy was discontinued by the federal government. I should like to qoute from two speeches which were made in this house. It will be remembered that in 1932 a dominion-provincial conference was held in Ottawa. The provincial premiers met here in secret but I shall quote from two speeches made in the House of Commons about that time. On May 4, 1932, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) was introducing an act with respect to relief, and he referred to the dominion-provincial conference in the following words:
On April 8 the provincial premiers came to Ottawa and on what remained of that day and throughout the following day the whole situation was considered with a view to checking up on the work accomplished and to formulate a course for the future. I think I am stating it fairly when I say the premiers and those representing the provinces were unanimous in the decision that the provinces and the municipalities within those provinces were financially unable for any length of time to carry on the program of public works projected. or to carry out the scheme formulated since the last session of parliament.
That is why the public works program was discontinued at that time. On November 22 of the same year the Prime Minister was speaking on unemployment, and he is reported at page 1455 of Hansard for 1932-33 as follows:
This I should like to say, not to anticipate what will be said by the Minister of Labour at the appropriate time. Last spring the government called a meeting of representatives of the provinces, who concluded that it was not expedient to continue tneir efforts for relief along the lines that had prevailed theretofore. They decided' they would have recourse to direct relief. The conference was very well attended: half a dozen of our ministers were there, and that conclusion having been arrived at. the action indicated was taken.
That is why we have been granting relief rather than carrying on a program of public works within the municipalities and the provinces. The amount of relief given is measured by the need of the locality. Those areas in the west where there has been the greatest drought for the greatest number of years naturally receive the greatest attention. In Manitoba we have an area known as drought area A where there has been no crop for 92582-140
five years. This area was defined at a conference held in Ottawa at which I had the honour of attending. The provincial treasurer of Manitoba attended and I accompanied him at the request of the provincial government. Subsequently another area known as drought area B was defined, at another meeting at which I was not present. Those areas have been defined and treatment is given in that way and loans are advanced by the federal government for the purpose of supplying seed grain. This government pays one-half the freight on cattle, horses and equipment going out of that area, and also on bheir being ready to return to it the federal government pays fifty per cent of the freight. It pays fifty per cent of the freight on hay which is trucked into the area.
The loans for seed grain constitute one of the difficulties at the present time. The federal government has advanced recently to Manitoba, for the purpose only of the drought areas, these amounts:
November 15 last	 $75,000
December 10 last	 75,000
February 9 last	 75,000
And under a recent order in council dated March 25, there has again been advanced to Manitoba the sum of $275,000. Thus there has been advanced to that province since November 15 last, for the drought areas only, the sum of $500,000, which is to be used for seed grain, feed and relief, and for present purposes that amount seems quite adequate. In addition to that the federal government has, as I have indicated, paid for freight in regard to feed and equipment for the drought areas a sum amounting to $77,264. That in itself is a large sum. In toto, for relief and other purposes, the federal government has advanced to Manitoba now between $13,500,000 and $14,000,000, which at the present time has not been paid 'back. There are those who say from time to time: What is the federal government doing in regard to direct relief? May I point out what it is doing in those areas in Manitoba. First in regard to direct relief it is paying its one-third; it is advancing to Manitoba the one-third payable by that province, and it is advancing to Manitoba the other one-third which the province in turn hands over to the municipalities. The resultant picture is therefore that the federal government is paying outright one-third; it is lending the other two-thirds, and has as a consequence one hundred per cent of the responsibility in that regard. As I have said, the federal government has advanced to my province for relief and other purposes be-

The Budget-Mr. Willis

tween $13,500,000 and $14,000,000, and I leave it to the house whether that amount will ever be paid back.
I hoar from time to time from those within my constituency and those outside it; they are continually writing to me-on Monday last I got forty-eight letters-largely to this effect: I am not getting sufficient relief; the standard of relief in my municipality is such and so and I do not think it is fair; I do not think it is sufficient. To all those people I answer, as the answer must be: The question of how much relief you get, the question of the security which is taken, the question of the -forms which you sign, are matters entirely for the municipality, subject to such restrictions as may be placed upon that municipality by the government of the province. The restrictions can be placed upon those municipalities only by the province and not by this government, owing to the fact that the municipalities exist because of the Manitoba municipal act, the fact that they are creatures of that province. If I as a federal member for a Manitoba constituency were to go to the municipalities and make suggestions to them or try to order them about, their only answer to me need be: Go roll your hoop, because the federal government has nc authority over the municipalities, no authority in regard to the security or amount of relief. The federal government merely supplies adequate funds to Manitoba and leaves to it the question of the amount of relief that shall be given. That subject has been one of the greatest difficulties in my constituency; it is a difficulty which has taken up most of my time during the period I have been there, a difficulty which has kept me within the constituency going about from place to place, seeing municipal councils; that is my main business.
I should like now to speak in regard to the question of debt, because that is very important. The federal government has put on the statute books of this country the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act for the purpose of scaling down debts of farmers only. The machinery is simple; the cost is nil; the forms are given entirely free. The farmer has merely to fill out a very simple form which goes to the official receiver. The official receiver then calls together a meeting of the creditors who, sitting down together, decide what should be done with regard to the situation. The farmer has an opportunity of formulating his own proposal which he brings to the meeting. He settles on his own basis or he need not settle at all. Contrary to what some members have said in the
fMr. Willis.]
house, I contend that is one of the greatest things which has ever happened to the farmers within my district, that they have an opportunity of scaling down their debts in that way and on such a basis that they know they will receive fair treatment without cost to them. In particular this is a definite and final debt adjustment; it is not debt postponement, as so many of the provincial acts are.
To return again to the question raised by the hon. member for Battle River-what of the farmer?-the government this year is advancing the sum of S90,000,000 in connection with the Canadian Farm Loan Act. I had occasion to speak of that previously and I expressed an opinion then which I would express anywhere again. One of the most important points is this: the Canadian farm loan board must be willing to grant loans throughout Canada on the ordinary business basis. They cannot set apart an area and say it is too dry. They cannot overlook the fact that within such areas during the years from 1924 to 1929 there were grown the best crops that were raised within Manitoba. I think the government was very wise in doing away with the provincial boards, particularly the one in Manitoba which has shown poor judgment in regard to the loans which it has advanced. In addition to that, as I have indicated, it may be necessary with the board at Ottawa so to surround the present commissioner that his ideas may be changed, because if his ideas are precisely as they were before; if he as an individual is still permitted to dominate that board, the policy will likely be a continuation of that of the past where they merely played safe. They asked merely the one question: Did it rain on your land last year and not the question: What is the quality of your land? What is your experience as a farmer Have you made money in the past? Have you shown ordinary energy in pursuing your occupation None of those questions was asked. They do not ask, even as bankers do: What is the character of the individual? They ask you: What area are you in? Perhaps, because that has been designated as drought area A or B, they say: No. we cannot advance loans there, not knowing that drought areas are still designated in that way because spots within them are completely dried up.
Speaking also in regard to the drought areas and the situation of the farmers, may I congratulate the government on the reclamation scheme which they propose to put into force? That scheme, which is not yet before the house, has potentialities beyond measure.

The Budget-Mr. Willis
If they can carry on their cultural practices which will indicate what should be done in a crisis such as this; if they can demonstrate the kinds of grasses that can be raised within that area, the way in which trees should be planted to stop drifting, methods by which streams may be dammed and the spring freshets held, that in itself would be a tremendous help. All these schemes are useful; nothing should be disregarded. The difficulty with experts is that they see only their own part of the picture. For instance, the engineer sees only the dam; he has no idea of the usefulness of trees. The tree expert is just as narrow with his view. All these are useful; the only thing is the government should make all speed in getting to the work.
What benefit does the farmer receive from the Ottawa agreements? I would point particularly to the cattle restrictions which for thirty-seven years prevented cattle being sent from Canada to the old country. These have been removed. In 1930 we shipped no cattle to the United Kingdom; in 1934 we shipped 53,863 head.
But particularly have the Ottawa agreements helped those in Canada who produce hogs. The Canadian production of hogs is in round figures 6,000,000. Immediately following the Ottawa agreements, due to the preferences given in the British market, the price was increased by two and a half cents a pound. Figuring that out on the basis of a hog weighing two hundred pounds, you will find that the producers of hogs received an additional income of 830,000,000. The next year the price was increased to eight cents, so that they received that year on the basis of 6,000,000 hogs an additional amount of $48,000,000 as a result of the Ottawa agrements. Since that time the price has further increased and is now around eight and a half cents.
I would further point out that by reason of the tariff imposed on corn coming into this country, for the imposition of which I take some credit, the market price has been increased. The duty was imposed on June 2, 1932. The total imports for the year ending March 31, 1931, were 9,500,000 bushels; in 1934 they were down to 5,200,000 bushels. There are those who say: That is all very well, but we have increased our imports from South Africa. But that is quite untrue. From South Africa in 1931 we imported
1,117,000	bushels, and in 1934 that figure had been reduced to 198,000 bushels. That has had the result of giving the market to the producers of barley in this country; it increased the price and decreased the carryover.
Then to those who have to borrow money -and we all have to borrow from time to time -I draw attention to the fact that interest rates have been reduced by this government. Savings bank interest has been reduced to two per cent, the result is that the ordinary depositor will not now leave his money in the bank at two per cent but will seek other avenues for investment, with the result that more money is spent. In addition, it has had the general effect of reducing interest on all debts. Interest rates have also been reduced by this government by the refunding operations that have been carried on, as a result of which taxpayers in Canada are paying in interest $14,600,000 per year less than when this government came into power. Those who deal with the banks now have the satisfaction of knowing that the bankers cannot charge more than seven per cent, where formerly eight per cent was a common rate, and by subterfuge the banks were able to evade the legal restriction. Owing to the penalties now imposed that can no longer be done.
Before this session ends we shall have legislation relating to matters dealt with by the price spreads and mass buying commission. I do not desire to discuss it now, as the commission has not yet reported, but in my opinion it was the greatest weapon that has ever been fashioned in this country against the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.
Speaking again with particular regard to the farmer I would mention the central bank, because whether people know it or not it will have a tremendous effect on the credit of this country. One important function of the central bank is that of controlling and regulating credit. Another function is to advise governments in regard to their financial policies.
In regard to the control of credit I point out that the bank has unlimited resources, and its actions are necessarily dependent upon that fact. In boom times the bank has the necessary machinery to control the boom. The governor of the bank would go to the general managers of the chartered banks and say:	I think you are lending too
much money for purposes of gambling. If the general managers said to the governor: Well, would you mind going and running your little bank and we will run ours-then the governor of the bank would say: Very well; I used to work for you gentlemen, but now we will refuse to do your discounting and by that we will freeze up credit in your
The Budget-Mr. Willis

bank. If that be not sufficient, then through open market operations the central bank, known as the Bank of Canada, will step into the market and sell securities, causing the depositors to take their money out of the banks to buy securities, having the effect of freezing up credit. In times of depression the central bank will be equally effective. The governor of the bank will say to the commercial banks: You have some frozen paper; probably you would like to discount it. The central bank will take over these frozen assets and give the bank's money in place of them, thereby forcing money into the credit system of the country. If that be not sufficient the Bank of Canada will itself go into the open market and buy securities, thus placing money in the hands of the banks, and the banks must use that money, because three-quarters of the deposits of this country are in savings accounts on which the banks pay two per cent, so they cannot allow it to remain idle; they have to put it out. So far as credit in this country is concerned that is one of the greatest things we have ever had, the Deputy Minister of Finance says the greatest thing since confederation.
Then I would point out that the centra! bank took over from the chartered banks of this country some $39,000,000 in gold. It was taken over at $20.67 an ounce and the present price is around $35, so there is a profit of some $15 an ounce. Some of that gold was held for foreign account-I do not know how much, but I should think $9,000,000 would be a large estimate, due to the small number of branches they have in foreign countries. If that be a correct estimate there is on that gold an immediate profit to the people of this country, not to the bank but to the consolidated revenue fund of over $20,000,000 which is not doing badly out of the banks of this country.
I should like to compliment the government on the fact that Mr. Justice Taylor, formerly of the province of Manitoba, has been appointed to the pension commission. I believe his appointment will have a good effect on the administration of our pensions. I should like also to refer to the nationalization of our radio, which has had a great and beneficial effect on the country.


Olof Hanson: Has it been satisfactory so far?


Mr. WILLIS:: It has been entirely satisfactory to those people whom I represent.


Olof Hanson: It has not been satisfactory in the rest of the country.


Errick French Willis: I think if you went to the country on the radio policy of this government you certainly would be defeated; if you

do not think so get your leader to go to the country on that issue. I defy him to take that step.
In addition the live stock industry of this country has derived benefits due to the fact that we have a preference in the British market. There are great possibilities also in regard to the United States trade agreement which may or may not be consummated; in any event we are striving to carry it through. The other day I was surprised to hear hon. gentlemen opposite trying to disparage the work of this government in connection with trade agreements. We have negotiated nine new trade agreements during the life of this government, and we have cancelled none. It may be said that we have cancelled two, but those have been renewed, so the policy of this government has been most successful in that connection.
Finally I should like to say a word about the balance of trade. We now have a favourable balance of S134,000,000 as compared with an adverse balance of $90,000,000 in 1929. That has the effect of allowing this country to borrow more than, we could otherwise borrow. It also has the effect of allowing us to borrow at the rate of two per cent in some instances, something never done before in Canada.
I should like also, if I had time, to deal with certain other matters concerning the present policy of the government, and in particular I should like to refer for a moment to that accusation which is made so often, that the reform policy of the Prime Minister indicates an about turn on his part. That is contrary to the truth. Those who say the reform policy of the Prime Minister is an about face have not read the first speech he made in the House of Commons on November 20, 1911. I should like to quote from the Toronto Globe of February 15, 1935; Mr. Anderson, editor of the Globe, refers to an interview he had with Mr. Bennett twenty-one years ago. These were Mr. Bennett's words at that time:
Let me tell you that if ever this yoimg country should run into a period of serious and prolonged depresion-such a period of hard times and unemployment as has been known to other countries in world history-those then at the helm will have to pay in costly measure for the prodigality of to-day. They will have to atone for the exploitation of the public at the hands of self-centred and predatory interests by bitter doses of taxation, by radical enactments, by revision and reform of the whole capitalistic system-or face something of far sterner significance and more devastating consequences.

The Budget-Mr. Anderson (Halton)
This is the comment of Mr. Anderson:
These words were spoken twenty-one years ago. The comparatively young member for Calgary, serving his first term in the House of Commons, was pacing his room in the old, now gone, building on Parliament hill. He spoke to the writer-spoke urgently and emphatically-of what was taking place.
This indicates that as long ago as that the change was taking place. I should like to take time also to read a portion of the speech delivered by Mr. R. B. Bennett in the House of Commons on November 20, 1911:
In my judgment, in this complex civilization of ours, the great struggle of the future will be between human rights and property interests; and it is the duty and function of government to provide that there shall be no undue regard for the latter that limits or lessens the other.... If there be certain immunities and rights and privileges which flow to men who constitute themselves into corporations, it follows that the parliament or legislature that created them, that gave them birth and existence, has the power to impose upon them limitation commensurate w-ith the
demands and necessities of the people_____ I
submit that in this country we should at the earliest possible moment give our best attention to the consideration of some measure that will provide a tribunal that will limit the issue of securities by corporations, and will protect the public by enacting some measure by which they can know the real value of those securities.
Later on the same gentleman complained in this country and in this house against the lobbying by the rich people that took place on Parliament hill. At another time he indicated that he thought levies should be made on the insurance companies of Canada, and during the Beauharnois debate he indicated that he snapped his fingers at the financial interests of this country. The Prime Minister has always been a reformer and a realist; the reforms he is bringing forward at the present time indicate that he has had these matters under consideration for a very long time. The reform program deals with minimum wages and maximum working hours; child labour and sweatshop methods; unemployment, health and accident insurance; income tax; an economic council; old age pensions and farm loans.


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


Errick French Willis: It includes the Farmers'
Creditors Arrangement Act and the central bank. When people say these are all very well at election time may I say that they are not promises; they were not placed in a book; they are not like the 1919 Liberal platform of which we have heard. These are matters which have become the law of 92582-141
this country. That is why it cannot be said that this is an election policy; these are the laws of the country.


Robert King Anderson: Mr. Speaker, a great many compliments have been paid the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) on the splendid budget he has presented to parliament this session, and with those compliments I wish to associate myself. I believe this is the most comprehensive budget that has been delivered in this house during the time I have been a member. It presents a clear and complete picture of the financial, industrial and commercial activities of the Canadian people during the past year, and contains a wealth of information that will well repay any person who studies it. In one respect this budget has attained the impossible; it has been received without opposition by the great masses of the people.
Of course we do not expect that the financial critic of the opposition will agree with any budget. It is his duty to rave and shout loud nothings in order to discredit and ridicule the budget in an attempt to blind the people to the benefits it confers. The hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) did his work well; his particular mentality lent itself to that kind of oratory. That was why he was put up as financial critic. During the course of his speech he tried to give the impression that this government was in the van in regard to economic nationalism. That is not so; economic nationalism had been rampant in the world long before this government took office; it had reached its peak before that time. I have before me some of the duties imposed by other countries in order to shut out the goods of the Dominion of Canada. These figures are very illuminating. So far as I am aware, after this government came into office no country, with the exception of the United States, raised its tariff against outside countries. When this government took office in 1930 it found that durin0 the regime of the Liberal government in Canada the government of the United States had on two occasions raised its tariffs, once under the Fordney-McCumber tariff and later under the Hawley-Smoot tariff, whereby prohibitive barriers were raised against the products of this country. The result was that our exports to that land reached almost the vanishing point. The rate on wheat stood at 42 cents per bushel; on sheep and lambs it had been increased 50 per cent to 200 per cent, on beef 300 per cent, on pork from 2jt cents per pound to 31 cents per pound, on


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