1935-03-27

STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) presented the first report of the select standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 46, to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: .Explain.


Mr. HANSON (York^Sunbury):: The object of this bill is to define a cord of wood or other substance under the Weights and Measures Act; it is to set up a standard and also to provide that the governor in council may make regulations in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What was the cost to the government of the protection wall built at St. Romuald?
2.	How many bags of cement were used, and what was the total cost?
3.	How much was expended 'by the government for unerushed stone, by the yard, on the site?
4.	What was the cost of sand on the site?
5.	How much each did the government pay for piles?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	$24,021.19.
2.	(a) 7.396; (b) $4,404.65.
3.	1931-32-$1.05 per yard (field stone for
cement work).	1934-35-$1,10 per yard
(quarry stone for cement work). 1904-35- $0.85 per yard (stone for backfilling).
4. 1931-32-$0.95 per yard.	1934-35-$0.85 per yard.
5.	1931-32-121 .pieces or 1,785 feet at 16
cents, $285.60.	1934-35-223 pieces or 3,575
feet at 15 cents, $536.25.


ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR SMUGGLING
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What are the names of the alleged smugglers who are actually being given a preliminary hearing in Montreal on a charge of smuggling alcoholic liquors?
2.	In connection with the aforesaid matter, was it the federal Department of Justice, or the attorney general of the province of Quebec that requested that such persons should stand trial at the assizes without a preliminary hearing?
3.	Did the attorney general of the province of Quebec refuse to comply with the request of the federal Department of Justice?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: As the cases above referred to are at the present time before the courts, it is not considered in the public interest to supply the information requested.


SOREL, QUE., SHIPYARDS
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	Did the Minister of Marine receive a petition signed by the employees of the Sorel shipyards?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the petition and what are the names of the persons who signed same?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


HERMENEGILDE BOULAY
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Was one Hermenegilde Boulay at any time appointed postmaster of the town of Rimouski, Quebec, or to any position in the postal service at Rimouski, Quebec?
2.	If so, to what office, how long did he hold the office, and what was the remuneration paid for his services?
3.	If removed from office, at whose request, and for what reason?


Mr. SAUYE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Boulay was acting postmaster at Rimouski from the 24th to the 27th of November, 1930. He was paid $39.42 which includes the salary of the staff for the period he was in charge.
3.	Because the department was informed that Mr. Boulay was not, in the sense of the law, a resident of Rimouski.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MUNN:: 1.	What amounts have been advanced to the
following port authorities-Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, St. John, and Vancouver, up to the 31st of December, 1934:	(a) by -way of
grants; (b) by way of loans?
2.	How are the loans secured?
3.	What rate of interest is charged by the government?
4.	What amount of interest has been paid to the government by each?
5.	What amount of interest is delinquent by any?
Governor General oj Canada

6.	What amount of principal has been returned by any?
7.	What amount of sinking fund has been set up by any?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Return tabled herewith.


ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR SMUGGLING
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What are the names of persons who stood trial at Quebec in the years 1933 and 1934 on a charge of smuggling alcoholic liquors?
2.	What are the names of the persons who stood such trial at the assizes without a preliminary hearing?
3.	Was the decision to have such persons stand trial at the assizes without a preliminary hearing taken by the attorney general of the province or the Department of Justice?
4.	Did the federal Department of Justice or the attorney general of the province of Quebec intervene, in any manner whatsoever, so that such persons should stand trial at the assizes without a preliminary hearing?


Hugh Guthrie: Return tabled herewith. MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



PORT LA TOUR, N.S., BREAKWATER

Mr. DUFF (for Mr. Ralston):: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, telegrams, bills, paylists and other documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works with respect to any work done or material supplied on the breakwater at Port La Tour, Shelburne county, Nova Scotia, since the work referred to in return No. 234, dated April 5, 1934.



WEST BACCARO, N.S., BREAKWATER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DUFF (for Mr. Ralston);
For a copy of all papers, correspondence, telegrams, bills, paylists and other documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works with respect to any work done or material supplied on the breakwater at West Baeearo, Shelburne county, Nova Scotia, since January 20, 1934.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MoPHEE:
For a return showing all decreases in the customs tariff passed by the parliament of Canada in the years 1922 to 1930; return to show former rates as well as decreases and dates when decreases were made.
Mr. BROWN:: For a return showing all increases and decreases in the customs tariff passed by the parliament of Canada in the years 1929-1930; return to show former rates as well as increases and decreases and dates when changes were made.



DOMINION LIVE STOCK COMMISSIONER- DAILY MARKET REPORTS

Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (West Algoma):: May I, with the leave of the house, be
[Mr. Munn.l
permitted to move on behalf of Mr. Stevens the motion standing in his name, as follows:
For a copy of all the daily market reports of the dominion live stock commissioner for the months of January, 1934; March, 1934; September, 1934; December, 1934; January, 1935; and February, 1935, as forwarded from the Toronto representative of the Department of Agriculture for distribution to the markets of the west and to the press, showing:-
(a)	The opening prices of live stock on the Toronto market;
(b)	Copy of the report of the dominion live stock commissioner's representative in Toronto on the Toronto live stock market as handed by him to the press from day to day regarding the sales and prices on that market.


William Duff: I am very glad to second
that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: I have the honour to inform the house that His Majesty the King has been graciously pleased to approve the appointment of Mr. John Buchan, Companion of Honour and Member of Parliament for the Scottish Universities, as Governor General of Canada, such appointment to be effective upon the relinquishment of office in the autumn of this year by His Excellency the Earl of Bess-borough.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that personally I am very much pleased at the announcement which has just been made by the acting leader of the government ('Sir George Perley) to the effect that Mr. John Buchan will succeed Earl Bessborough when His Excellency's term of office expires. I think the appointment is an excellent one.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VEINIOT (Gloucester):: I
would like to submit a question to the Minister of Railways and Canals in regard to a protest made against the repairing or overhauling of government steamships in United States docks. The matter has already been before the house, but I wish to submit the

following question to the minister:	Can he
inform the house in the case of the Canadian Highlander if any inquiry was addressed at any time to the dry dock at Saint John, New Brunswick, as to whether that dock was available, and in the case of the Canadian Britisher whether any such inquiry was made prior to a dock having been already booked at New York?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The question of the Highlander and the Britisher, as the hon. gentleman has remarked, was up a few days ago on a question by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn). I wish to say that at that time I gave to the house a statement which was given to me by Mr. Fullerton and which I presume was given to him by the steamship management under him, which statement I believe has since been shown to be somewhat inaccurate. In other words, my understanding to-day is that as regards the questions asked by the hon. gentleman, the answer to that regarding the second boat, the Britisher, is: Yes, an inquiry was made of the Saint John dry dock, to see if it could accept that ship; but in regard to the other, I am informed more or less authoritatively that such inquiry was not made. Since there was some question as to the truth of the statement, which I made here, of course on the authority of the management who are entirely in control, I informed Mr. Fullerton that the government desired a complete investigation into the whole question. We insisted that as far as possible all ships of the Canadian fleet must be repaired in Canadian shipyards, even if sometimes that makes it necessary to repair them in advance of the regular time. The investigation is now going on, and as the matter is in a sense sub judice I do not think I should say anything further at present.



PETITION FOR CLEMENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS L. CHURCH (East Toronto) : I should like to address a question to the government. Has clemency been asked for Mrs. Thomasina Sarao who was sentenced to be hanged for murder in Montreal next Friday? If so, what action has been taken, and is there any hope of sentence being commuted, as she is a woman?
Hugh Guthrie: A petition was received on behalf
of the woman prisoner mentioned by my hon. friend, but it has been decided that there should be no interference with the sentence of the court in that case.
Wheat Quotas



WHEAT QUOTAS-ARGENTINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: On Monday evening last the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and I think also the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) put a question to me when the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce were under discussion, with reference to Canada having loaned part of her so-called quota to Argentina. These questions are found on pages 2070 and 2081 of Hansard.
I desire to say that no part of the Canadian wheat export quota for the crop year 1933-34 or for the crop year 1934-35 was in fact transferred or loaned to Argentina. If the statement made in the House of Commons on May 11, 1934, by the Prime Minister, to which the hon. member for Temiscouata referred, is read carefully it will be seen that what the Prime Minister actually said was:
Any concessions that might be made to the Argentine by reason of the extraordinarily large crop they had would not involve Canada in the loss of any shipments that we might be able to make, for the quota we had for the year was a quota that was greater than we should be able to fill under existing probabilities. In any event it would be merely a loan of a part of our quota until next year, so that we would not lose anything if we made an adjustment with the Argentine.
The Prime Minister was referring to conversations then in progress during which the other overseas wheat exporting countries had expressed their willingness, subject to certain safeguarding conditions, to transfer temporarily to Argentina part of their export quotas that were unlikely to be used. In the event, Argentina was not willing to subscribe to the safeguarding conditions, and so no transfer of quota from Canada to Argentina ever took place. There is therefore no question of Argentina returning something which that country never received.



CONFERENCE OF MAYORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I should like to ask the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) if he has received any request from the mayors who are now assembled, or have been assembled for the past two days, in Montreal that they be received at the bar of the house and allowed to state their grievances to this parliament? If so, what action have the government taken in the matter?
Conjerences of Mayors


Right Hon.   S@: The government has received no request from the mayors to be heard at the bar of the house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: According to press reports the mayors assembled in Montreal made a request to be heard at the bar of the house. According to the same report that request has been refused. I regard the matter as one of urgent public importance, and therefore I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the request of the mayors and representatives of the following cities and towns in the Dominion of Canada to be heard at the bar of the house, in order to lay before parliament the critical conditions prevailing.
The list of the mayors and reeves or representatives of municipalities throughout Canada who have made the request is as follows: Camillien Houde, mayor of Montreal-


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I interrupt the hon. member to point out that according to standing order 31 which governs such a motion-


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I without being discourteous to the chair-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This is part of the motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was just pointing out-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I point out to the hon.
member who is asking leave to propose this motion that the first paragraph of standing order 31 states when such a motion shall be made, that it shall be before notices of motion. That order on the order paper is past, and the motion which he is now making is too late.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
the right, and I shall allow any member of the house to discuss the matter in the regular way.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Standing order 31 also says:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked' after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order 15).
I submit with all due deference that the ordinary routine business has not yet been disposed of. We are now on the orders of the day, with private members still having

precedence, and until the private members are through with their questioning I claim that I still have the right to place this resolution before parliament.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The routine proceedings
are as set out at page 2 of the routine proceedings and orders of the day of Wednesday, March 27.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Louder, we cannot hear a
word. .


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The routine proceedings
are set out on page 2. Then follow the questions. Following questions are notices of motions for the production of papers.
The learned author of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms has pointed out, what I think was pointed out by the hon. member who spoke to the point of order, that standing order 15 does set out what the routine proceedings are, and they always are carried on daily and are strictly observed in drawing up the orders of the day. As I read paragraph (1) of standing order 31, a motion to adjourn the house must be made after the daily routine business has been concluded and before notices of motion. It occurs to me that the time is now too late to make the motion.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: May I call Your Honour's attention to the orders of the day for Wednesday, as shown on page 40 of Beauchesne. They are as follows: questions; notices of motions; public bills and orders; government notices of motions; government orders. Now we have not yet reached the proceeding of government orders; in fact we have not even reached notices of motions. Consequently, I think the hon. member for North Winnipeg is in order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I could not quite hear
the first part of the hon. member's remarks. Is he referring to page 40?


Robert Gardiner: Yes,	page 40, the
routine proceedings for Wednesday, that is to-day.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Questions; notices of
motions; public bills and orders; government notices of motions; government orders. That is the business of the day; that is after routine proceedings. If the hon. member would refer to paragraph 2 on the preceding page he would see that the ordinary daily routine of business is set out, consisting of presenting reports by standing and select committees; motions-including notices of motion for the production of papers-and introduction of bills. Those are the routine

Conference of Mayors
proceedings according to standing order 15; they are always so designated in the orders of the day presented to the house each day.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But may I point out that paragraph 134 on page 42 says:
The time for asking leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance is after "routine proceedings" and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
The word "or" is there which, according to my interpretation of this paragraph, means that my motion is perfectly in. order.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I think Your
Honour is quite right in your interpretation of the rule. I would put it to my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) in this way: Under standing order 15 there is a list of the routine proceedings. Then it says:
The order of business for the consideration of the house, day by day, after the daily routine, shall be as follows: -
And on Wednesday:
Questions; notices of motions; public bills and orders-
So questions come after routine. That appears on page 40; questions and notices of motions come after the routine proceedings are concluded. Therefore according to this rule, which was quoted by the hon. gentleman also, routine proceedings have been concluded; the routine business was concluded before questions were answered.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the whole question hinges on whether the order, on page 7 of the orders of to-day, of notices of motion for production of papers is synonymous with the order for notices of motion on page 10 of the orders of the day. If Your Honour decides that notices of motion for production of papers means notices of motion under standing order 15, then I think Your Honour's ruling is correct. On the other hand I think there is force in the contention that the rule refers only to the notices of motion which come after the orders of the day, on to-day's order paper. In that event, sir, I think the hon. member for North Winnipeg is quite entitled to proceed. I think there is distinct ambiguity under this rule, and because of that ambiguity I think the hon. member should be permitted to proceed.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, there does appear to be a very profound doubt in your own mind as to the ruling you should give on this occasion. With all deference I submit to Your Honour that
the question at issue is of such vital importance to the whole dominion, involving as it does in the words of the mayors themselves the very peace, order and good government of Canada, that it would be a dangerous thing to deny the hon. member for North Winnipeg the opportunity of presenting this case to this house at this time. I do not think the house can afford to overlook this matter, especially as Your Honour does appear to have some doubt on the point.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is there any further discussion on the point of order?


Robert James Manion: I wish to say a word on the point of order. It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, as it always has struck me that the proceeding of the house under which any motion such as this should be made is distinctly set out on page 2 of the order paper. First comes reports by standing and select committees; then comes the routine proceeding of motions. That does not apply only to government motions; private members have the same right to submit motions as have members of the government. Very many private members on both sides of the house submit motions of one kind or another under that order, and I think the hon. gentleman should have submitted his motion under the order of motions, just as you have pointed out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But motions are a part of routine proceedings, and this rule specifically states that motions must be proceeded with after routine proceedings are disposed of.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend may be right, but I am giving my opinion. I think this should have come up under motions.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. President,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are two official languages used in this house, and if I choose to use the French form there is no reason why I should not do so. Mr. Speaker, I submit that the reason for this rule is that on any sitting day of the house, if there is a matter of definite urgent public importance an hon. member should have the right to bring it to the attention of the house. I cannot conceive that this rule 134 is very clear. The time for asking leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of moving a definite matter of urgent public importance is after routine proceedings and before the orders of the day are entered upon.



Conference of Mayors
That seems to be perfectly. clear. Up to the present the orders of the day have not been entered upon. If this is not the time, would you, Mr. Speaker, indicate just when is the time, because undoubtedly these proceedings of which we have already disposed, including notices of motion for the production of papers, are a part of routine proceedings, and so with questions. At that time we could not enter upon a discussion of the matter. I do not see any other time when it would have been proper to introduce a motion of this kind. On a number of occasions in the past fourteen years I have introduced motions of this kind, and unless my memory fails me they were introduced on the orders of the day. I should have to look that up, but I think that is the case, and I do not see that the rule is very clear.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I do not often intervene in a debate of this kind, but it seems to me that the argument is concerned purely with a matter of technicality. I would suggest to you, sir, and to the house that as this matter seems to be of very considerable importance, the house be generous enough to revert to that order of business which will permit this motion to be proceeded with.


Edward Joseph Garland: In any case may I submit that we have not yet reached notices of motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: Notices of motion appear on page 10 of the orders of the day of to-day, Wednesday, March 27.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just before you
give your ruling Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am anxious to support the Speaker in any ruling he may give which upholds the rules of the house, and I am prepared to do so. At the same time I favour the point of view presented by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) who has just spoken, and I would express the hope that a generous attitude might be taken by the house itself on this matter and that we might return to the order of proceedings which would permit of the motion being discussed. The point that is being raised at the moment, as to the time at which this motion should be introduced, is purely technical. Once the motion is introduced it can be discussed and will have to be discussed on its merits. I would favour a generous view being taken as to the introduction of the motion.


George Halsey Perley: So far as this
side of the house is concerned we have no objection whatever to this matter being discussed, but we think the hon. gentleman is out of order and should withdraw his motion. Then if he chooses to move that we revert to the order of motions, which would sustain the ruling of the Speaker, so far as I am concerned I wo'uld have no objection to doing so.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member
for North Winnipeg accede to the request of the acting Prime Minister?


Abraham Albert Heaps: On the understanding given
by the acting Prime Minister I am glad to withdraw my motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall consent be granted?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Now may I crave the
indulgence of the house with respect to standing order 31 ? I am very glad that this matter has been brought up to-day, and I purposely intervened when the hon. member rose to his feet. There is no standing order of the house which has given me more concern in the last two months than has the rule now in question. Hon. members may recall a discussion which took place in this chamber two years ago. Undoubtedly the hon. member for Sheliburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) will remember it, and if the Prime Minister were here I believe he would remember it too. The question arose as to whether or not under section (3) there would be an appeal from the decision of the Speaker.
May I say to hon. members that I have given the general provisions of this section the utmost consideration within my power, and I have no hesitation in saying that the section is ambiguous from beginning to end. There is ambiguity in section (1) about which I raised the point a few moments ago, for the purpose of obtaining a definite opinion. Hon. members will know I asked for discussion of the matter. The whole proceeding under section (3) is upon the assumption that an affirmative answer has been given throughout whereas, as a matter of fact, there may be a negative answer. That is, there may be a negative answer under section (3) with regard to the statement which is offered for discussion before the house. There may be a negative decision on the point as to whether or not the matter is of urgent public importance or as to whether the actual form in which the motion is couched is correct. There is nothing in the provisions of this standing order which provides for the reading of the statement to

Conference of Mayors
the house, unless the Speaker finds that throughout the procedure everything has been in order-an almost impossible situation.
I draw this matter to the attention of hon. members. It is my belief that arrangements should be made for a small committee of the house to discuss this section of standing order 31 so that it may be revised and made clear with a view to following more easily proper procedure. I crave the indulgence of the house for having taken this length of time in a discussion of this particular section. However this matter is of importance; the sections are certainly ambiguous and indefinite and should be made as definite as possible. Will the hon. member kindly proceed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would move that we revert to whatever may be the proper motion or order under which this matter could be discussed.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the motion carried, with the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member proceed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 1 wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, the acting Prime Minister and the house for the kindness of interpreting the rules of the house so that I may have an opportunity of moving what I consider to be a somewhat important resolution. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. This is a matter of extreme importance, and it is very necessary that the remarks of the hon. member be heard in all quarters of the house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: II beg leave to move the adjournment of the house to call attention to a definite matter of urgent .public importance, namely, the request of the mayors and representatives of the following cities-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Speak up.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I cannot do better than I am doing. I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the request of the mayors and representatives of the following cities and towns in the Dominion of Canada to be heard at the bar of the house, in order to lay (before parliament the critical conditions prevailing. Then, Mr. Speaker, the list which I shall now read is a list of the mayors who have requested to be heard before parliament. The list is as follows:
C.	Houde, Montreal.
G. G. McGeer, Vancouver, B.C.
James Simpson, Toronto.
David H. Elton, Lethbridge, Alta.
E. J. Cragg, Halifax, N.S.
Joseph A. Clarke, Edmonton, Alta.
G.	A. Wenige, London, Ont.
K. Davison, Calgary, Alta.
R.	M. Pinder, Saskatoon, Sask.
C.	Rink, Regina, Sask.
D.	Leeming, Victoria, B.C.
R.	J. Westgate, City Commissioner, Regina, Sask.
Homer B. Neely, London, Ont.
Henry E. Woolmer, Pointe Claire, Que.
T. Lambert, Mayor, Hull, Que.
J. E. Gregoire, Mayor, Quebec, Que.
H.	E. Ratz, Mayor, Waterloo, Ont.
E.	L. Bedard, Mayor, Sarnia, Ont.
Paul Pratt, Mayor, Longueuil, Que.
J. A. Lachance, Mayor, Ville St-Pierre, Que. Mayor I. L. Davis, Chatham, Ont.
H. Ferland, Mayor, Verdun, Que.
P. A. Fournier, Buckingham, Que.
C.	H. Read, Mayor, Amherst, N.S.
S.	E. Muggah, Mayor, Sydney. N.S.
G.	II. Robichon, Mayor, Trois-Rivieres, Que.
D.	M. Morrison, Mayor, Glace Bay, N. S.
M. J. Rutledge, City Manager, St. Lambert, Que.
John Wilson, Vankleek Hill, Ont.
John W. Hanna, Wingham, Ont.
R. A. Farrow. Walkerville, Ont.
F.	J. Hume, New Westminster, B.C.
A. D. Norris, Mimico, Ont.
Fred H. Bradley, Sherbrooke, Que.
W. H. Biggar, Montreal, Que.
Jas. W. Brittain, Mayor, Saint John, N.B. Thos. II. King, Moncton, N.B.
Samuel Kennedy. Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Jas. G. White, Aid., Niagara Falls, Ont.
R. H. Thomson, Aid., North Bay, Ont.
W. G. Bullbrook. Mayor, North Bay, Ont.
J. J. McRae, Aid. Vancouver, B.C.
Geo. 0. Tice, Belleville, Ont.
H.	J. A. MacEwan, Goderich, Ont.
A. W. Johnson, St. Thomas, Ont.
Albert Beauregard, representing Mayor La Prairie, Que.
J. T. R. Boissey, Mayor, St. Lambert, Que.
J. A. Smith, Mayor, Kitchener, Ont.
F. G. Kennedy, Mayor, Ridgetown, Ont.
Fr. Robidoux, Mayor, Sorel, Que.
Anatole Carignan, Mayor, Laehine, Que.
Geo. C. Miller, Aid., Vancouver, B.C.
E.	Bertie, Mayor, St. Jerome, Que.
W. J. Cullen, Mayor, Sudbury, Ont.
George Bennett, Mayor, Windsor Ont Victor Chabot, Aid.. St. Hyacinthe, Que.
J. E. A. Dubuc, M.P., Chicoutimi, Que.
W. A. Parisien, Mayor, Cornwall, Ont.
W. A. Gordon, Revelstoke, B.C.
H. H. Gosselin, Mayor, Farnham, Que.
Conrad Perrault. Mayor, Joliette, Que.
J. H. Nadon, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Que.
L. P. Lizotte, Mayor, Riviere du Loup, Que.
J. Ad. Landry, Mayor, Mont Joli, Que.
P. W. Caldwell, Mayor, Campbellton, N.B.
F.	R. Beggs, Mayor, Wilkie, Sask.
J. A. Gagnon, Mayor, Grand'Mere.
T.	Labbe, Maire, Thetford Mines, Que.
A. Gigaire, Mayor, Shawinigan Falls, Que. Geo. H. Barefoot, St. Boniface, Man.
E. Partridge, Reeve, West Kildonan, Man.
0. J. Kerr, Mayor, Stratford, Ont.
Conference of Mayors

P. R. Carter, Mayor, Simcoe, Ont.
Herbert Andrews, Aid. representing Mayor Queen, Winnipeg, Man.
Leo Trepanier, Aid., Montreal, Que.
H. S. Johnstone, Mayor, Moose Jaw, Sask.
Fred Bancroft, General Secretary.


George Halsey Perley: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member when he was reading his petition, but as a matter of fact I am very anxious that this procedure should not be considered a precedent. I call Your Honour's attention to the fact that this is not a proper way to present a petition that is to read it. It is supposed to be sent in, and should not be read in that way, in full.
I thought that under the circumstances I would not object earlier, but I do urge that the presentation of a petition in the manner it is now being presented should not be made a precedent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I point out to the acting Prime Minister that this is not a petition. I have read my motion, with a list of the mayors and representatives of the municipalities in Canada who are anxious to appear before the house.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Are there six mayors in Montreal?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, there is one mayor, and there are one or two other representatives. I have now moved my motion, which has been seconded, and I assume I have leave of the house to proceed with my motion for the adjournment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member state briefly to the house the question he proposes to discuss?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have; I sent you a copy.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The house has not heard the motion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I moved it. I moved the following, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the request of the mayors and representatives of the following cities and towns in the Dominion of Canada to be heard at the bar of the house, in order to lay before parliament the critical conditions prevailing.
I read that at the beginning.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I assume, having now obtained-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
stated the matter, and I take it the motion

he has sent to me is the statement to which reference is made in subsection (3), May I repeat what I said a minute ago-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Speak out.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have always endeavoured to speak loud enough in this chamber. May I point out that the motion directed to the house brings out the ambiguities that arise under the standing order. Subsection (3) states:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out-
Which is not what has been followed in this case-
-and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. If objection is takenand so forth; I shall not proceed any further with that. As the question, however, has been read to the house I am going to crave the indulgence of the house to refer to it. The motion is for leave to move the adjournment of the house to call attention to a matter of definite and urgent public importance, namely, the request of mayors and representatives. As yet we have no evidence of any request. There has been none presented to the house. That is one ground upon which I would rule that the motion is out of order.
But may I point out something further, that the motion by its very wording is out of order as it states finally, "in order to lay before parliament the critical conditions prevailing." It speaks of something prevailing. Now the definite rule of the house with respect to a motion of this kind is that it must refer to a matter of recent occurrence, but here is something which has been prevailing.
May I point out also that it covers a universal field, not one particular item, but the critical conditions prevailing. So I rule that the motion is out of order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully dissent from the ruling because I feel that similar resolutions of a nature such as I have put before the house have been discussed time and time again.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would ask the hon.
member to show to the chair that deference which I am sure he feels by not discussing the matter further.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I want to appeal from your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is different.


Mr. GOTT:: Before the orders of the day
are called-

Conference of Mayors


Edward Joseph Garland: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) had appealed from your ruling, and in that case, sir, I must ask you to put the question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Before I can put any
question there must be the usual number arise.


Edward Joseph Garland: The question has not yet been put to the house.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I just say one word with respect to the point of order, and that is to raise the question as to whether there is an appeal or not from Your Honour's ruling, because if reference will be had to subrule 3 on page 72 of our Rules and Forms it will be observed that it reads:
He-
That is the member who desires to move the adjournment of the house.
, -then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order,-
and so forth. In other words, it is in the discretion of the Speaker as to whether it is a subject coming within the scope and intent and purpose of this very rule, and I submit under these circumstances that this is a case where the question is peculiarly within the right of the Speaker to decide. He is not giving a decision with respect to the interpretation to be placed upon a rule but he is exercising a discretion which the rules of the house have reposed in the chair.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
submit that there is a motion before the house regularly moved and seconded, and following that, Your Honour has definitely declared that motion out of order. Under those circumstances there seems to be nothing that can be done other than to put the motion involved in the appeal against the Speaker's decision.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is there any further
discussion?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that there is no appeal in a matter of this kind against the ruling of the chair? I think there is, and I think it should now be the duty of the Speaker to see whether his ruling is sustained or not.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: In other words,
forfeit his own discretion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As I stated a moment
ago, in a statement perhaps too lengthy, I
had the gravest doubts in my own mind with respect to the proper interpretation which should be put upon the words which have been drawn to the attention of the house by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), and owing to the fact that there is a doubt in my mind I am going to rule that there is leave to appeal. I should like to say that I agree in a general way with the interpretation which has been placed on these words by the Minister of Finance, but it is by no means clear, and it is one of those cases to which I referred a short time ago, that where there is any doubt I do not think the Speaker should take the attitude that there should not be an appeal from his decision. I shall therefore allow the appeal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Heaps, seconded by
Mr. Woodsworth, has asked for leave to move the adjournment of the house-shall I dispense?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have ruled the said
motion out of order, and from that ruling the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) now appeals.


Mr. BOWEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted, I would have voted, to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted. I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. ANDERSON (High Park):: I was
paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin).
rMr. Speaker.]
Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: 1 was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was paired
with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.
Mr. EfLLIOTT: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I w'ould have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.
Mr. MaoINiNIS:	I was paired with the
hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. DESROCHERS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 26, 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.
Robert James Manion: I should like at once to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) on the clear, frank and very able statement which he has given of conditions not only in Canada but in the world at large, so far as business affairs are concerned, and I congratulate him as well upon the fearless yet fair application of taxes to those best able to bear them. Since the presentation of the budget the press of Canada has been very generous in its praise; in fact, the approval of the budget has been so general that,

The Budget-Mr. Manion
it seems to me, rarely has such unanimity been in evidence, in all the years that I have been a member of this house, as there has been on this occasion in connection with the present budget; and probably the best compliment which was paid the Minister of Finance was in the more or less unanimous nickname, if I may so describe it, which was given the budget when it was called "the poor man's budget." I believe it is a poor man's budget inasmuch as it goes further than we have yet gone in this country in the redistribution of wealth and in placing taxes where they should be placed-


An hon. MEMBER:: On the poor man.


Robert James Manion: In this budget there are no taxes on the poor -man, but they are placed on those who are well able to bear them.
I have listened, as I always do, with a great deal of interest, to my hon. friend from Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), the official financial critic of the opposition. In a speech which took two hours and forty minutes, the hon. gentleman I must confess almost rivalled his leader in the length of the addresses which that right hon. gentleman gives, and he still maintains that air of pessimism and defeatism which he displayed last year and the year before, in spite of the fact that so far as Canada is concerned-and I think so far as the world generally is concerned-the corner has been turned in regard to the depression. In fact it was turned well over a year ago, but my hon. friend, or I think I should say my hon. friends opposite, find no gratification in that. There is no pleasing them with anything. I am sorry for them; they cannot cheer up. The hon. gentleman in his usual eloquent manner wept, wailed and gnashed his teeth about the terrible conditions in Canada. I believe he did endeavour on one or two occasions to say that he was very glad conditions were getting better, but he proceeded immediately to show that they were getting worse. As I listened to him-and I did attentively-I decided that there could be a very good biblical description of his speech: it was a strange mixture of the wailings of Jeremiah, the doubtings of Thomas, and a few dashes of the flavouring of Ananias. My hon. friend is being affected I think by the fact that he does not remain in his own province. He comes I am told from a very charming constituency, that of Shelburne-Yarmouth, a constituency that juts out into the broad Atlantic where the tang -of the salt air comes in and keeps the cobwebs out of people's brains. Yet the hon. gentleman has come up to live on St. James Street where budgets are always unpopular, because the
moguls down there, before the budget comes out, fear they may be taxed, and after it comes out, they usually find they have been. Consequently I am afraid my hon. friend is being affected by them. I would suggest to him with all due respect and the utmost friendliness that he go back and spend more of his time in his constituency, in which event he would probably not only be sure of reelection, -but would also clear out from his brain those cobwebs of depression.
I notice that the opposition seem to be in this mood: if the general depression continued to lead the people of Canada down into the valleys, they would be happy, because then they would- be able to float on the tide of discontent that is present always in crises of this nature, once more back into power. But as they see business picking up in this country and conditions improving throughout the world, they feel that hope of victory which they did possess a year ago, and I think with some just cause owing to conditions, is gradually -being banished from their minds and they are getting more and more afraid that we shall perhaps hold the election off until much better conditions have finally arrived and the people can judge normally as they should, and return to power an administration which has given Canada such splendid government.
The Liberal motto seems to be not "country first," but "party and politics first"; that is their attitude. There is no acknowledgment of world conditions, no acknowledgment of a crisis that was more severe than the world has seen in its economic history, a crisis in which two-thirds of the world trade was wiped out altogether, in which tens of millions of people in the industrial countries were unemployed, in which economic nationalism has been rampant throughout the world, in which dictatorships have sprung up in half the countries of Europe, and in which repudiation of interest and even of debt has become quite common. In a time when the maintenance of the democratic institutions in which we believe is an achievement, my hon. friends opposite talk as if conditions in the world were all normal. May I ask them this question: What country or what people escaped the world depression? The answer is obvious: No country and no people. My hon. friends opposite have a habit-and my hon. friend exhibited it in his speech-of showing business conditions in Canada between, say 1926 and 1929, and trying to take the credit for them. All they were doing at that time was floating forward on a wave of the wildest kind of boom, and if they must get the credit for that, then they must also take the blame for the depression which followed and for all the
The Budget-Mr. Manion

tragedy that succeeded upon, the depression of 1929. To the Liberals, apparently, at any rate to the Liberals in the house, it seems to be no achievement that Canada came through at least as well as if not better than did any other country. They set off on a smug pretence of cooperation with and assistance to this government, when as a matter of fact all we have received from them in the five years during which we have been in power, has been criticism, fault-finding, and every possible attempt at embarrassment that they could think of. They have become the party of reaction, of stand-patism, of laissez-faire. Apparently those are their principles at the present time.
Even if I wanted to, I could not for lack of time go into every detail of the speech of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, because he spoke for two hours and forty minutes and I have not that time at my disposal. But if I had the time I could do this: I think I could take almost every positive statement that the hon. gentleman made and show that in most or practically all of the cases he twisted the facts to suit his own purpose, or if he did not do that, he did as at least some lawyers have such an ability to do; he twisted the argument in such a way as to deprecate the achievements of the government. The hon. gentleman has now a habit, which he has practised at least since he has been in opposition, of keeping always down in the valleys. He seems to forget that sometimes the sun is shining on the hill tops. He keeps on dealing with small matters when, with his natural ability, he could be on the hill tops dealing with the bigger questions, and he could deal with them very ably.
I am going to discuss a few of his statements and show what I mean by saying that most of them could be disproved. For example he stated that the Minister of Finance had spoken of the wiping out of trade restrictions only as a preelection discovery. I had on my desk in my room the budget speeches for the past two years, 1933 and 1934. but apparently I forgot to bring them down with me. I meant to quote the 1933 one, that is two years ago, in which the Minister of Finance very clearly pointed out to the people of this country that there was too much economic nationalism; that tariffs were too high throughout the world; that no individual country could lower its tariffs, but that all countries should wipe out so far as they could the economic nationalism which was swamping world trade. He pointed that out in 1933 and again in 1934.
Then the hon. gentleman belittled the tariff changes in the budget. Last year, as I re-

member very well, he attacked us in this way: I do not know his exact words, but he implied that we were treating the tariff board with some contempt. This year he forgot to mention what is a fact, namely that all the tariff changes-and there are some forty-five decreases in the tariff-in the budget of this year were based upon the findings of the tariff board.


Mr. RALSTON:: Tied down by the terms of the Ottawa agreements.


Robert James Manion: I do not quite get the point that the hon. gentleman is making; I simply state that every change in the tariff made by the Minister of Finance this year was made on the recommendation of the tariff board.	.


James Layton Ralston: No, only twelve.


Robert James Manion: My colleague, the Minister of Finance corrects me. I understood that it was the decreases. The minister says that any increases in the tariff-and there were only three-were based on the recommendations of the tariff board. I misunderstood him when he told me this yesterday. However, I am on as solid ground I think on that as the other. The hon. gentleman if he had been fair, as he usually is, would have admitted that he did not find the same reason for pointing out the contempt which the government was supposed to be heaping on the tariff board this year as he was supposed to have found when he spoke last year.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend was very fair yesterday. When I referred to the raise in the tariff I expressly mentioned that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance had apologized for it and had said it was because the tariff board had recommended it.


Robert James Manion: Well, we will pass it up; it is not very important. I did not intend to waste time; I am merely dealing with a few of the hon. gentleman's statements.
My hon. friend also made a great ado about toy construction sets. He has a habit of picking out two or three unimportant items out of thirty or forty tariff reductions; he picked out toy construction sets and made a great joke about them and his friends laughed hilariously over the fact that the tariff on toy construction sets had been lowered. But I may say that as a matter of fact the British government specifically requested that lowering, and as it was done at the request of the British government they must have considered it of some importance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

The Budget-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: I do not object to interruptions, I welcome them if they are real questions, but I do not know that there should be general growling from the other side. My hon. friend ignored altogether such items as aircraft, locomotives and other major items.
Then he stated that this is a "make believe budget." He belittled the cuts in every way, and he praised very highly, as do all hon. members on the other side, the Dunning budget. He lauded that budget to the skies. But if there ever was a budget brought into this house which was filled with make believe it was the Dunning budget. He did not mention that in the Dunning budget they made items free which never in her history were produced in Great Britain, many of them in fact which the people of Great Britain never see unless they come to Canada. We do not import from Great Britain eggs in the shell, wheat, beans, barley, cornmeal, oats and oatmeal. Every one of these things Great Britain has to import. Yet they were in the Dunning budget. Rye, and rye flour, hay and straw, natural cut flowers


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: They would be in a nice fresh state by the time they got here. And there is a full page of fresh vegetables and fruits, such as rhubarb, tomatoes, parsnips. And worst of all. a full range of agricultural implements, which were never made in Great Britain, which most people in Great Britain never saw at all I think, such as mowing and reaping machines, harvesters, cultivators, harrows, seed drills, ploughs, corn-husking machines and so on. Talk about a make believe budget, if ever there was a make believe budget brought into the House of Commons of Canada it was the much praised -by the other side-Dunning budget. It is no wonder that Charley quit the house after it, and that the people of Regina when they woke up to the kind of make believe budget he brought in helped him along in the quitting. There are always three things out of which I get a good laugh, one is the Dunning budget when hon. gentlemen opposite talk about it, the second is the 1919 Liberal platform, and the third is that book Industry and Humanity.


William Duff: What about the bed time stories?


Robert James Manion: I leave them to my hon. friend. I saw an item in one of the newspapers the other day, sent out I think by the Canadian Press, that up in London someone had asked for Industry and Humanity and it said it was the first time in ten years it had
been asked for. It is so little in demand that it is news when anyone asks for it. When a man bites a dog, it is news. The request for the book is in the same class. I was going to suggest to the right hon. gentleman that the next time he writes a .book he should add a few lighter touches, or make his books interesting like those of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore), which I read with great pleasure, although I do not always agree with him. The right hon. gentleman writes a little too heavily. The next time he writes a book he might ask the hon. member for Ontario to give him a few literary touches. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) could also help him, and the member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs); I was wondering if they might not add a chapter on Abie's Irish Rose. Or the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) might contribute some stories about piracy on the high seas.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to say what stories the doctor from Fort William could give us.


Robert James Manion: Well, I think I could improve the book no matter what I might give, almost anything would improve it. Then I was going to suggest to my right hon. friend -I am sorry he is not in his seat-that if those that I have already suggested do not help him, he might call on the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) to contribute a few spicy stories.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: If at the head of every chapter he would put one of those spicy stories, and then shorten the rest of the chapter very materially people would like the book much better.


Albert Joseph Brown: What is my hon. friend's idea of a spicy story?


Robert James Manion: I could tell my hon. friend in parliament my idea of a spicy story but I am quite sure he could not tell his idea of one.
Now to be serious again-


Mr. VALLANCE:: Why "again?"


Robert James Manion: I did not know I would get such applause from my hon. friends opposite. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth made much ado about the changes which may have to be made in the budget when it reaches the committee stage. Of course, changes are always made in budgets in committee stage. I merely wish to mention two great changes that come to my mind that were made in
The Budget-Mr. Manion

former budgets, those by the late Mr. Robb in connection with the automobile tariff after the people concerned came down and interviewed him and his leader, and the others made by Mr. Fielding, including very marked changes in the cigarette tax. Every budget that is brought in undergoes changes in the committee stage, because of inadvertent injustices done, as nearly always happens when a budget is being drawn up, some technical error or something of that kind, so that changes are essential.
Then the hon. gentleman pointed out, as usual, that the export market was a big and important market, and he rather seemed to deride the home market. I point out that with the exception of wheat, agricultural products of this country are practically all absorbed by the home market.


Mr. TOTZKE:: They have to be under this government.


Robert James Manion: We consume the greater part, about 98 per cent, of our butter, ninety per cent of our bacon, ninety-eight to ninety-nine per cent of our beef-


Albert Frederick Totzke: How about cheese?


Robert James Manion: Well, we export a good deal. But we consume in the home market eighty-five to ninety per cent of our agricultural products if wheat is left out. So the home market is rather an important market.
Then he referred to the public debt. He said the Minister of Finance had understated the public debt, and that there should be something like 8140,000,000 in round figures added to the total given by the Minister of Finance. I might point out that in his addition of $140,000,000 my hon. friend included $115,000,000 of securities which have been transferred to the Bank of Canada, and which are merely an internal financial arrangement. It is an arrangement whereby instead of the notes that have been issued in the past by the government, securities were transferred to the Bank of Canada to the extent of $115,000,000.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend permit me there, because I think that is an important distinction. That $115,000,000 in debentures issued to the Bank of Canada is to cover a liability of the Dominion of Canada which the Bank of Canada took over in the shape of an issue of dominion notes; therefore there is a direct liability to the public of that $115,000,000.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but I made inquiries of the officials of the Department of Finance,

and they told me it was largely a bookkeeping entry; that is all it amounts to. However, I am dealing with a good many points and I do not intend to argue this one at length. The hon. gentleman can have one of the following speakers deal with the matter if he so desires.


James Layton Ralston: Three per cent interest
bearing debentures.


Robert James Manion: I did not even hear what the hon. gentleman said.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will
permit me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Layton Ralston: I think it is most important, because I know my hon. friend does not want to misrepresent the situation. Those were three per cent interest bearing debentures maturing in 1940, bearing the seal of the Dominion of Canada.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but we should not
forget that whatever earnings are made by the Bank of Canada come back to the dominion after a very low rate of interest is paid to the shareholders, so the dominion will get its money back.
Then my hon. friend spoke of a number of assets which he said were treated as nonactive assets. I submit that the non-active assets as set out in the budget are practically the same as those that were set out by my hon. friends when they were in power, with this exception, that since we came into power at least $22,000,000 of harbour commission loans have been transferred to the non-active assets, which under the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite were kept under the active assets.
Now just a word in regard to balancing the budget. The hon. gentleman criticized the Minister of Finance very severely because he was not balancing the budget, and he also criticized us because during our regime we have added to the public debt. I should like to ask him or any hon. member who speaks what country has balanced its budget during these trying times. I do not know any country of any importance that has done so. Let us take France, for example, one of the richest countries in the world. The other day I read a statement, which I hold in my hand, made by the Minister of Finance of that country. It is dated at Paris, and according to this statement France has to borrow $1,326,000,000 in order to balance its budget. The statement is as follows:
Paris, January 23.-France must borrow approximately 21,000.000,000 francs (about $1,326,000,000) in 1935 to balance its budget

The Budget-Mr. Manion
and prime its economic pump, Louis Germain-Martin, finance minister, told the finance committee to-day. The money so raised would be in addition to !the budget income estimated at 46,991,000,000 francs (about $3,101,406,000).
Just in passing I should like to mention that the $3,000,000,000 which France collects in taxes is nearly ten times the amount we collect in Canada, but France's population is not four times the population of Canada. In other words they collect in taxes about twice as much per head as we do in Canada.
Then there is England. In my address on the budget last year I pointed out that England is not balancing its budget, because England is not paying interest on its war debt to the United States, which amounts to nearly S200,000,000. If we did not pay the interest on our war debt we would not find very great difficulty in balancing our budget, because in round figures the annual interest on our war debt amounts to $100,000,000. For fear someone may say that I am incorrectly stating the facts I am going to quote a few words from the budget speech of 1934 of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer in England:
Neither last year nor the year before did I make any provision for the payment of the war debt to America nor for the receipt of war debts or reparations by ourselves. In the absence of any future development, I propose to follow precisely the same line this year.
Again I should like to point out that the taxes collected in England amount to half a billion dollars more than the taxes collected in France, or about $3,500,000,000, which works out at about $90 per head while our taxes in Canada to-day, even if you include provincial taxes, amount to about $45 per head. So if we in Canada imposed taxes on the same basis as they are imposed in England, instead of having a deficit we would have $300,000,000 or $400,000,000 with which we would not know what to do.
Then let us look at the situation in the United States. This year that country has a deficit of between $4,000,000,000 and $5,000,000,000. I hold in my hand a statement from a financial paper, either the Wall Street Journal or Barron's Weekly, I think the Wall Street Journal, of a few weeks ago showing that they expect a deficit of $4,500,000,000 in the United States. That works out at about forty times our deficit, though their population is only about twelve times the population of Canada. So on a basis of population their deficit is about three times as great as the. deficit of the Dominion of Canada.
It is true that we have a deficit quite large enough; if you include everything it amounts to about $117,000,000, and the Minister of
Finance admitted an increase in the public debt of $670,000,000 since we came into power, though he claimed that part of that sum should be charged to the late government, and I think he was right. However, we will take it as $670,000,000. That is a very serious addition to the public debt and I am not going to belittle it, but at the same time I would point out that if the war had continued for another year we would have added almost that amount to our public debt, but we would not have closed our doors; we would not have pulled down our blinds and quit the war. I submit again, and with all seriousness, that while our public debt is quite serious enough it would be diminished very quickly with a reasonable revival of world trade, not only Canadian trade but world trade. During that period we would be able to take into this country, as we can take in during normal times, a proper proportion of immigrants, and as we get a larger population our problems will vanish like mists before the rising sun. We have this advantage over European countries, that we have great vacant spaces, and when world trade picks up and the world becomes normal again, we will fill those vacant spaces. So, sir, I submit that this is not a time to paint our picture darker than it really is; it is a time for optimism, not a time for blue ruin.
The hon. gentleman said that by increasing our trade we could not only balance our budget but solve our railway problem. He said we were strangling trade, though I noticed he was not so emphatic in that regard this year as he was last year, doubtless because we have increased the total trade of Canada in the past year, as compared with 1932, by something over $300,000,000. Trade has been strangled throughout the world because of the economic nationalism and the self sufficiency that has been desired by the countries of the world in case of another war. I submit, sir, in all sincerity, and I am sure my hon. friends cannot deny it, that ten million people in the Dominion of Canada are not sufficiently powerful to control world trade. Did the Liberals control it when they were in power? One must ask that question. If you look over our exports of farm products to the United States while the Liberals were in power you will see that they decreased by 75 per cent during their regime, from $160,000,000 in 1921 to just about $40,000,000 in 1930, and in that year the Hawley-Smoot tariff made it practically impossible for us to export agricultural commodities to that country. That prohibitive tariff was brought in while my hon. friends were in power. What action did the Liberals take to force our farm products
The Budget-Mr. Manion


Mr. HANBURY:: They are much greater every year, but they have an invisible balance.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but our balance, including the invisible, is very much against us, and therefore we must export. May I say, further, that the section of the country represented by the hon. member who has just spoken is one which has benefited greatly by the empire trade agreements.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth spent some time in a discussion of the wheat policy of the present government. May I say there have been two wheat policies, one being a wheat bonus by which the government of Canada gave to the western farmers, in round figures, $13,000,000, in that year when wheat was exceptionally low in price. At least there should be some gratitude from western people for that action taken by the government. I believe the action was just and fair. The second policy concerning wheat was that of the stabilization of prices. This point, of course, is debatable; I do not question that. Certainly, however, whether or not it is debatable or whether we were wise or unwise in our 'action, no person can say that our action did not favour the farmers of western Canada. The ultimate result has been-and I personally believe the ultimate result will be reasonably satisfactory to the whole of Canada-the ultimate result has been that the western prairie provinces in a time of great need and great crisis have profited very much by the action of the present government. I shall quote in a few moments to prove my statement.
I do wish to point out before referring to the quotation that the carry-over in 1929, the year before hon. members opposite left office, was 127,000,000 bushels. That is more than half of the carry-over at the present time, taking for granted that the figures appearing in the press are correct. From July, 1925 to
The Budget-Mr. Manion

July, 1930 the three countries I mentioned previously, namely Italy, France and Germany imported on an average of 192,000,000 bushels yearly, partly from this country and partly from the rest of the world. May I repeat that they imported 192,000,000 bushels. But last year they imported only 20,000,000 bushels. May I repeat: They imported just
20.000.	000 bushels. That condition arose 'because of the tariffs that were put up in June, 1930, and earlier before hon. members opposite went out of power.
Mr. MoPHBE: And increased in 1932.


Robert James Manion: Yes, and increased, but) when you get them up to 75 cents or-


Mr. McPHEE:: In 1932.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but when you get them up to 75 cents and 98 cents the harm is done. You could quadruple the amount, if you liked; it would not matter. When you get up to 75 cents a bushel it does not matter how much higher you go.
John I. McFarland whose actions have been criticized by hon. members opposite made a statement in Moose Jaw only a few days ago which I shall quote to the house. On February 14, he spoke in the city of Moose Jaw. and at page 9 of the pamphlet I hold in my hand he is reported to have said:
It is therefore evident from whatever angle we approach the question of exports, our carryover will be well under 100,000,000 on August 1 next.
And later on the words are added:
With a prospective carry-over down to around
80.000.	000 bushels.
Of course, he is not infallible, but we hope he is correct. And if his statement is correct, Canada will be in a splendid position. On page 10 he says:
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.
And further on:
I want to say to you without prejudice ... that in the absence of government support it is clear to me 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.
I notice that in the last few months some of my hon. friends from the west, on the estimates and on the relief act I think, were demanding a good deal of information about the wheat situation. I should like to remind them that some of them at least were members of the banking and commerce committee last year and they requested similar infor-

mation there. Mr. McFarland appeared before that committee. I was not a member of it, but I happened to wander in there one day and I heard Mr. John I. McFarland offer to give them all the information they wanted.


William Duff: You can't get away with that. Mr. Speaker-


Mr. ERNST:: That is correct.


William Duff: That is not correct. I was
examining Mr. John I. McFarland, and the majority of the committee would not allow him to answer my questions even with regard to the quantity of the wheat he held or the guarantee which the government had given.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend had
waited till I finished my sentence he need not have interrupted at all. I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. McFarland was willing to give them any information they wanted, but someone in the committee objected-


William Duff: The Conservative members
on the committee and the chairman.


Robert James Manion: And some of the Liberal
members too. The question was put to a vote and the vote was 33 to 9 against allowing Mr. McFarland to answer. In that 33 were included a lot of Liberal members of the committee, although not my hon. friend. The committee voted 33 to 9 against Mr. McFarland giving the information to the committee. Those are the official figures of the vote, and I have the report of the banking and commerce committee here if anybody questions it. That is just another instance, Mr. Speaker, of the Liberal party demanding one thing and voting in the other direction. They have been doing that all this session, criticizing every piece of legislation, and voting for it when the time for a vote comes. In this case they demanded the information but when it came to a vote in the banking and commerce committee-


William Duff: Every Conservative member
voted against it.


Robert James Manion: And rightly, I think, and Liberal members of the committee voted with them. I am pointing out that they should not take the attitude in the banking and commerce committee that the information should not be given and then come here and demand the information which they could have got in the committee had they voted the other way.


William Gordon Ernst: Every western Liberal voted against the information being given.

The Budget-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend from
Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) says that every western Liberal voted against the information being given.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did
not.


Robert James Manion: I well remember the hon.
member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) voting for the information. I noticed it because, so far as I remember, he was the only one. I was speaking of western Liberals from the prairies, not from British Columbia, and the only one of them I noticed was the hon. member for Willow Bunch, and there were a few other Liberals from the prairies sitting on that committee.
Whatever the results of the wheat price stabilization that we have carried on, there is no doubt that the prairie farmers and the people on the prairies owe very much to the government for the courage they displayed in going into the wheat market, and they owe it in the increased price which they received for their wheat. Whatever that price may have been, if they had been forced to dump their wheat on the markets of the world, undoubtedly the price would have been lower in Canada, and, as well, I think they owe a great deal of gratitude to the government for the $100,000,000 which has been given in relief or lent to the prairie provinces in the last four years.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Why throw that up?


Robert James Manion: I will throw it up, if
my hon. friend likes that expression. Does he think we should never mention it at all? Perhaps $100,000,000 is nothing to the hon. gentleman, but I consider that it is not a bad figure with which to help the three prairie provinces, and if they show any gratitude whatsoever to the government of this country they will vote solidly behind this government when the time comes.
Now I wish to deal briefly with the railway question which my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth dealt with at length in his speech yesterday.


William Duff: Forty-six minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert James Manion: What does the hon. gentleman say? The hon. gentleman is wrong because I can go on till six o'clock if I like. I do not intend to, but I could.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth spoke of the railway question. Now if there is any group in this country which should hesitate to talk about the railway question it is the group directly opposite, because they
handed over to this government a railway mess the like of which Canada never had before, although we have had some messes. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth again brought up that old chestnut that he pulls off every time he speaks, that the Liberal party during their regime saved the people of this country on the national debt $257,000,000. But he always forgets the other half of the story; I pointed it out over and over again and I am going to point it out again to-day because it should be known. The other half, or the other three-quarters of the story is that while the Liberal government were saving on the national debt, they were adding to the railway debt by $461,000,000 during the time they were in power. In other words, the net addition to the public debt for which they were directly and indirectly responsible is well over $200,000,000, and so it is no wonder that I jocularly added Ananias to the other biblical characters I mentioned in describing the hon. gentleman's speech. I have in my hand a sheet showing the interest, payments due by the Canadian National Railways from the years of their incorporation down to the present time, and I intend to refer briefly merely to the time when my hon. friends opposite were in power.
In 1921 the interest owing to the public was $35,000,000 in round figures. When hon. gentlemen went out of power in 1930 the interest owing to the public was exactly $51,000,000. In the following year, due to the expenditures they made, it was $55,000,000, nearly $56,000,000. So between the time they came into power and the time they went out of power the interest owing to the bondholders of the Canadian National Railways was increased by over $20,000,000 for which hon. gentlemen opposite were entirely responsible due to the heavy capital expenditures which they made. The funded debt was increased by $461,000,000 and the interest charges by over $20,000,000.
But that is not all, because there was the government debt as well. The interest owing to the government in 1921 was $20,000,000, and that had increased in the year hon. gentlemen opposite went out of power to $32,000,000. If you add the two increases together it means increased interest charges during the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite of $32,000,000. It is true that so far as the interest due to the government of $12,000,000 is concerned it was not paid, and probably never will be, but those figures show the great increases which my hon. friends opposite made in capital expenditures.
There was another boast which the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth brought up
The Budget-Mr. Manion

last year and again this year about the national railways. He said that during the years the Liberals were in power the railways had earned an average of $24,000,000 above operating expenses. I will admit that that is correct. But my hon. friend always forgets the other half of that story as well, and that is that though the railways earned an average of $24,000,000 above operating expenses they were still down, at the end of the nine years my hon. friends opposite were in power, $140,000,000 on interest account to the bondholders. In other words, in those nine years the railways were short of paying interest by $140,000,000. I mention this because the facts should be kept straight. I do not think that half truths of that sort should go out to confuse the people of this country.
My hon. friend used a phrase that has been used very often in this house and elsewhere. He said that the Canadian National Railways were a "conglomeration of junk railways" when taken over.


Mr. HOWARD:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: And my hon. friend from Sherbrooke says hear, hear.


Charles Benjamin Howard: When taken over.


Robert James Manion: I will put up against the hon. gentlemen a gentleman whom they praised very highly and whom they boasted of having brought to this country, and that is Sir Henry Thornton. He was appointed in October, 1922, and after he had made an inspection with the boards of directors of the Canadian National Railways of the roads he said in his report of 1923:
On behalf of the board I would like to state that after inspection-
Get that-after inspection:
-of the main arteries of the system we find that the three groups of lines, until recently the Canadian National Railways, entered the consolidation in excellent physical condition and operating at a high mark of efficiency as regards actual performance or movement of traffic and other factors controllable by management.
On some of the older sections there are still improvements that should be undertaken but in the main the lines are modern in character and were built or have been brought up to standards which are ahead of actual traffic requirements, except under stress of seasonal movements.
I will leave that statement without discussing it any further. My hon. friend quoted me as having made this statement at Inger-soll-that the mess which this country got into in the early years of this century, in consequence of the building of too many railways-two other transcontinental lines where one would have sufficed-must be ascribed to

both the old parties; he said that I declared at Ingersoll that probably the old parties deserved blame to the extent of fifty-fifty. I do not withdraw that statement. I think that probably the whole populace of Canada in the early days of the century were insanely optimistic, and though the building of railways on this scale really started under the Liberals-in 1904 when the Transcontinental was under discussion, and again in 1908 when there was further talk about the other transcontinental-I say that everyone must share in the responsibility. I accept the statement which I am supposed to have made at Ingersoll; I do not remember having made it, but I neither withdraw nor deny it. At the moment however I am not dealing with the past history of the railway problem in Canada. What I complain about is this, that during the time when my hon. friends opposite had these railways in trust for the people of Canada, expenditures were made which I submit should not have been undertaken, and that is what I criticize. In the pre-election year, 1929, I pointed out that they had spent money, or perhaps had forced the Canadian National Railways to spend money to a scandalous degree. They either permitted or forced the Canadian National to spend money on this scale-I do not know which term to use, though I am sure that no sane railway men would have allowed themselves willingly to spend as was done in 1929. At any rate, my hon. friends, if they did not force the railways, allowed the management of the Canadian National Railway System in 1929, one year before the election, to add to the debt of this country the huge sum of anywhere from $200,000,000 to $250,000,000 to be spent o>n hotels, terminals, passenger ships, which are rotting at the docks, branch lines and purchases of all kinds of old lines which have never paid their way. They added 810,000,000 a year to the annual interest payments of the Canadian National Railways. I do not suggest that all this sum, between S200,000,000 and $250,000,000, was wasted, but I do contend that very much of it was. I say that most of it was of no use to the Canadian National Railways, and it did not serve any purpose so far as the employees themselves were concerned. It merely added annual charges to the Canadian National Railways, and in respect of a branch of service which has always been losing money-that is, the passenger services. The passenger services of the Canadian National Railways lost, in the year 1926, the huge sum, on operating, of $4,000,000, and every year after that until 1931, a period of five years, the losses have

The Budget-Mr. Manion
mounted up in gradual progression until they reached in 1931 the sum of $24,000,000 on account of operating. And yet it was upon these passenger services-steamships, Montreal terminus, hotels, radio and things of that sort-it was upon these services, a losing branch of the system, that these huge sums were spent. Then I will refer to one sentence in the report of the royal commission on railways. They contrasted the construction costs of branch lines built by the Canadian Pacific Railway and by the Canadian National Railways in the years between 1923 and 1931 inclusive, because those were the years of new management and of consolidation of the railways, and they found that the Canadian National had a total excess cost of over $30,000,000 on 1,895 miles of construction. That was during my hon. friends' regime, and what I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is this. They were the trustees of the Canadian people with respect to these railways; they were in charge of the system for the people of Canada, and they should have maintained a greater control over the management than they did. They should have insisted upon a board of directors who would not be merely rubber stamps; they should have seen to it that the management prevented such a condition of affairs from developing.
Well, we cleaned up that mess, and I say now to the credit of the Canadian National Railways that we have to-day an efficient and economically managed railway system. Some of the figures in regard to gross earnings will prove this statement, because if we can get back to $250,000,000-and in the last ten or fifteen years we have had around $250,000,000 gross earnings in about half of them-the railways would be very close to the position where they would pay interest on their debt to the public. At any rate, the system would be so close to that position that the people of Canada could easily absorb the balance and take care of it as an investment on behalf of the development of the country generally.
But in spite of the results which we have obtained in economical and efficient management of the Canadian National Railways, there are still insidious rumours abroad, a whispering compaign against this government, to the effect that we are out for amalgamation. There are stories of unfair treatment of the Canadian National Railways on our part; there are tales of our favouring the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is a whispering campaign of the most vicious sort. I brand it to-day as a whispering campaign of the most vicious sort, and I will give proof for that statement, because these rumours reach me as Minister 92582-137
of Railways. They come from all parts of the country. For example, on March 22, five days ago, a Colonel Streight, a Liberal candidate in one of the Toronto constituencies, is reported as follows in the Toronto Star:
Score rail merger at Liberal meet.
If Bennett plans allowed 75,000 men will be jobless.
Denouncing any merger of Canada's railways, Colonel J. E. L. Streight, Liberal standard-bearer in West York federal riding, last night promised the Humbercrest and South Runny-mede Liberal Association a Liberal government would not permit such an amalgamation.
Plans are already being made by the Bennett government to complete the merger,-
May I say that this is just a plain, ordinary, everyday falsehood.
-if returned to power, he told his audience, largely composed of railwaymen, and declared if such a move is permitted 75,000 railroad workers will be thrown out of employment. The Canadian Pacific Railway has already been advanced $60,000,000 without interest, he said.
The Canadian Pacific Railway has not been advanced any part of the $60,000,000 by this government. The government guaranteed it, but that is a small matter-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Well, it is a small matter compared to these vicious charges based on falsehood. This gentleman may be straight in name but he is crooked in his political methods. As the Minister of Public Works points out, we have good security for the guarantee of the $60,000,000.
With respect to these rumours which are afloat against this government, most unfair and vicious rumours of all kinds, let me say that there has been no thought on the part of this government of bringing about amalgamation of the two railways. No one on this side of the house, either in the front lines or in the rear, so far as I know, has come out for the amalgamation of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. My right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) in Winnipeg used a phrase which has since been quoted and which he has never gone back on-Competition ever, amalgamation never. This government is not favourable to amalgamation. In the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific railway bill of 1933 we incorporated clause 27 which forbids amalgamation. Yet certain people-I do not say my hon. friends opposite, because they are too honourable, but some of their friends-continue to spread rumours and tales of this kind, vicious stories not based on the truth. The only man in this house who has come out openly for amalgamation is the hon.

The Budget-Mr. Manion

member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). He called it unification, but that to my mind is another name for the same thing.
I repeat here, what I said at Brockvilie and at Smiths Falls, that under present conditions there is no solution for the Canadian railway problem by means of amalgamation. The only possible solution for the railway situation in this country is a revival of world business and world trade, and we have no control over that. I repeat, a country with a population of ten millions cannot control world trade, and to my mind this country cannot continue paying its debts without a revival in world business and world trade. Personally I think world business and trade are going to continue on the upward trend as they have been doing for more than a year past. All the railways on this continent have been hit by the depression. Many railways in the United States have gone into bankruptcy and more of them would have done so if they had not been helped by the United States government. But I repeat there is no cure for the railway question if by cure or solution you mean the payment of all the interest owing to the public through any such idea as unification or amalgamation, and I would point out that a united railway made up of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National would make a huge monopoly in this country with, say in round figures, 175,000 employees who with their friends and relations would have a voting power of something like 300,000 people, in addition to which there would be the power of a huge system such as that in its purchases and other methods of getting support. I have never said this before, but I say it to-day: To my mind such a huge monopoly as that would be a menace to the political and economic life of this nation; that is my feeling about the matter. It would also bring about political and public pressure so severe, as spoken of in the Duff report, that probably no government could live under it. I do not intend to deal further to-day with the question of amalgamation, but I want it clearly understood that this government is not for amalgamation, has never come out for it, and anybody who makes statements to that effect wilfully tells what is not true. I have tried to make that as clear as I can.


Mr. SANDERSON:: When the minister
makes such a statement about amalgamation, is he speaking for the government?


Robert James Manion: Yes, of course. I do
not make any official statements in a case

like this without consideration; I am naturally speaking for the government. In fact I used the term "this government."


Frederick George Sanderson: If the minister will
permit me, he is speaking for the government and the Prime Minister?


Robert James Manion: Certainly; the government includes the Prime Minister, and I am speaking for the government and the Prime Minister if the hon. member wants them enumerated separately.
Another matter in regard to the railways which the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth mentioned, was the question of arbitral tribunals. He was most unfair in his statement; he said that there would have been arbitral tribunals set up if we had appointed a chairman of the board of railway commissioners. I make the statement that neither President Beatty of the Canadian Pacific nor Chairman Fullerton of the Canadian National nor anybody else representing them has directly or indirectly ever asked us for an arbitral tribunal. We could appoint a chairman to the board of railway commissioners in just about fifteen minutes, and I say now that we shall do so if either one of them wants an arbitral tribunal. I hope that is clear enough also.
That is another slander that has been going around in some of the Liberal press and repeated by some of the Liberal members. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth unworthily took it up yesterday and cast it across the floor of the house. There has been no request by either railway for an arbitral tribunal, and the law is that the officers of one or the other must ask for an arbitral tribunal. We have been given no indication direct or indirect that they want one, and I say quite frankly, in my opinion neither one of them does, I do not say that one of them should not, but neither one of them has hinted that it wants an arbitral tribunal. When they want one, all they, 'have to do is to ask for it and they will get it quickly.
I have practically finished with the speech of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, but I wish to spend the remaining portion of my speech-and I hope I am getting toward the end of it, but I have had quite a few interruptions which have delayed me-in reviewing the record of this government. It is so well worth spending time on that I want to tell the country something about it. This government went through four years of economic storm such as no previous government of this country ewer went through, and I may add that our accomplishments did

The Budget-Mr. Manion
not wait, as has been implied by some of my hon. friends in their speeches, on the radio addresses of the Prime Minister in January. For five years courageous and aggressive administration has been carried on in this dominion by this government, and I intend to tabulate in just a sentence or two for each, the couple of dozen outstanding achievements of this government in the last five years:
1.	We spent about 8175,000,000 for relief, public works, assisting the provinces, the municipalities, the trans-Canada highway and the relief camps.
2.	We looked after 300,000 people and we are now looking after something like 150,000 in the drought areas in Saskatchewan. Further, an investigation has been instituted by the Department of Agriculture into that whole question.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: It takes more money
than brains.


Robert James Manion: Well, I am quite sure the
hon. gentleman will have to have a lot of money because he has not much of the other. I have sat in the house with the hon. gentleman for quite a few years. He is a'professor in one of the Quebec colleges and I have never heard him do more than utter some little insignificant interjections in this house. He seems to have a habit of interjecting rather insulting little remarks when I am on my feet and I just thought the next time he did so, I would tell him about it.
3.	We preserved the credit of the dominion, the provinces and the railways. There is not one of the four western provinces that to-day would not have had to repudiate its debts, had it not been for this dominion government.
4.	We put into effect the empire trade agreements with which I have dealt, and we also effected trade agreements with France, Poland, Germany, Austria and Brazil.
5.	Then there was the wheat bonus and stabilization.
6.	The establishment of the central bank.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, oh!


Robert James Manion: I do not know what the
hon. member for Vancouver Centre is laughing at. Foolish people may laugh at these things, but they cannot laugh them away. These are actual accomplishments, not something just put in books or in platforms. We established a central bank which my hon. friends opposite say they were always in favour of.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not that kind.


Robert James Manion: I continue:
7.	We had passed the Natural Products Marketing Act, and it is in effect.
92582-137J
8.	We put on the statute books the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act which is saving and will save thousands of the farmers of this country from foreclosures of mortgages.
9.	We amended the Farm Loan Act and improved it.
10.	We lowered the interest rates in this country. In all the nine years my hon. friends opposite were in power, interest rates remained the same.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: They went up.


Robert James Manion: All right; some hon. members say that the rates went up. I will take their word for that; I do not remember about it. At any rate interest rates did not go down and we have brought them down. The interest rate in savings banks was lowered to two per cent and other interest rates followed suit.
11.	We established a Canadian tourist bureau which every member in the house supported and praised.
Then there were the five pieces of legislation this year:
12.	Unemployment insurance.
13.	Eight hour day.
14.	Six day week.
15.	Minimum wage.
16.	The economic council.
Out of twenty-four achievements by this government which I am mentioning here, there are fifteen which are all in accordance with progress and reform.
17.	There is the setting up of the price spreads commission and there will be legislation submitted to the house when that commission makes its report.
18.	Then there were loan conversions which the minister mentioned in the house of $1,100,000,000, bringing about a saving to the dominion by way of interest amounting to about $14,500,000.
19.	There was a reversal of trade balances from $100,000,000 against us to $150,000,000 in our favour.
Finally there were the following in this budget:
20.	An increase in the income tax on untamed incomes, that is on incomes from dividends and so forth. That is a redistribution of wealth.
21.	There was the mines tax which was improved and raised, not lowered as has been suggested, and incidentally mining production is at a greater height than ever before.
22.	A tax on gifts of any proportion has been imposed. That is another redistribution
21.66
The Budget-Mr. Manion

of wealth. These last three redistribute wealth and impose taxes on those best able to bear them.
Veritably this is a poor man's budget, one which taxes those who have and eliminates so far as possible in a time like this the taxes on the poor.
23.	Then we cleaned up the railway mess with which question I have dealt sufficiently this afternoon.
24.	Lastly we have under advisement the United States negotiation regarding a trade treaty.


Wilfred Hanbury: "Advisement" is good.


Robert James Manion: It is a good deal more
than the hon. gentleman did anyway. In that regard by the way, I have something here to show the type of campaign that is being carried on. I do not know whether the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Campbell) is in his seat, but on March 4 he made a speech regarding reciprocity and it is reported in the Toronto Globe of the same day. The report says:
Mr. Campbell saw marked evidence on the part of the Bennett government in its reciprocity proposals with the United States.
I do not understand that sentence.
During his by-election campaign last summer Mr. Campbell said he was taken severely to task by Hon. Doctor Manion for stating that he was in favour of reciprocal relations with the United States.
And he goes on:
Hon. H. H. Stevens, he said, had made a second trip into the riding in order to advise the electors not to support Campbell because he favoured reciprocity.
Well, I cannot speak for Mr. Stevens-he can speak for himself-at the same time I am sure he took no such attitude, and I know I did not. I never opposed reciprocity, even in 1911, so when the hon. gentleman says that I talked in his riding against reciprocity he just states what is not true. I do not accuse him of saying it intentionally, but he said it, and I say it is not true.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I think the hon. gentleman in his excitement-


Robert James Manion: Let the hon. gentleman* ask a question or make a statement, not a speech.


Milton Neil Campbell: The hon. gentleman and I met in joint debate at the nomination meeting in the by-election-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: Let the hon. gentleman contradict me if he likes; at present I have
(Mr. Minion ]
a few minutes more. I make the statement here and now that I did not in any shape or form criticize him or anyone else for attempting to enter into reciprocity arrangements with the United States. I say further that in that same joint meeting to which he refers either he or the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, (Mr. Fraser), I forget which, made this statement on the platform, that President Roosevelt of the United States had said publicly that he would not deal with this government in regard to trade matters. I do not remember which one of them it was, but one of them said it, and he can deal with it when his turn comes. That is the type of campaign that is carried on against this government, based upon vilification, innuendo, abuse of the Prime Minister, a whispering campaign of the ugliest kind. I intend to correct it when the correction should be made.
I have dealt with our record to some extent. I say that we have given five years of progress and reform such as Canada has never had in its history. One hon. member of the third party in the southeast corner of this house -met me at the Royal York hotel in Toronto, when I was up there speaking for my hon. friend the member for Toronto East (Mr. Church) in his by-election campaign. This member said: "Manion, your government has given in the last session more progressive legislation than was ever brought in by any government in this country since confederation "


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I do not get the joke. The joke is on hon. gentlemen opposite, but they are getting into a habit, when they cannot talk of something unconstitutional, of laughing uproariously-the loud laugh that speaks the vacant mind, I suppose. Not long ago the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth called this progressive legislation tub-thumping, when the Prime Minister was speaking about improvement of the capitalistic system.
The Liberals have been opposed to everything ' that we have brought in of a progressive nature; they have either ridiculed it or opposed it as unconstitutional. Yet this session, although they ridicule and oppose it in argument, they always vote for it. The Liberal party in this house have been and are the party of reaction, the party of laissez-faire, the party of stand-patism, if they have any policy at all. No one has been able to see any sign of a policy as far as we can learn, no one has stated a policy for them except when my hon. and eloquent friend the member for Vancouver Centre

The Budget-Mr. Manion
(Mr. Mackenzie) gets up and waves his arms and tells us a few things. They claim they supported every one of these pieces of legislation when they were out of power; they put them in a book or in the 1919 platform. But no one reads the book, and the platform is forgotten even by them. They have had two good chances in recent months to state what they stand for, but no one knows it. I challenge them to tell the people what they stand for, if they stand for anything but reaction.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They told it in the by-elections.


Robert James Manion: They held a large conference last November, and all we got was a speech on peace from the leader of the opposition. The other evening they gave the right hon. leader of the opposition a very fine dinner, and I congratulate both him and them on it. After all, the right hon. gentleman has given many years of service to his country, and it is only right that democracy should honour its leaders. I often disagree with the right hon. gentleman both in the house and out, but I respect him because I believe he sincerely endeavours to do what he believes best for his country; and I may add that it is the sincerest wish of my heart that his health may continue good so that he may continue for many years as leader of the opposition. He is sure of four more years anyway; I can vouch for that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Give us a chance.


Robert James Manion: You will get a chance, and when you get it you will be pretty sick. They have offered no policy and as far as we know they have no policy except do-nothing. The people of this country know that they have a do-nothing policy, and when the time comes they will vote accordingly. We have been going through a world crisis for four years but apparently the Liberals in this house do not know it. In 1930 before they went out of office we spoke to them about the unemployment which was beginning then-and has increased since, I will say it so that they do not have to interject- due to world conditions, but their leaders took the attitude that there was no unemployment in this country. Then when the world crisis took place between 1929 and 1933 they have never admitted there was such a crisis. Now, when the world is going ahead in a progressive manner as it never did before, they do not see it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I said the world, I did not say Canada particularly-the whole world including Canada. We have suffered two great crises-probably I should say the world -in the last fifteen years; from 1914 to 1918, the war, and, rather strangely, four years again, the economic crisis, the depression, from 1929 to 1933. The latter has been almost as tragic to the world in general as was the war, except in our case we lost
60,000	of our young men who in the springtime of youth gave their lives for their country. They form a lost generation. Men from different parts of the country who would have been prominent in this house are among that lost generation, men who would probably be here instead of some of us had they come back. They were leaders at the front; they would have been leaders here. I have never forgotten the beautiful lines on the monument to the fallen in Glengarry county, which to my mind are among the finest words ever written about those who gave their lives in the war:
They shall not grow old as we who are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them nor the years condemn-
Those are the first two lines; I think I could remember the rest, but in any event they are a noble expression of our feelings. Yet I sometimes think that some of the men who stayed over there escaped tragedy which they might have encountered had they come back. But, sir, I want to point out that the tragedy from 1929 to 1933, was also a terrible trial to the young men throughout the world. I also want to point out that during the war there was a Liberal opposition in this house. My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and a number of hon. gentlemen opposite were members of the opposition at that time. But that Liberal opposition cooperated and assisted in every way. I was in the house in 1918, the last year of the war, and during that time the opposition assisted in every possible way. I do not understand why that is not the case to-day with hon. gentlemen like the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, who had a magnificent record at the front, and I pay him all homage for that splendid record. At the front it was cooperation, assistance, playing the game and general leadership that were needed, and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth exhibited all these to a marked degree together with my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) and a number of other hon. members.


Mr. POWER:: What was it I did?
The Budget-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend may deny it if lie cares to do so, but I should be afraid to deny it. However, these hon. gentlemen showed a willingness to cooperate and play the game over there, and I do not understand why they do not show a greater desire to play the game in times like these with a government that has had its own problems in a crisis such as that through which we have passed. I suppose it was too much to expect that the Liberal party would step right in and assist us to pilot the ship of state through the turbulent waters of the last few years, but I do submit that they ought to stop endeavouring to destroy the steering gear or blow holes in the bottom of the ship. That is what they have been doing. In some countries there is a crime called sabotage; workmen endeavour to destroy or cripple the plant and machinery of the institution in which they are employed. In Russia they shoot people for that sort of thing. But for five years in this house the Liberal party have been carrying on political sabotage against their own country. When they, and the rest of us, are old and grey, sir, if we are living, and a new generation has grown up which does not remember all the details of these tragic times, and when some of these young people ask my hon. friends opposite what they did in this parliament to help out during this economic crisis, if they tell the truth there is only one statement they can make, and that is to say, "We sat on the side lines and squawked."
Sir, Canada is on the march to better things. It will never be the same again, irrespective of the reactionary attitude of my hon. friends opposite or of any attitude on our part. Canada and the world are on the march. There is a great progressive movement under way but unfortunately our hon. friends opposite do not even recognize it. I admit with all humility that our program has been far from perfect, but it has been a program of progress and reform. Capitalism needs correction; no one realizes that more than I do. Those capitalists who do not realize it are short sighted; indeed they are blind. Our legislation, such as it is and with all its imperfections-and I admit them-is for the purpose of correcting the evils of capitalism. There are business men, I admit, who take the attitude that we should not be bringing in such legislation. Some hon. members here have defended that attitude of the business men, and I do not question their right to do so. But I think they are also blind, sir, because to my mind if those of us who believe in democracy and those of us who believe in the capitalist system, as I do, do not correct

these evils from within, then the day will come when these evils will be corrected in an appalling manner from without. Only one country has given up capitalism; that is Russia, and to my mind Russia has been a failure. Last year that country allowed five or six million people to starve, and over there if a man has an opinion of his own it is only too common for him to be sent off to Siberia or put up against a wall and shot. Therefore I submit that we must live under democratic capitalism if we are to go ahead. Capitalism is far from perfect, but it deserves much credit. It has been going on now for 150 or 200 years and during that time the population of the world, perhaps particularly in industrial countries, has been increasing by leaps and bounds. By a large, and in a general way, that population has been getting more comfort, more advantages in regard to health, better education and greater luxury than they would have known otherwise, and indeed than many of the medieval monarchs knew. It is true that some have been in want, but I do not think even those who have been in want-certainly in our own country where they have not been allowed to starve-would have willingly given up the adventure of life which they have experienced. They have had that adventure, and I do not think any individual would prefer to have missed the adventure, even though they have been through the trying times through which they have passed. I agree with Shakespeare, as I think we all do, when he says:
The weariest and most loathed worldly life
That age, ache, penury and imprisonment
Can lay on nature is a paradise
To what we fear of death.
So I say that at any rate, even those who have been in want have had the adventure of life. When days brighten, when business comes back throughout the world as it is coming back, once more they will get their chance. Mankind is groping for better things. Those of us who call ourselves leaders or are attempting to lead, my hon. friends opposite and those on this side as well, are groping for some remedy for the conditions with which we have been faced. We realize that there must be a fairer distribution of the wealth of the world. We realize that the problem of production has been solved, but that the fruits of that production must be more evenly distributed. We have not succeeded as yet. No country in the world-we are no exception-has succeeded in solving that problem of distribution. The young men of our country, as of other countries, must be given a chance to work; they must have an

Privilege-Mr. Brown
opportunity to attain their ambitions. They must be given, in simple language, a fair deal.
I say, sir, that the policies of this government and the statutes introduced by this government, imperfect though they may be, all are in line with that idea. The Conservative party in Canada is leading the Canadian people forward and upward in a progressive way, whereas hon. gentlemen opposite have been merely floating on the tide of discontent resulting from the unrest throughout the world, hoping to float back into power on that tide. But the people of this country are not blind; they see through the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite, and when the time comes the people will treat them accordingly. Sir, Canada is leading the world out. All the indices, whether in regard to trade manufacturing, railway revenues, production, commodity prices or anything else, show that.
I see there is no time for another speaker to follow me before six, but I am practically finished-and I have lost the final page of my notes. Probably my hon. friends will say that is not important. For a moment or two I am going to quote some United States commentators who have expressed opinions upon Canada's condition. Before doing that, however, I should like to quote just the heading of the last daily bulletin issued by the bureau of statistics, dated March 22, just five days ago;
Weekly review of economic statistics. The business index was higher in February than in any other month for about four years.
Then I should like to quote from the Ottawa Morning Journal of November 15, 1934:
Toronto, November 14.-Officials of the Babson statistical organization at a "clients' conference" here to-day declared Canada had made the greatest recovery from the depression of any country.
Then here is a quotation from the business bulletin of the Cleveland Trust Company dated November 15. I will quote just the last paragraph:
The Canadian record in the reemployment of industrial workers is better than ours, although the difference is not- so striking as is that relating to production. In September Canadian employment in industry was 82 per cent as great as it was in 1929, while in -the United States it was only 70 per cent as great as the 1929 average. It is particularly noteworthy that in the first nine months of this year both industrial production and employment have made large net gains in Canada, and small net losses in the United States.
That is the view, sir, of men who look at us from the outside. I have mentioned Isaac Marcosson, who wrote an article which appeared not long ago in the Saturday Evening Post, and which I think was read by many of us, entitled North of the NRA. He loudly praised the work of -this country and of the Canadian people. Sir, it is something of which we may well be proud. I submit that when the time comes in the near future, within the next six months, that the people of Canada are given the opportunity to vote upon the activities and policies of this government, they will support 'it much more emphatically than they did in 1930. I know hon. members opposite -boast that they want an election. I remember well that they boasted to the same extent about victory in 1930, and they came back sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker. They will come back to your left again in 1935, just as surely as they are to your left to-day.
In closing may I say there have been two amendments, one offered by the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth which is merely a negative of the whole budget resolution, and the other is an amendment by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) on behalf of the third party and which amendment at the present time I do not intend to discuss. The government cannot accept either amendment. Both involve a want of confidence in the government, and for that reason the government cannot and does not intend to accept them. I now urge the appeal, as I have in the past, that in the future hon. members opposite, even at this late stage of the session, give us more of that cooperation about which they boast and less of the criticism in which they so frequently indulge.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, would you call it six o'clock? I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
PRIVILEGE^MR. BROWN
Mr. J. L. BROW-N (Lisgar): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. This matter may not seem very important to many hon. members, but may I observe that while speaking the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) suggested I might provide a few spicy stories. I did not wish to interrupt him when he was speaking, but I believe at this -time I should bring the matter to the attention of the house. Only a few days ago I heard a man describe as spicy reading the evidence coming from the Senate divorce committee. I hope the minister did not mean to imply that I was in the habit of telling stories spicy in that sense of the
Questions

word. I should like him to say-and I am sure he will-that such an implication would not be warranted.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I very
gladly assure the hon. member that I was not serious so far as that observation was concerned. I believe I made that quite clear.


Wilfred Hanbury: And during the whole
speech.
'Mr. MANION:	I was just joking with
my hon. friend, and the loud laughter which greeted my remarks, even from his own colleagues, should have indicated to him the good 'humour in which the observation was made.


Albert Joseph Brown: But some people would be glad to take it seriously.


Wilfred Hanbury: We took the whole
speech that way.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 28, 1935