1937-03-09

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 8, consideration of the motion of Hon. Charles 
A. Dunning (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and1 means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett.
Mr. W. F. RICKARD (Durham):: As one of the new members of ths house and a farmer I feel it my duty to say a few words on the question now before the house as it affects the people of this country, and particularly of the county I represent.
In the first place I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on his presentation of this budget, andi to assure him and the house that I am going to vote for the budget and against the proposed amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I am a little disappointed that this amendment was brought forward; I thought from the attitude taken by the leader of the opposition at the beginning of the session that he intended! to follow the example of Sir Robert Peel in the session of 1834. At that time Sir Robert Peel was leader of the opposition, and he deemed it his duty to support the government of the day on its policy of peace, security and financial reform. He set the welfare of the nation above the interests of party. Miss Ramsay, in her book on Peel, at page 170 goes on to say:
The Tories were not so dainty about their methods, and many of them considered that a factious opposition was quite compatible with conservatism.
They had to learn that they must take their leader as they found him, and pardon *his liberalism for the sake of his talents, and that, hanker as they might for a reactionary policy, they were helpless to carry it out without his assistance; that in fact the only chance for their party was to group themselves once more around this most unsatisfactory chief. I am sorry that the leader of the opposition departed from the resolution which he appeared to have made earlier in the session. It is a matter of regret that the board of strategy has appealed1 to him to give battle on the budget and on the tariff question. The people of Durham county are satisfied with the budget, as are the people of most counties throughout Canada. The agricultural vote is the largest in point of numbers and financial importance in my riding. The farmers are satisfied that last year's budget, and this year's budget too, are well calculated to widen their markets.
It has not been our experience in Durham county that there has been a falling off in the price of cattle and live stock generally during the past few months. We do not find that the importation of vegetable fat

The Budget-Mr. Rickard
has cut into the dairy market to any great extent. Up our way I am confident that good cooks will continue to use a good deal of old-fashioned lard and butter for their cooking. The county of Durham is famed for its fruit, its Devonshire cream, its pure bred live stock and its fertile fields. Strawberry shortcake made with Durham strawberries, and apple pie and Devonshire cream, still taste mighty good to the people of that county. No amount of advertising could induce the cooks in my riding to abandon their tried and proved methods of producing these things or to jeopardize their family reputations by introducing into their cooking too much vegetable fat instead of lard and butter.
Next in order in my riding must be considered the manufacturing interests. In the town of Port Hope a new industry has grown up as the result of a geological find in the Great Slave lake district. During last year we produced 28 grammes of radium, and thanks to the cooperation of our representative in London who is also a Durham boy, a market has been found for this commodity, which sold for $25,000 a gramme or a total of $700,000. This is one industry that is not clamouring for protection. In addition, the revival in the motor industry seems to assure a steady market for the important rubber factory at Bowmanville, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Limited. The file factory at Port Hope is the only factory in Canada producing files, and that plant is doing a bigger business than ever before, notwithstanding the fact that during the last election the men were told that if they voted for King and the Liberal candidate the doors of the plant would be closed the next morning and the men would be out of work. Women were told that their husbands would be on relief if they supported Liberal policies, but instead, as you see, an even greater business is being done. Their export trade has increased; the wages of the men have been increased by ten per cent, and in many lines they are working overtime.
We have other industries in Durham county as well. For instance, there is the Ideal works, which makes bathtubs, et cetera, and is working at full capacity, and we also have several foundries which are doing a good business. In the village of Newcastle, where I live, we have a small cabinet factory employing twenty-five to thirty men and women, which is working overtime, with orders for many months ahead. That plant is located in part of the factory where the Massey-Harris company started years ago.
In the county of Durham we have that desirable state of affairs of which the hon.
member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) spoke in his splendid address on. Thursday last-the opportunity to work and to live in clean, healthy surroundings. The towns are not large but they are prosperous. I should like to be able to speak on this subject as Hon. Edward Blake was wont to speak. I cannot match his eloquence, but in love of the county and devotion to its interests I do not yield even to Hon. Edward Blake.
There is another section of the community about which very little is heard in parliament. I refer to citizens who, either by their own thrift and industry or as the result of those qualities in their ancestors, are possessed of a modest competency which they have invested in stocks and bonds. They are the financial backbone of the community, and they are glad to see that the Dunning budget does not indulge in any sensational or freak attempts at financing. They feel certain that their investments will not be jeopardized by any action of this government. Ours is an old, settled community, and during the course of the past four or five generations many small private fortunes have been made. I can remember in my boyhood days when the merchants of Bowmanville put on special sales for the days on which the interest on bonds was paid. "Coupon day" in Bowmanville was a big event. For the past six or seven years coupon payments have been slim, but now they are growing in importance again, and I hope "coupon day" will again return to all the towns in my constituency.
The budget that was brought down last year has worked to the advantage of the people of my riding, and we expect further benefits from the budget now under discussion. The trade agreements that have been made with the United Kingdom, Japan, Russia and other countries, as well as the agreement with the United States, have been very beneficial. I am surprised when I hear farmer members of this house talking in favour of high tariffs and high protection. Surely they must know that our market in the United States during the past year has been of great benefit to the farmers of this country. What would the farmer have received for his cattle if it had not been for the United States market, to which we shipped 160,000 head last year? I venture to say that we would have been hardly able to give them away. I would not have it understood, however, that I am an out and out free trader. I refuse to subscribe to the principle that it is always best to buy in the cheapest market. If the advantages of free trade simply mean the progressive and well-
The Budget-Mr. Rickard

considered relaxation of restrictions on commerce. then I am for it. The industries that are carrying on in Durham county are well established, and by this time they have realized that they need not fear the competition of other countries. With growing markets they feel that they can carry on without asking for contributions from their fellow citizens.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word about some phases of the unemployment situation. We in Durham county are not very much affected by unemployment; of course we have some people on relief, but that situation does not exist to the extent that it does in the larger cities. We have men and women who would like jobs, but in addition we have a great many young people graduating from our high schools, collegiate institutes and agricultural colleges who cannot find jobs, except possibly at something which does not pay them anything like the cost of their education. In my county we have young people of the finest type, young boys and girls who have put Durham county on the map in various judging competitions, both provincial and interprovincial. These boys and girls are the men and women of to-morrow, and it is up to us to do something for their future. They are getting to the age where they would like homes of their own, but if *conditions do not improve it will be difficult for them to realize that ambition. I have *every confidence, however, that this government will do something for the young men and women who will have to shoulder the responsibilities of the country to-morrow.
I think the government should be congratulated on the steps they have taken to relieve the unemployment situation, and especially in regard to the demobilization of the relief camps which were in operation under the former administration. By closing these camps and placing the men at work wherever possible the government have effected a great saving to. the taxpayers, and, what is more important, have restored independence to the men and brought about a general change for the better in their morale. I believe the problem of unemployment may be with us for some time, even though statistics show a marked improvement in the situation. But we must encourage our people to work for a return of the prosperity which all Canadians feel is their right. With the unlimited reserves within our boundaries, and a selfreliant people, we are bound to succeed and to restore to them the heritage with which the Creator has blessed them.

I do not feel justified, Mr. Speaker, in taking up any more of the time of the house on this question. I do venture the prediction, however, that the budget will be carried by a tremendous vote, and that the size of the vote will favourably reflect the opinion of the country as a whole on this subject.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with my observations on the question under discussion, I should like personally to say that I am very happy to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) again in his seat. Much as we dislike and disagree with his policies, we do enjoy his happy presence in our midst. May I congratulate, too, the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Rickard). Although he confined his remarks to a certain district, yet hon. members must appreciate that the conditions in his own locality are no doubt duplicated in many others throughout the country.
His reference to the budget being adopted by a large majority must, of course, go without dispute. In discussing the amendment before the house, we do not expect to convert even the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to our way of thinking. On many occasions Canada's financial position has been carefully reviewed. As a country we do not enjoy a unique position in respect of our unfortunate financial circumstances. Other countries are in a similar position and are endeavouring to find a solution of their peculiar financial difficulties. Any effort made even by the present government to find a solution which will point the way to prosperity will, I have no doubt, meet with the support of all parts of the house.
The depression hit Canada with probably more severity than it hit other countries, largely due to the slump in the price of wheat. Wheat trading does materially affect Canada, and the unfortunate position in which we found ourselves, with a large surplus on hand and falling prices, aggravated the condition that was on its way, and made it more severe than it might have been under other circumstances. May I suggest that the slump through which we have just passed is not responsible for all the ills prevailing in Canada. Certain inherent disorders were brought to the surface by the depression. Many of our present troubles were with Us before 1929, and have merely been accentuated by the conditions under which we have been living.
The Minister of Finance gave us a clear picture of the financial position of Canada as such, but he could have given a clearer picture had he gone more carefully into the finances of Canada as a whole, taking into

The Budget-Mr. Walsh
account the municipalities and provinces. For a few moments I should like to discuss the actual financial conditions prevailing in Canada to-day, in order that we may see what our financial condition is, taking into account the position of the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government.
Upon reference to statistics I find that Canada's true debt, including all items, stands at $4,163,000,000. The nine provinces have a total debt of $1,415,000,000. The total debt of the municipalities stands at $1,386,000,000. These are tremendous figures for a young and growing country. In round figures the total is $7,000,000,000. That is the debt of a young country with only 11,000,000 inhabitants; it amounts to $636 per person. I want hon. members and people outside the house to realize the full significance of that statement. I repeat: Every person in Canada to-day is indebted to the extent of $636. That is an unhealthy amount per capita for a young and growing country.
Then, from the latest statistics available it appears that the total revenue of Canada last year amounted to $372,000,000; the total provincial revenue amounted to $161,000,000, and that of the municipalities, $285,000,000, making a grand total, through taxation, of $818,000,000. Of this revenue, the dominion spent 46 per cent to pay interest on debts, tihe provinces paid 37 per cent for the same purpose, and the municipalities paid 24 per cent. Of the $818,000,000 collected in Canada, 38 per cent was earmarked, before received, to pay interest on contracted debt.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he in a position to indicate the extent to which the per capita debt of the nation was increased in the last five years?


William Allen Walsh: I have other figures before me, and possibly the hon. member's question will be answered as I proceed. In the first year after confederation the gross debt of this country was only $93,000,000, and the interest thereon was only $4,500,000, or $1.28 per capita. In 1900 the gross debt had grown to $346,000,000, and the interest charges worked out at $2.02 per head. Just prior to the war the debt had grown to $544,000,000, and tihe interest cost per capita was $1.87. At the present time the per capita cost of interest upon our so-called gross debt of $3,432,000,000 is $11.44. When we consider the railway debt and other charges, the per capita cost is $27.73.
The growth in public expenditures is equally startling. In the first year of the confederation we spent only $13,000,000. In 1900 our expenditures totalled $52,000,000. Just prior to the
war they had increased to $163,000,000. These figures are significant. They show the constant increase in our national expenditures and our national revenues. I must acknowledge frankly that the war had a considerable influence upon the growth of our national debt, but I would go so far as to suggest, as has been suggested on previous occasions, that Canada no doubt overplayed her hand as far as war measures were concerned, and we are paying for it now. But be that as it may, the war had a direct influence upon the expenditures not only of the dominion but also of municipalities and provinces.
I was wondering if it ever occurred to this or any other government that a budget could be balanced in two ways. Most ministers of finance and provincial treasurers know of only one way to balance a budget, and that is by increasing revenue, which means increasing taxation. But a budget can be balanced by decreasing expenditures rather than by increasing revenues. The present government proposes the appointment of a royal commission on taxation. We are familiar with royal commissions and I do not think we need one to tell us that at the present time we are suffering from over-government. We do not need a royal commission to tell us that there is too much overlapping in public service and taxation. The dominion and provincial governments must realize that there is only one source from which revenue can be obtained, and that is the people. The more we spend the more we have to ask the people to provide. A royal commission would serve a useful purpose if it resulted in definite action-if, in this case, it prevented overlapping in the field of taxation or the duplication of services as between municipal, provincial and federal authorities-but my experience with royal commissions has been rather the reverse.
Generally the first consideration in the setting up of a royal commision is the appointment of a strutting counsel at $150 or $200 a day. This gentleman then proceeds to eke out a year's existence on that small stipend trying to dig up facts which the government most likely knows already. I have not much faith in the value of the suggestion of the government that they are going to appoint a royal commission on taxation. They might be getting somewhere if they intended to appoint a commission such as was appointed in England, I think under the chairmanship of Sir George May, which brought out what is familiarly known as the " May " report. But if the commission is to be of the kind usually appointed in Canada, if it is to bring in the usual type of report, it would seem to me that the government's action in this
The Budget-Mr. Walsh

regard is merely another subterfuge for their not making more progress than they are at the present time.
It was my intention to refer briefly to certain items in the budget. I was amazed on going over previous Hansards to read the following on page 2118 of Hansard of Tuesday, March 26, 1935:
With regard to ways and means, my hon. friend makes some proposals in regard to taxation to which I want to refer briefly. He retains his virtual twenty-five per cent tax on sugar, a household necessity, but he reduces his tax on liquor by over forty per cent. I had hoped, and others on this side and I believe a good many on the other side had hoped, that the Minister of Finance had intended to cancel the sugar tax this year. We supposed he put it on as an emergency tax, and he put on the gold tax he said in order to permit the sugar tax to be reduced by half. Last year in making his statement to the house he said that to replace the revenue lost by the reduction of the tax on sugar it was proposed to levy a tax of ten per cent on gold.
That is an extract from the remarks of the Hon. J. L. Ralston, who was then speaking on behalf of the opposition of that day, which opposition now occupies the treasury benches. Two more years have passed, the Minister of Finance has brought down two budgets, each of which included the same tax on sugar to which the government, when in opposition, raised such strenuous objection. I cannot see the reasonableness of complaining about something when you are in opposition, but failing to act when you are in power on the incentive that inspired you while you were in opposition.
It was my intention to discuss briefly the railroad problem which faces this country. However, I notice the chairman of the committee on railways and shipping is present and I shall not abuse the privilege of my position this afternoon by dilating further on the subject to which he listened so patiently for some considerable time this morning. I should like to refer to one statement made by Hon. Mr. Ralston. I read from Hansard of March 26, 1935:
They should tackle the railway problem courageously and not pass the buck as they do.
What is the courageous way in which this government have tackled the railway problem? They have introduced Bill No. 12, but that bill does not add one cent of revenue to the railways of Canada; it does not reduce the expenses of operating the railways; it will not put one unemployed man to work, nor will it give one man at present employed by the railways one hour of additional employment in the future. Yet that is the courageous way in which they are tackling the railway problem of Canada-by taking out of the nonactive assets of the dominion and placing in 
the consolidated fund a sum almost equivalent to $374,000,000. That is their solution of our railway problem-adding to the debt of Canada by extracting it from the non-active assets of the dominion. That may be called a courageous way of meeting a critical situation, but I should like to see something which, without being characterized in quite such strong terms, would be more effective as far as results are concerned.
Last year,, participating in another debate which took place in this house, I was happy to -be able to congratulate the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) on a theory that he propounded in connection with tariff for revenue purposes. He indicated that he gave his unqualified support to the raising of more revenue by means of a tariff. He represents a western constituency. I want this year to reendorse the stand which he took at that time and my own attitude on the same occasion. In my opinion much more revenue could be collected in Canada, without any injurious effect, through the medium of a tariff. It could be collected cheaply and without any real hardship on either industry or the population in general.
The tendency of the present government is to lower tariffs, and the lowering of tariffs naturally creates a certain amount of unemployment or the possibility of it. In passing I think I should warn the present government that if it pursues such a policy to any great length we in Canada cannot meet the competition of foreign countries in certain fields of industry. I refer particularly, of course, to industries that have been developed in Japan. If the government is not careful to protect Canadian industry against encroachments from that particular source, we shall find ourselves with a greater amount of unemployment to deal with than we have even at the present time. I have here a document published by the United States bureau of statistics, the United States Monthly Labour Review, which gives illuminating figures as to wages paid in certain industries in Japan. I shall quote a few items given in this document, in order to show the utter impossibility of Canadian industry meeting the competition of a nation that has constructed1 its economic farbric on wages such as are mentioned here:
Textile Industry
Wages
per day
Silk reelers, female	
21	centsCotton spinners, female	
24	"Silk throwers, female	
22	"Weavers, female, cotton, machine..	21	"Weavers, female, silk, hand..	..	39	"Hosiery knitters, male	
61	"Hosiery knitters, female	
33	"
The Budget-Mr. Walsh
Metal Industry
Wages per day
Lathemen	$1	58Finishers	1	64Founders	1	28Blacksmiths	1	42
Leather Industry
Leather makers	
92	centsShoemakers	
70	"Clog makers	
35	"
Among day labourers,, stevedores are paid 74 cents per day. Domestic servants, male, receive 23 cents per day; female domestic servants 22 cents per day. Those wages are actually in existence, otherwise they naturally would not be published by an authoritative body. Going further in an effort to persuade the American people to, as the writer suggests, "Buy American," I find this:
A comparison of the low wages paid in Japan with the high levels of American wage rates is sufficient to cause everyone to shudder with fear and issue a fervent hope that such debasing wages may never encompass the millions of American workers, whose efforts and high wages have built the high standard of living we now enjoy in our country.
But the menace of cheap, foreign competition exists and it is real . . . constantly becoming more threatening. Nowhere is it more pointed than in the textile industry.
I should like to urge these considerations on the attention of the government. What I have quoted in connection with American industry applies with equal if not greater force to Canadian industry, and that phase of our trade operations must be carefully watched by the present government, otherwise we shall find ourselves in a dilemma from which it will be very difficult to escape, even with the ingenuity that my good friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) may develop from time to time in the way of commissions to assist him in solving problems that the government are likely to force upon him.


Ralph Maybank: Would the hon. member at this point permit a question? Would he contend that it was the high protection policy of the last five years that made the employ-, ment situation in Canada so very good?


William Allen Walsh: I am not advocating high protection in Canada. I am advocating a reasonable measure of protection not only for the sake of our industries but for the men and women who are employed in those industries, so that a very grave situation may not be further aggravated by throwing upon the relief rolls men who could be kept in employment if we carefully watched the course of industry and trade and prevented unfair foreign competition. I could go on at greater length, particularly in connection with the
textile industry, but I shall reserve that for a later date when, no doubt, we shall hear from that window-dressing commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Allen Walsh: When its report is presented we may have something of an interesting nature to suggest. But at this time I would point out to the Minister of Finance what has already been mentioned in this house, that the building industry is of primary importance.


Mr. DUNNING:: Just before the hon. member leaves the subject of the textile industry: has he any concrete instance in mind where the budget of last year or the budget of this year put people connected wdth the textile industry out of employment or reduced employed in that industry?


William Allen Walsh: No. I want to be perfectly fair with the minister. At the present time I have no cause to complain of either last year's or this year's budget, except that in certain instances, particularly in connection with woollens, there is a slight danger that the industry will be somewhat disturbed. But I am afraid of this, that when the Turgeon commission reports the government may by order in council adopt certain measures that will seriously affect the trade in textiles. I am much concerned about that aspect of the situation, not, on the whole, about the aspect that has developed up to the present time. I am a little nervous about the woollen industry, having particular regard to the less extensive plants in our smaller towns. Their position should receive careful consideration by the government before any action is taken that, although not putting them out of business, may compel them to curtail their present production.
I should like to say this, since the Minister of Finance has brought it up. There are in the budget, in connection with hosiery for instance, certain features that undoubtedly place an undue weapon in the hands of certain large merchandising concerns in Canada to the detriment of the smaller merchants. I refer to cheap cashmere hosiery and other hosiery of cheaper quality that can be bought by these larger concerns, through their purchasing agents in Europe, at a much reduced cost and brought into Canada to undersell the cheaper hosiery manufactured here, to the detriment of these manufacturers and of the smaller retail merchants in Canada who have not the same facilities to make such purchases, particularly the. purchasing facilities which our departmental stores have at their disposal. I am concerned a little about that particular item of the budget.
The Budget-Mr. Walsh


Charles Avery Dunning: Cashmere hosiery?


William Allen Walsh: I am speaking of cashmere and other cheaper lines of hosiery, not full-fashioned silk hose, because as far as they are concerned we are an exporting nation; we have a fine market in England for full-fashioned silk hose. I am, however, very much concerned about the cheaper lines.
In the course of the debate we have heard much about a stimulant applied to the building industry. With that I am in hearty sympathy. and any stimulant that can be applied to that industry will certainly meet with the approval of everv member of the house. I am surprised that the government has not seen fit to introduce, in the course of this session, much more legislation than it has brought down in connection with the building industry. It might be possible to introduce something in the form of tax-free second mortgages, which would give some encouragement to the building industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: Tax-free second mortgages?


William Allen Walsh: Yes, to encourage building. Some people can afford a first mortgage but they cannot go beyond that, and if they could get a cheap second mortgage so much the better.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will the hon. member explain what he means? The suggestion is an important one, but what does he mean by tax-free second mortgages?


William Allen Walsh: There are some points I want to make before I sit down. I am sure the Minister of Finance knows a great deal more about the matter than I do myself, and there is a useful little pamphlet entitled "Building Societies Eliminate 'Peaks and Valleys' in Industry" which he will find interesting. It touches, I believe, on that particular point. I have no doubt he has a copy of it.
Let me come now to the Department of Labour. I have not noticed, either in the budget or in the debate so far, anything that will give us a lead as to measures for the relief of unemployment and to establish a new social order in Canada. I have here clippings from newspapers of the maritime provinces. The Minister of Labour and his chief assistant, the chairman of the National Employment Commission, visited the maritime provinces during the past summer and held meetings in different places, assembling councillors and members of parliament. Every time I read one of these reports I thought it was the report of a Liberal convention. When they brought together the members of parlia-
[Mr. Walsh.J
ment, particularly in the St. John district, to discuss relief measures, it was of course not natural to expect the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), who lives a few miles out of St. John and who happens to be a Conservative, to be invited to participate in any of these conferences. He was a Conservative and no doubt it was taken for granted that he might not have very much to contribute to the discussion. I suggest, however, that he could have been invited, if only as an act of courtesy on the part of the Minister of Labour, and given an opportunity to express his views and offer assistance in the effort to solve the unemployment problem.


Mr. ROGERS:: The Minister of Labour was not responsible for summoning any of the meetings; they were arranged by those who were interested in the particular communities where the meetings were held.


William Allen Walsh: The meetings were conveniently arranged., probably by the Liberal organizer of the district, so that Conservatives were not present.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not correct.


William Allen Walsh: I do not know what is correct, but I know that if I had time I would read a list of names and the minister would be surprised to see how many prominent Liberals were in attendance at these meetings. I suggest that the Conservatives, even if in opposition, are interested in the problem of unemployment and are willing and anxious to offer their assistance in finding a solution of the problem.
I want to read one or two extracts relating to the National Employment Commission. In Hansard of March 8, 1937, at page 1600, an hon. member makes the following statement:
I am in favour of investigating commissions, but managing commissions are sometimes dangerous. We have an employment commission. Let me tell the house that I do not believe much in that commission. It is a window-dressing [DOT]commission. . . .
The question has been asked about the number of unemployed. On February 8 of this year I asked this question:
Certain questions are set out.
To which the minister replied:
Mr. Rogers:	All available information was
included in the report of the National Employment Commission with respect to the registration of recipients of direct relief -which was tabled in the house on the 5th day of February. As other data is abstracted from the registration returns it will be made available.
Mr. Pouliot: I thank the minister for the copy of the return, but I must say it contains no information about the previous occupations of the unemployed. Therefore it is of no use at

The Budget-Mr. Thorson
all. I cannot see its usefulness as it does not show what the unemployed can do, or how they can be employed. This is a very important point and one that should not be overlooked...
The speech of the Minister of Labour on the second reading of the employment commission bill on March 30 last year shows that he is fully qualified for his position.
I agree with that.
I would be quite willing to give him blanket authority to study this whole matter and report to the house. He is a reliable Minister of Labour and I am very sorry that in order to relieve unemployment all he has by way of assistance is a commission which is really more of an obstacle than a help.
These are not the words of a Conservative opposition member; they are the words of a Liberal member at present occupying a seat in this house and at present sitting not very far from the minister himself.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend is not suggesting that I inspired them ?


William Allen Walsh: I do not think the inspiration would come from that source, but I want to emphasize the fact that one of the minister's own supporters absolutely disengaged himself from any connection whatsoever with the National Employment Commission, condemning it in the same terms in which it was condemned from this side of the house last year, to which condemnation little or no attention was paid.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is the member?


William Allen Walsh: The member for Temiscou-ata (Mr. Pouliot). Let me remind the house -this has already been emphasized-that this year this commission has cost us $87418, and I notice in the supplementary estimates we are asked to vote a further sum of $275,000, making a total of $362,418- for what? For a national employment commission who are recording certain facts and figures that should be recorded in the bureau of statistics, and who are not doing one iota to aid unemployment. They are doing nothing real and practical to solve the problem of unemployment in Canada.
I tell the Minister of Labour that I have had the utmost patience with his efforts to solve this problem, but I am entirely losing patience with the attitude and action of the employment commission. I listened to an address by the chairman of that commission in Montreal on January 11, and the facts he gave on that occasion and the expressions he used were illuminating. He embodied in his report the latest figures from the drought area of the west. Why these figures should be included by the Department of Labour in statistics with respect to the unemployed is beyond me. The people in the drought area,
who have the misfortune to be out of employment and on relief as a result of a contingency due to nature alone, over which they had absolutely no control, should be looked after through the Department of Agriculture, and the statistics of the Department of Labour should not be confused by the inclusion of the drought area figures. The people there are not unemployed in the true sense of the term; they are unemployed for a definite and specific reason and therefore should be looked after by the department primarily responsible for their rehabilitation and replacement.
During the course of his remarks the chairman of the commission drew an analogy between a boy's knowledge of a lobster or a lobster's knowledge of a boy. When he finished we did not quite understand whether the lobster knew more about the boy or the boy about the lobster, but he did suggest that the knowledge of the people of Canada regarding the unemployment problem was somewhat similar in character.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


William Allen Walsh: I am sorry I have to conclude, as I have other interesting data that I should have liked to present, but I hope I may have an opportunity to do so at some other time.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):: When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) made his budget statement to this house he presented an encouraging picture of progress to the people of Canada. He was quite frank in his admission that much remained to be done, and that frankness gives hope that further progress will be made. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has proposed an amendment expressing regret that the government has failed to take effective measures to deal with the problem of unemployment. The debate therefore affords an opportunity of considering the policies that ought to bp followed by this country, and perhaps our best approach to this problem is to analyze the effect of the policies of the past in the hope that we may profit in the future by avoiding the mistakes of the past.
No useful purpose is served by reminding the people of Canada that the leader of the opposition promised to end unemployment, that his government went into office on the strength of that promise, and that he failed to fulfil it. The important things to remember are the policies that were initiated by his government for the purpose of performing the promise that he made, and the utter failure of those policies to accomplish the purposes for which they were designed. The Bennett
The Budget-Mr. Thorson

administration sought to end unemployment by raising the tariffs against imports from abroad and restricting their entry into Canada in the hope that their manufacture in Canada rather than abroad would solve the problem of unemployment.
It is obvious that these policies did not end unemployment. Instead they did real harm to Canada, for they sacrificed the primary producers of this country in the interests of the secondary industries, and in so doing they did harm not only to the primary producers themselves, but also to those engaged in secondary production as well.
I intend to confine my remarks largely to two commodities that were, prior to 1930 at any rate, the principal items of our external trade: wheat, our most important export, and textiles, our most necessary import; and I shall endeavour to show to the house the disastrous effect which the Bennett tariffs against textiles had upon the export of Canadian wheat. I take wheat as an example of primary production and textiles as an example of manufactured goods, 'but what I have to say with regard to wheat and textiles might also be said of other primary products and other manufactured goods respectively, the differences being of degree rather than of kind.
An analysis of Canada's export trade shows that at least seventy-five per cent of it consists of the products of agriculture, mining, forestry and fishing, either in their natural state or after primary processing. The list of the twenty leading commodities which Canada exported during the calendar year 1936 in the order of their value shows two things: first, that wheat is our most important export commodity, amounting to 22-3 per cent of our total exports in that year; and second, that our primary production constitutes our basic wealth and the means whereby we are able to maintain our export trade and create the necessary credits abroad which enable us to purchase the commodities that we need from abroad, and which we in Canada must have if our people are to enjoy a decent standard of living.
Since Canada is a large exporter of primary commodities she must therefore be a large importer of manufactured goods; for there is no other way by which she can put into circulation the basic wealth of her primary production. If we wish to sell our goods we must be willing to buy the goods of others. An examination of the distribution of our imports during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930, according to the classifications used by the bureau of statistics, shows that our most important imports from the United Kingdom,

continental Europe and the orient consisted of fibres, textiles and textile products, these being 36 per cent of our total imports from the United Kingdom, 31-7 per cent of our imports from continental Europe, and 52 A per cent of our imports from the orient.
Since 95 per cent of our total wheat exports went to the United Kingdom, continental Europe and the orient, and since wheat is our most important export commodity, and since our most important imports from these countries were textiles, it follows that Canada's trade with the United Kingdom, continental Europe and the orient depended primarily upon the exchange of wheat for textiles. These are the principal items in that trade, and when Canada raised her tariffs against textiles, after 1930, she touched the heart of our trade relations with our chief wheat importing country. By prohibitive tariffs against textiles the Bennett administration succeeded in restricting the import of textiles into Canada, but in so doing that administration not onlv lost markets for Canadian wheat, but also allowed the Argentine, Canada's most dangerous competitor in wheat production, to gain the markets which Canada had lost. That, too, Mr. Speaker, was one of the causes of continued unemployment in Canada; for the loss of markets for Canadian wheat meant reduced purchasing power for the Canadian wheat producer, and therefore less ability to purchase the products of Canadian manufacture. The reduced volume of production, for example, of the agricultural implement industry, is directly traceable to policies of the kind that I have mentioned; and that reduced volume means both reduced employment for those engaged in that industry and higher prices for implements to the farmer.
Let us examine for a moment where the wheat exports of Canada went in 1930 and the extent to which they have been reduced since then. I now place on Hansard a short table showing the average exports of wheat per annum during the five year period ending March 31, 1930, as compared with the subsequent five year period ending March 31, 1935, and the main countries to which these exports actually went.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, but there is a rule of the house that nothing may be placed on Hansard unless it is read, except it be done by unanimous consent. I think your honour raised the point here the other evening in regard to another member, and made that ruling.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This table, Mr. Speaker, tells a striking story. In the first place it shows that continental Europe prior to 1930-

The Budget-Mr. Thorson


Ernest Edward Perley: I rise again to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I ask your ruling. Is it permissible for the hon. gentleman to place a table on Hansard without reading it, unless he first seeks the unanimous consent of the house?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The privilege has been extended on numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker; the table is very short, and its substance will be contained in the remarks I now propose to make.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have no objection-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I will read the table.


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. gentleman has stated that the privilege has been extended on other occasions. I know of no person to whom this privilege is accorded except the Minister of Finance when making his budget speech. That is ~iy understanding of the rule; if I am wrong your honour will correct me.


Walter Edward Foster: I should like to hear what the hon. member has to say as to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley).


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I shall read the table. It
shows the exports of Canadian wheat to continental Europe, the United Kingdom, the orient and other countries. The average exports of wheat per year during the five year period ending March 31, 1930, were 155,000,000 bushels to continental Europe;	82,600,000
bushels to the United Kingdom; 16,400,000 bushels to the orient, and 11,100,000 bushels to other countries, making an average annual total of wheat exported in those years of
265.100.000	bushels. The second column shows that during the five year period ending March 31, 1935, the average exports of wheat per year to continental Europe were 103,300,000 bushels; to the United Kingdom, 71,800,000 bushels; to the orient, 9.100.000 bushels and to other countries, 9,000,000 bushels; making a yearly total average in those years of 193,200,000 bushels. These figures are significant. Out of a total average export of Canadian wheat of
265.100.000	bushels per year in the years prior to 1930, 155,000,000 bushels per year went to continental Europe as against 82,600,000 bushels per year to the United Kingdom. It will not help us in Canada to hold the United Kingdom market for wheat if at the same time we lose the markets of continental Europe. In the second place, this table tells an alarming story, for it shows that during the five year period ending March 31, 1935, our wheat exports averaged 71,900.000 bushels less per year than during the preceding five
year period, and that 51,700,000 bushels per year of this decline is accounted for by reduced exports to continental Europe. That market was lost to Canada largely as the result of the foolish tariff and fiscal policies of the previous administration of this country and, what is perhaps even worse, that market was surrendered to the Argentine, Canada's strongest competitor in the production and sale of wheat-Canada's greatest individual asset.
In 1929 the six main wheat importing countries of Europe were Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. They took seventy per cent of the total European imports of wheat. In that year Canada had a favourable trade balance with these countries amounting to 8114,603,000, her exports to these countries amounting to $187,388,000, and her imports from them being only $72,785,000. These were good customers for Canada; indeed they were our best customers for Canadian wheat. How did the Bennett adminstration treat these good customers of Canada?
The treatment which Canada gave to Switzerland is perhaps the most striking example of the folly of the tariff policies of the former administration of this country. If an analysis is made of our imports from Switzerland as between the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930, and the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935, it will be seen that our imports from Switzerland declined from $7,314,840 in 1930 to $4,979,543 in 1935. Of this decline seventy-seven per cent was in fibres, textiles and textile products, our imports of these commodities having been restricted from $4,507,296 in 1930 to $652,010 in 1935.
How was this brought about? The Bennett administration proceeded to restrict the importation of silk from Switzerland, first by raising the ad valorem duty, and secondly by inflated arbitrary valuations for duty purposes. Let me give the house an illustration of how the previous administration acted. The chief silk product which Canada imported from Switzerland in 1930 is described in our trade returns as "woven fabrics, wholly or in part of silk, not to contain wool, not including fabrics in chief part by weight of artificial silk." In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930, Canadian imports under this heading amounted to 1,259,836 yards, valued at $826,109. The average value per yard was 66 cents; the duty amounted to $242,602, and the average duty per yard was 19 cents. But in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935, Canadian imports under the same heading amounted, to 2,582 yards, valued at $3,518. The average value per yard was $1.36; the duty amounted to $1,524, and the average duty per yard was 59 cents. These figures indi-
The Budget-Mr. Thorson

cate that the average ad1 valorem rate of duty on these items was increased from 29-4 per cent, as it was in 1930, to 43-3 per cent. But this was not enough: Although the price of raw silk was falling and silk prices in Canada were declining, the valuations for duty purposes were stepped up from 66 cents per yard to $1.36 per yard, thus increasing the actual duties that were collected on this class of silk fabrics by over 215 per cent.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Would he mind telling the house the number employed in 1930 as against those employed1 in 1936 in the textile industry of Canada?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have not those figures.


Mr. SPENCE:: Because you do not want to have them.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I will deal with the general question a little later on. I have indicated the manner in which the Bennett administration proceeded to deal with Switzerland's trade in silk fabrics with Canada. It succeeded in killing that trade, for it reduced it by 99-8 per cent.
The next most important decline in Swiss imports into this country was under the heading of-


Mr. BAKER:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did the reduction by ninety-nine per cent of silk importations from Switzerland to Canada give more employment in Canada?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I doubt it; I do not think it did.


Richard Langton Baker: It certainly did.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I will answer that in a moment.


Richard Langton Baker: It certainly did to hundreds and hundreds of people.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The next most important decline of Swiss imports into Canada was under the heading of non-ferrous metals and their products, a decline from $1,795,578 in 1930 to $880,844 in 1935-eighteen per cent of the total decline in Swiss imports. We treated time-pieces from Switzerland somewhat in the same manner as we did silk fabrics.
Now, what did Switzerland do, in return, to our Canadian exports of wheat into Switzerland? She was patient for a time, but at the close of 1931 she passed legislation which empowered the federal council of that country bo limit imports by means of quota restrictions. By a decree which became effective

on May 12, 1932, wheat was placed under this law, and since then importations of wheat have been allowed only under permit from countries specified by the authorities. What happened to the sale of our Canadian wheat? it should be noted that from 1926 to 1930 Switzerland took 57-4 per cent of her imports of wheat from Canada. Relatively she was our best customer for wheat in continental Europe. Even as late as 1932 she took 52-7 per cent of her wheat imports from Canada, but after the governmental decree went into effect for wheat the picture rapidly changed. In each year since 1932 Canada's share of the Swiss wheat market has declined until in 1935 it amounted to only twelve per cent of the total Swiss imports. This market did not disappear, for Switzerland decided upon a policy of buying from countries that were willing to buy from her; and the Argentine, Canada's most dangerous competitor in wheat production, gained the market which Canada by her shortsighted tariff policy had lost. In 1931 the Argentine supplied only 9 per cent of the wheat import requirements of Switzerland, but in each year since then she has gamed an increasing share until in 1935 the Argentine's share of the Swiss wheat market amounted to 45-7 per cent, whereas Canada's share had dropped to 12 per cent. The previous administration of this country was highly successful in accomplishing its purpose of restricting imports from Switzerland, but in so doing it lost a market for Canadian wheat amounting to over 7,000,000 bushels per year, and surrendered that market to the Argentine. Surely the time has come for a change of policy.
The time ait my disposal does not permit me to deal in the same detail with the other European countries, but basically the story is the same. Our total imports from Belgium declined from $13,019,000 in 1930 to $3,613,000 in 1935, the chief decline being in textiles, iron and iron products, and non-metallic minerals and their products. Tariff changes in respect of glass have resulted in a marked decrease in the importation of this commodity from Belgium. Our wheat exports to Belgium have actually increased, but when the United States went out of the wheat export business, her share of the Belgian wheat import requirements went to the Argentine, instead of to Canada, the Argentine's share of the Belgian market increasing from 23-6 per cent in 1930 to 58-5 per cent in 1935.
The story of our trade with the Netherlands is similar to that with Belgium. Our imports from the Netherlands have been restricted from $9,432,000 in 1930 to $4,343,000 in 1935, the chief declines being in textiles, and agri-

The Budget-Mr. Thorson
1&13
cultural and vegetable products. Imports of artificial silks declined from $1,051,000 in 1930 to $148,000 in 1935. As in the case of Belgium, our exports of wheat to the Netherlands have slightly increased; but as also in the case of Belgium the former United States share of the Netherlands wheat import requirements went to the Argentine, instead of to Canada, the Argentine's share of the Netherlands' market increasing from 10-4 per cent in 1930 to 59-8 per cent in 1935.
And so the story goes. Canadian imports from France decreased from $25,158,000 in 1930 to $6,443,000 in 1935, 47-9 per cent of this decline being due to reduced imports of textiles. In the case of Italy, Canadian imports declined from $4,963,000 in 1930 to $2,714,000 in 1935, 64-4 per cent of this decline being due to reduced imports of textiles. Similarly, in the case of Germany our imports from that country declined from $21,505,000 in 1930 to $10,474,158 in 1935, 75 per cent of this decline being due to reduced imports of textiles, iron and iron products, and miscellaneous products.
In 1929 the six wheat importing countries of continental Europe had unfavourable trade balances with the rest of the world, and those unfavourable balances were largely with the four wheat exporting countries of Canada, the United States, the Argentine and Australia. When the crash of 1929 came, and the invisible items of trade upon which they had relied disappeared, they were forced to rely to a greater extent upon their commodity balances. The action taken first by Australia in 1929, and then by the United States in 1930, and later by Canada, made it impossible for these countries to maintain their exports, and they were forced therefore to restrict the volume of their imports.
The effect upon Canada of her mistaken policies in dealing with these countries was disastrous. I wish I had time to tell the story in detail, but briefly it is this: By prohibitive tariffs the Bennett administration succeeded in restricting Canada's imports from these six [DOT] continental European countries from $72,785,000 in 1929 to $16,524,000 in 1935; but during the same period our exports to these countries fell from $187,388,000 in 1929 to $30,154,000 in 1935. Canada restricted her imports by $56,261,000 per year, but in so doing she sacrificed $157,234,000 per year in her export trade. There was almost $3 of exports lost for every $1 of imports restricted. Forty per cent of the restriction in imports was in respect of textiles, and included in the loss of exports was 51-7 million bushels per year of Canadian wheat. What a heavy price the Canadian wheat producer has paid for the protection of the textile manufacturer!
Surely such policies must not be allowed to continue. The primary production of Canada constitutes her basic wealth; surely our tariff and fiscal policies ought to be so designed as to ensure the best circulation of that basic wealth. If we are anxious to increase our total wealth, we ought to be prepared and we must be prepared to buy the manufactured goods of other countries. In order that they may be given the necessary purchasing power to buy our primary products, our tariffs must be reduced on the articles they have to sell. This would be good business for the whole of Canada. I do not think of tariff reductions as tariff concessions; I consider that they constitute good business for Canada. If this were done the whole of Canada would benefit; for the increased volume of our export trade would increase the purchasing power of our primary producers, and those engaged in the secondary industries of Canada would benefit as well.
An increase in our total wealth, which can come about only by the expansion of our external trade, will not solve all our problems, for the problem of the equitable distribution of that wealth will still remain with us. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that an increase in our total wealth constitutes our best hope for solving the problem of unemployment. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution industry has always depended upon agriculture and the other primary industries that produced food and raw materials. There is no country in the world equal to Canada in its potentialities for the production of real wealth. We ought to be the wealthiest country in the world, and we could be the wealthiest country if our leaders had the vision and courage to put into effect the policies that will best ensure the circulation of our basic wealth, the primary production of Canada.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Is the hon. member
suggesting that the textile industry of Canada should be scrapped in order to assist in the export of wheat?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: By no means. My view is that if we used our primary production as it ought to be used, benefits would accrue not only to those engaged in that primary production but also to those engaged in the secondary industries.


Alexander McKay Edwards: What will become of the 63,009 workers in the textile industries?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: If we adopt the policies I have suggested I think there will be more workers engaged in the secondary industries of Canada.


Richard Langton Baker: That is only a theory; it does not work out in practice.
The Budget-Mr. Douglas


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think we have demonstrated that it is a fact.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 
Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Not very many thousands are doing it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder whether the hon. member for Melfort realizes that in this city of Ottawa, the capital of Canada, there are about 700 transients living at the mission or the shelter or at Friendship House. I wonder if he and the Minister of Labour know that these men get two meals a day-a breakfast consisting of porridge and bread and tea, and an evening meal consisting of either soup or stew and bread and tea-and a bed.


Malcolm McLean: Does the hon. member propose to allow me to answer the question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Melfort has all the opportunity that I have; he can have forty minutes at any time.

The Budget-Mr. Douglas


Malcolm McLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me a question a moment ago. A day or two ago his leader objected to rhetorical questions being put to that side of the house. May I say in answer to the hon. gentleman that last year in the constituency of Melfort there was a real shortage of young, unemployed men willing to take jobs available during the fall and winter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will continue my speech. The hon. member says there is a shortage of men in Melfort.


Malcolm McLean: In the constituency of Melfort there was, I said.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If he can influence the Minister of Labour, who sits in front of him, to transport some of these men who have been living on two meals a day, I am sure they will be glad to take the jobs.


Malcolm McLean: Would they be any good when they got there?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, not after living on two meals a day. I doubt whether the hon. member for Melfort himself would be any good if he lived for any considerable length of time on two meals a day. The fact is, talking about moving these men, they come to town and are allowed one night's lodging and two meals, and then they must move on; but when they go to the station to catch a freight train to go to my hon. friend's constituency the mounted police will not allow them to get on the train; they must wait until it is moving quickly and then try to catch it, with danger to life and limb. They must either do that or stay where they are and beg on the streets.


Malcolm McLean: Why did they come here in the first place?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Because there was nowhere for them to go. The average young man to-day is caught on the horns of a dilemma. He must either look for work elsewhere or stay at home, in which case he is not eligible for most of the government projects such as the home placement scheme. If he leaves home to try to get on any of these projects he at once makes it impossible for himself ever to come back to his home and get relief. He is penalized either way, because if he stays at home he cannot get work, and if he leaves home and wanders about the country looking for work he cannot come back home because the authorities are not willing to accept him as a responsibility.
Let us look at the matter of farm placements. In the first place it is of very little value to those who would like it, the young farmers, young men in small towns on the

prairies who would be glad to go on the farm, having had some experience. They cannot go because they have a home; scores of them have been refused on the ground that they have a place to live. The young men who are homeless come in the main from the cities; in the first place they are not suited to farm work, they are of no use to the farmer, and they do not like such work. Therefore, those who want it cannot get it and those who can get it do not want it and are not of much use to the people to whom they go.
I was interested the other day to receive a postcard from the Ottawa Young Men's Christian Association notifying me that Hon. Norman McL. Rogers would be the guest speaker, taking as his subject "The outlook of Youth." I am sorry I did not hear that address.


Malcolm McLean: You are past that stage anyhow.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Whether the Minister of Labour told these young men or not, the fact remains that for fifty or sixty thousand young men in Canada to-day the outlook of youth is $5 a month on a farm; otherwise they can go to the mission and get two meals per day. Some people think that $5 a month is a lot of money, and sometimes I am amazed at the sense of values shown by hon. gentlemen opposite. I have here a copy of an order in council, which I mentioned before, showing that Colonel Ralston, counsel for the Turgeon grain inquiry, receives $20 a day for expenses, and a salary of $200 per day. Compare that with the lot of these young men. Let us leave out the living expenses, though they are not altogether comparable; the boys get board and this gentleman gets $20 a day. Let us take Colonel Ralston's salary and make a calculation on the basis of it. It would take a young man, working under the farm placement scheme, eighty-seven years to make as much as Colonel Ralston makes in a month of twenty-six days, or 1,054 young men working a year to make as much money as he would make if he worked one year.


Malcolm McLean: Will my hon.
friend allow me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have been very patient. The hon. member for Melfort has not made many speeches this session, and I am sure the house will be glad to hear him if he has anything to say.


Malcolm McLean: The question was quite pertinent.

The Budget-Mr. Douglas


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the meantime I suggest that the hon. gentleman resume his seat. Even if we accept the statement of the Minister of Finance that there has been a five per cent decrease in unemployment, it means that the unemployment problem, diminished to the extent of five per cent, is with us for at least twenty years.


Charles Avery Dunning: You are a bad calculator, I am afraid.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Charles Avery Dunning: It has paid $1,000,000 in wages.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To whom?


Charles Avery Dunning: To the working men.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, and the money has been borrowed by people who next year must take it out of purchasing power and return it to the lending institutions.
Now I come to another question that has been brought to the attention of the house several times, and I do not propose to deal with it in detail. I refer to wheat. When the wheat board legislation was in its initial stages a great many people thought that it was to provide an orderly marketing system by which all wheat was to be delivered to the wheat board, the farmer was to receive a fixed price and a participation certificate. Then the proposal was attacked, the attack being led by Colonel J. L. Ralston. Delegations came from the Winnipeg grain exchange. Mr. J. R. Murray, then secretary of the grain exchange, was in the capital, and at that time we heard bandied about the dominion such phrases as "give the Winnipeg grain exchange another chance" and "give the farmer the right to market his wheat where he wants," with the result that there were amendments to the act which permitted the farmer to sell the wheat either in the open market or to the wheat board. Then came the present government, and the first thing that government did was to change the personnel of the board. They looked all over Canada to see whom they could get, and it is well known whom they selected. They chose Mr. Murray, the former secretary of the grain exchange, who
31X11-1024
had worked so hard the year before to prevent the wheat board from coming into existence. Putting Mr. Murray in charge of the wheat board was like putting a weasel in a hen coop to raise chickens. And he succeeded very well. Ever since he took over that responsibility we have had what is commonly known as a fire sale policy for wheat. That has been amply demonstrated by the leader of the opposition, by my desk-mate, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Caldwell), and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), so there is no need for me to place the figures upon Hansard. But most amazing of all, when last year for the first time in five years it was apparent that wheat was going to bring a price somewhat commensurate with its cost of production, what happened? It was announced on August 28 that unless wheat dropped below 90 cents a bushel it would not be accepted by the wheat board. So we see the progress: First of all wheat was to go through the wheat board ; then it was to be through the wheat board or the open market; and now unless it is below 90 cents it is to be all sold on the open market. In other words, the 1936 crop of western Canada has been turned over to the grain exchange and the speculators. I know men in my own district who made more money out of buying options than growing wheat. It is coming to a pretty pass When one man can make more money out of paper wheat than another can make out of real wheat that people eat. The result is that the farmers of western Canada have lost on an average between 20 and 30 cents a bushel, which otherwise would have been purchasing power in the hands of the people on the prairies.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Does he believe that ?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I come now to the statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) in his annual speech. He read extracts from some articles which I wrote, and took great exception to them. There is an old saying:
Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!


Malcolm McLean: Hear, hear that makes it unanimous.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bothwell) must have been disillusioned on reading that article, so I do not wonder that he was a little upset. On reading his speech
The Budget-Mr. Douglas

this morning I find that I did him a service, because if you take out the articles of mine that he quoted there is not much left of his own. What he did was to give certain excerpts from my articles and say they were misrepresentations, but he did not in any case cite where the misrepresentation lay, although I asked him to do so. He did not, for instance, answer the question of certain Liberals from Saskatchewan, some of whom condemned the action of the government on wheat, while others wired to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) asking for an explanation of the government's action. But throughout the entire speech from the throne and the budget speech there was no reference to the matter. On the hustings, of course, some hon. gentlemen were quite vociferous, but here they become as calm as Mary's little lamb. The hon. member for Swift Current said nothing to explain that. All he said was that I was misrepresenting facts. But, Mr. Speaker, I could go back over Hansard and substantiate exactly what I was saying. That would take some time and this is neither the time nor the place for it. But I will make the hon gentleman this sporting proposition: He and I are very close neighbours, and I am prepared to come to his city of Swift Current, I suggest on the first day of July, but he can name any day he likes-


Malcolm McLean: Why spoil the holiday?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I admit it would spoil his holiday, but I am quite prepared on that occasion to substantiate the statements that I made in the articles, and my hon. friend will have the opportunity there to prove any misrepresentations. I shall be very glad to come, because there there will be none of the restrictions that the rules of this house place upon a member. The gloves will be off, and we shall see whose hands are dirty. Or since the hon. gentleman is not enthusiastic about that venue and he would prefer to come to Weyburn, I can guarantee him a very warm welcome. But talking as he did about having regard to the ninth commandment, I was glad to learn that the hon. gentleman knows at all events that there are commandments-I had not given him credit for that.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Did you give any other member credit for that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In his speech yesterday, at page 1565, the hon. member referred to the fact that he had received a number of resolutions, and had attended one of these meetings of protest. He says that some of the resolutions were couched in very similar language. If I remember correctly he said

yesterday that he had attended a meeting at a place called Cabri, although I see on reading Hansard that the reporter must have failed to catch the name of the town, but the hon. member mentioned it for I wrote it down and so did my deskmate. The hon. member said there was no resolutions committee appointed, that a prepared statement was brought in and put to the meeting. The man who spoke at that meeting is in Ottawa, and if I am not mistaken he is in the gallery of this house. What happened? I believe some 1,400 people gathered there-


Charles Edward Bothwell: Five hundred at the most.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am merely giving my hon. friend my understanding; he can correct it later. A committee of eleven business men from eleven surrounding villages sat in with ten farmers, making a committee of twenty-one, which drew up the resolution passed by the meeting.
My hon. friend implied yesterday and on another occasion when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) was speaking that these protests coming from all over western Canada came from some central source seeking to stir up feeling against the government. He has not the courage to say so, but he implies it. Why not say plainly what he means? I received scores and scores of these resolutions, and naturally there was some similarity in the language. Several hundred people could not write resolutions on the same subject without using somewhat the same language. To imply that the feeling of protest that is sweeping across western Canada is to be attributed to only a few persons, who for subversive reasons are trying to stir up trouble is merely dragging a herring across the trail. After telling us that there is a similarity in the language of the resolutions, the bon. member does not say what he thinks about that action of the wheat board, whether he agrees or disagrees with it, whether he is pleased or displeased. He does not say what he told the people of Cabri, does not say whether he objected or acquiesced in the passing of the resolution-not a word, only that there was a similarity in the language in which these different resolutions were couched. I tell my hon. friend and those with whom he sits that perhaps nothing has been done by hon. gentlemen opposite that has caused such a widespread feeling of sorrow even among their own supporters, the farmers of western Canada, and many of the urban residents of western Canada, that the west should have been thus betrayed and that millions of dollars which should have gone to

The Budget-Mr. Douglas
the farming people and through them to the storekeepers of western Canada, are now to be found in the bank accounts of speculators on the Winnipeg grain exchange.
In closing I wish to analyze in a few sentences some of the expenditures of the budget. Of our total revenue 10-06 per cent comes from excise, 25-55 per cent from sales tax, and 18-03 per cent from customs duties, making a total of 53-64 per cent of the revenue of Canada that comes from the consuming public. I have here an article written by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), who reads detective stories, and fortunately leaves his thumbprint on all the campaign literature that he issues. He moans nigh unto tears about the forgotten consumer. I wonder about the forgotten consumer, when out of every dollar of taxes raised by the federal government 53-64 cents comes out of this poor forgotten consumer, whereas the income tax produces only 22-56 per cent of the national revenue. I think again of what has been said so often, that we are raising the money to run the Dominion of Canada from the people who can least afford to pay it. Somebody says: Well, the alternative would be to soak the rich. It is not soaking the rich. There is an old principle, and a good one, that "those who are strong ought to bear the burdens of the weak;" that those who have the money are the ones who ought to pay in order to keep the dominion solvent. Instead of that, the bulk of the money necessary to finance this country is taken from the people who buy goods at the store, no matter how small their incomes may be.
Let us now look at government expenditures. We find that funded debt charges take 31-3 per cent of the national income, and that interest on bonds of government-owned enterprises accounts for 9-84 per cent, making a total of 41-14 per cent. If we were to add the loans to the provinces, which in many cases are made for the purpose of paying interest charges, the total would be much higher. But leaving it at that, out of every dollar we receive by way of taxes, we pay 41-14 per cent in interest charges.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have given the figures: 31-3 per cent for funded debt charges, and 9-84 for interest on the bonds of government-owned1 enterprises. I should be glad to have the correct figures if I am wrong, but I am taking my figures from the budget speech.


Charles Avery Dunning: You are creating a duplication, that is all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hardly see where it comes in. I will read the figures from the minister's table; perhaps that will be better. On page 1228 of Hansard I find, under the heading of expenditures, that the total public debt charges amount to 31-30 per cent of the total revenue. Then, continuing to read the table on page 1228, I find that government-owned enterprises account for 9-84 per cent of the total revenue. That includes losses charged to the consolidated1 fund in regard to the Canadian National Railways and the National Harbours Board, and non-active loans and advances to these two enterprises.


Charles Avery Dunning: But that represents losses, not interest charges.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But we are paying the interest on the Canadian National bonds. Let me read further from this table, showing the percentage of the total paid out in various ways:
Subsidies and special grants to
provinces	 3-76
Grants in aid to provinces	 6-40
AH other assistance	 3-79
Drought area relief	 2-15
Dominion projects (special supplementary estimates)	 5-45
Old age pensions	 4-98
Pensions and after care of soldiers,
pensions, war and military	 9-53
Treatment, and after care of returned soldiers	 2-66
Even taking only the funded debt charges I submit that 31 cents out of every dollar collected by way of taxes goes to pay interest, which is out of all proportion to all other amounts we are paying to take care of the people of this country. Therefore I submit that this budget, like last year's budget, still places the burden of taxation upon those least able to bear it and that we continue to pay too large a portion of our income in interest charges on bonds. We are continuing to practise what we have done for so many years: To him that hath shall be given, and from him that has very little we will take away even some of what he has.


Walter Edward Foster: The question is on the main motion.


Mr. W. R. TOMLINSON (Bruce):: The Budget-Mr. Tomlinson
expended from the inception of the act to March, 1935, >1269,142.09. But then we come to election year, when numbers of officers were appointed throughout the dominion. From April 1, 1935, to March 31, 1936, the administration of the act cost $712,015.06. Yet I hear hon. members talking about the National Employment Commission having cost $87,000! In my own county the act was, of course, a juicy proposition for a few of the old Conservative stalwarts. On September 1, 1034, when the act was proclaimed in Ontario they appointed Mr. Snyder of Wiarton, the president of the Conservative Association, as official receiver. He was to receive $1,800 a year and all expenses. But from September to the end of December, 1935, he received a salary of $2,130, and expenses of $627.07. Some other good Conservatives thought this was too luscious a morsel for Mr. Snyder to keep to himself. So a little pressure was brought to bear, and Mr. Rowland, of Walker-ton, obtained an appointment. He was appointed on February 19, 1935, and held office until December 31, of that year. In that period he received a salary of $1,746.23, and expenses of $946.73. Why, Mr. Speaker, he was running around the country selling the scheme like life insurance: every time he coaxed a farmer to take advantage of the act he received a fee and his travelling expenses; at the same time he was doing a little electioneering. Both these gentlemen were active throughout the county, and when the government changed, ion October 14, 1935, I asked the government to fire them, and they were fired without hesitation. Here is the cost since then. We appointed one man in the town of Kincardine on January 1, 1936. His salary to the end of December, 1936, was $1,245, and expenses $183.12, or less than one-fifth of what the former government paid for the same services. And .don't forget, he does all the work the other two receivers did over the whole county. As I say, it is less than one-fifth of what the former government paid for the same work. Of course that was election year and explains the extra cost. That is the sort of thing the farmers had dished up to them during the Conservative regime.
I believe it was the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) who said that 54 per cent of the people of Canada live in the cities, the rest in the country. How has that come about? It is easily explained. How could you ask the young men and women of Canada to live on the farm where they could not receive enough money even to buy clothes? That is what happened in the five years of the Conservative regime. These young people

could not get enough money to spend; there was no future for them. That is not fair play to the farmers-and all the farmers ask for is fair play. They want fair prices for their products; they want a fair return for their labour. And to-day they are receiving a fair return. I admit it could be better, but they are satisfied to-day as a result of the foreign markets which the present Liberal government has made available to them-foreign markets for their wheat and their hogs; because under the present agreement we are guaranteed a market in Britain. That means a great deal to us. It must not be forgotten that a farmer is entitled to the conveniences that are enjoyed by the average town resident to-day. No one will dispute that. Have the farmers enjoyed those conveniences? No, they have not. I am glad to say that the provincial government is now placing hydro at their disposal, and it is up to the dominion government to see that they receive fair prices for their products. As I say, they are receiving fair prices now, and conditions will improve as long as we pursue, under the Liberal government, the policy of foreign markets. Give us foreign markets to absorb our surplus, and then our boys and girls will come back to the farm. For there is no better thing than life on the farm, and with improving conditions our young people will not seek the bright lights of the city.
I am going to support this budget because, as I understand the policy of the government which I pledged myself to support, the object is, first, to place the basic industries of Canada in a thriving position, and once that is done, then automatically the other industries will prosper. As a matter of fact, that is what has happened. The manufacturing plants in my riding are increasing wages. They are not closed by any means, as we were led by the Conservatives to believe they would be. On the contrary, they are prosperous.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Clara Emily Taylor Elkin.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill' No. 45, for the relief of Yetta Gins-burg.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Margurite Emily Coombe Low.-Mr. Jacobs.

Criminal Code Amendment
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Mary May Rowell Thom.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 48, for the relief Eva Josephine Millicent Good Ross.

Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 49, to incorporate Federal Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 50, to incorporate Wellington Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 51, to incorporate Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance	Company.-Mr. Edwards.
Bill No. 52, to incorporate Sterling Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Parent (Quebec West and South).
Bill No. 53, to incorporate Toronto General Insurance Company.-Mr. Plaxton.
Bill No. 54, to incorporate the Sons of Scotland Benevolent Association.-Mr. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved the second reading of Bill No. 22, to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: The subject matter of this bill has been discussed in the house in three different sessions. On February 13, 1935, I brought to the attention of the house the slaughter on the highways of this country which is going on night and day to such an extent that almost every highway in this country is coloured with blood. The debate went on all afternoon and into the evening, and the Prime Minister of the day (Mr. Bennett), now the leader of the opposition, was so much impressed with the casualties that he offered me a committee. As I already was busy on one committee I was unable to go on with another during that session.
In the session of 1936 I introduced Bill No. 57, to amend the criminal code, dealing with various phases of motor car hazards. While it is true that this matter is under provincial control in part, still the criminal law of this country is under this parliament, and we should be able to take some action. The bill was discussed on May 12 last, and after a short debate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) moved the adjournment of the debate, just as was done in another case the other evening. I have been trying to find out since then whether this is a free parliament or not, because if it is a member should be allowed to bring up any question coming within section 91 of the British North America Act, discuss it and press it to a division. That is one of the principles of
Liberalism. The Minister of Justice moved the adjournment of the debate. There were five or six other speakers who wished to speak that evening, and he said he would consider bringing down an amendment to the code. Then about a week before the session closed the minister brought down a general bill to amend the criminal code, and my amendments were not in it and nothing was done.
In my opinion there should be a standing legal committee of this house every session on law reform. The criminal code deals with the liberty of the subject and the rights of property. Law reform is a most important problem. This parliament is far behind England and the United States in what has been done in that respect. As a result of my bill being brought in, the Minister of Justice in the dying days of last session brought down a bill, after a number of hon. members had gone home, and when it was too late for members to consult with judges, magistrates and crown officers in their districts. The result was that no clauses of Bill No. 57 which I had introduced were considered; the house had no opportunity of considering them. If the minister is going to bring down a bill to amend the criminal code or bring about any laiw reform, it should be done early in the session as is done in the old country, so that members of parliament may consult judges, magistrates and crown officers on the merits or demerits of the proposed legislation.
I wish to acknowledge the debt of gratitude we owe to the press particularly and to the motor league and to the careful motorists of this country for what they are doing to prevent accidents and prolong life and aid in public safety. Were any devastating disease to take the toll the motor car is taking by night and by day, science and medicine would know no rest until they had found a cure. The death toll by the motor car constitutes Canada's greatest scandal. The slaughter goes on all over the country, and the economic losses are appalling. The worst thing about it, I think, is the indifference of the public, and of a great many newspapers and the legislatures, though I may exempt from that criticism a great many Ontario papers, especially the Toronto papers.
The bill I have introduced is not perfect by any means, but section 1 is the same section the Minister of Justice himself proposed during the session of 1930. At that time an amendment was made and adopted, unwisely, I think, but I believe the first section of this bill should pass. The amendment moved to the minister's bill in 1930 and adopted in committee of the whole has
Criminal Code Amendment

been found to be inconsistent, unworkable and full of loopholes, with the result that it has been absolutely futile in checking the slaughter, as many of the ablest judges have pointed out. Any steps taken by way of collecting reports have simply led to a glorious fiasco, while the slaughter goes right on.
This is the score in the city of Toronto, from which I come: Last week-end there were thirteen people hurt. The totals to date for 1937 so far are: Dead, 11; hurt, 538; drivers gaoled, 29. The figures for 1936 were: Dead, 69; hurt, 3,475; drivers gaoled, 104. I have in my hand a picture of an accident which I saw on Saturday, May 4, 1935. Here you can see the husband running up; here you see the wife, who had just bought a newspaper and who, on attempting to cross the highway, was killed instantly. That sort of thing is going on in Toronto all the time. The hospitals are filled with these accident cases; the accommodation has had to be increased. You could fill the seats of this chamber fifteen times over with the people hurt last year in Toronto alone. At the opening of the Toronto winter assizes, January 11, 1937, Chief Justice Rose had this to say to the grand jury with regard to the present law:
"The toll of life by motors is appalling and the number of people injured is infinitely greater," declared Chief Justice Rose in his address to the grand jury this afternoon.
"Careless driving will stop just as soon as the people of Ontario make up their minds that it is to stop," he continued. "It cannot be done by more motor regulations, you would need to have as many constables as there are motorists, to enforce them, but it can be stopped by the penalties of the law and people must not be afraid or get the idea that they will incur odium if they give information that results in convictions.
It is the part of juries to see that there are convictions. If lawbreakers get the idea there will not be conviotions they will continue."
His lordship said there appeared to be something illogical in the fact that a motorist who kills gets a term in prison while another who is merely fortunate enough to injure his victim gets off easily. The reckless driver is a potential murderer, and does not deserve leniency and juries should make up their minds to that effect.
Five years ago in the old country they appointed a committee of both houses of parliament to go into this question, and they got something done. On February 13, 1935, there was a non-political debate on this question in this house on a resolution of mine, in which some twenty-seven members took part. I wrote the Minister of Justice early in the present session to see if he would not nominate a committee to go into the matter. I do not want to be bringing it up all the time; in fact, I may not bring it up again, 
because I can get no results. They got results in England, however; they created a ministry of transport. It is true that in Canada the provinces have some jurisdiction; the federal government here has not the same power as in England. Here I have a newspaper picture of the Minister of Transport of England down in the east end of London among the working people, many of whom are killed each year while crossing the road, and seeing at first hand the cause and effect of accidents.
I should like now to refer to three or four paragraphs of the bill; then I might go over the clauses, and I should be able to conclude in five or ten minutes. No one of an independent mind should have any doubt but that the condition of motor traffic on our highways is as discreditable to this country as was the enforcement of prohibition in the United States, and I submit that this problem of motor statistics must be approached with an open mind. I have already given the figures for the whole world, but people seem to lack interest. In five years in the United States 125,000 people were killed and
4,000,000 were injured on the highways- twice the number of men killed while serving overseas with the United States expeditionary force.
One of the commandments of God is that no one shall kill, but many men of real worth, through selfishness and carelessness, have violated the laws not only of God but of man. No invention has contributed more to the education, pleasure and enjoyment of the people than the motor car; but its use is one thing, its abuse another. As with every great invention, use and abuse are two distinct things. During the past century scientific discoveries in medicine, chemistry, and physics have resulted in untold good to humanity, but the abuse of some of these discoveries in chemistry, biochemistry and physics has in war proved a curse to mankind. And in like manner to-day the abuse of the motor car is a curse to humanity.
On looking into this question one finds involved in it tremendous annual losses in deaths, accidents, injuries and money. Untold sorrow and suffering is caused, intense pain and grief exceding anything the human imagination can conceive. The only evils which have equalled it are plague, pestilence and famine, battle, murder and sudden death. It would be misleading and mischievous to attribute all the blame for 'these ghastly horrors on our highways to all who drive and use motor cars. Ninety-five per cent of the drivers want to obey the law; it is the five per cent about whom I am complaining.

Criminal Code Amendment
One has to study the records to know the facts, and as I study the records of thousands of cases I am driven to the conclusion that beyond dispute this small minority must take the major part of the blame. They appear to have exploited for their own pleasure or profit the generous tolerance of others by using their cars in an irresponsible, careless, cruel and unchristian way. The fault is grievous, and they can have no ground for complaint if they are put under restraint as far as the criminal code is concerned. Ignorance and thoughtlessness are no palliatives; obedience is the only reparation they can make, and it is long overdue.
I should like to quote something that was said by the late Chief Justice R. M. Meredith, who so ably presided on circuit for nearly 46 years and may I say that I am sorry to see such a great name criticized, especially in the province of Ontario, after what the Meredith family have done for the province as judicial officers. At the last assizes over which the late chief justice presided in Toronto he addressed the grand jury and remarked on the very amendments that were made in 1930. He said:
And as now nearly everyone is a ear owner and car driver, young and old, of all sorts and conditions, it is difficult to get justice in even a civil action.
Car-driver-jurors have nearly all the speed fever; and self-preservation instincts are so strong that they will not be persuaded to decide against drivers who have been no more unlawful than they themselves often, if not commonly, are.
What then is the remedy? I think it should be: Make the laws plain and reasonably severe and enforce them; and cancel licences freely.
And at the other end of the matter: Give no licence to anyone who is not proved to be mentally and physically, and from experience and a knowledge of the highway laws, thoroughly capable.
In England this question has been taken up. In five years, from 1929 to 1933 inclusive,
34,000	have been killed and 973,782 injured over there. But in Canada no interest is taken in the slaughter. It is said that accidents are unavoidable, and we are told that an outcome of the modern car is the desire for speed. Everyone seems to have the speed fever, except the House of Commons and the Senate, unless in the dying days of a session. I do not know how many of us will be here next session, from the way I see people driving in the city of Toronto. Hon. members ought to go down to the Danforth or Greenwood constituencies and see the speed fiends from all over who drive through the streets on Saturday nights. I never saw anything like it in my life. It takes a long time to cross a street. One has to wait two or three minutes
before it is safe to cross; as a matter of fact, the only safe way is to go down to a street corner and cross with the light. Sometimes even that is not safe, because motorists try to beat the light. A situation such as this calls for united efforts from the church, the press, parliament, the legislatures, boards of trade and chambers of commerce, and all public bodies. The privation and sorrow, the broken lives and shattered homes, resulting from such a holocaust are just as real as at the time of the nation's supreme trial in the war. It is hidden and suffered in silence, but how long will that continue to be so?
Three features dominate in the conduct of motor traffic: a domineering indifference to the convenience of others, excessive speed, and congestion. Ever since man learned to direct a machine more powerful than himself he has asserted his superiority of force over his neighbours. " Make way or take the consequences " has been his cry. Yet this indifference to others is limited to' a small number of motor drivers. The motor leagues of the provinces make the same complaint. It is a small number out of the large body of drivers who transgress; 99 per cent of them respect and obey the law. The majority of motor drivers have only a hazy knowledge of the mechanism of their machine, and for absolute control the only condition in which a car is fit to be driven at thirty miles an hour is perfect adjustment and condition. Even so the machine is potentially as dangerous as a loaded gun and must be handled with equal care and vigilance. A moment's inattention may be fraught with dire results. Every motor vehicle is a dangerous implement, even when controlled by the most expert, and requires incessant vigilance in all circumstances, especially at speeds above thirty miles an hour.
The debate in 1935 took place on February 13.
Transportation should be a means to an end, not an end in itself. The Department of Justice seems to rely on turning the matter over to the provinces. There is no reason why slaughter on the highways should be permitted while the House of Commons and the Department of Justice are having a sit-down strike-because that is all we have been having in connection with this matter. In fact, the Department of Justice is always on a sit-down . strike, on this question anyway.
I will amend what I said the other night about the Department of Mines and Resources, because I believe that department takes second place when it comes to a question of the sleeping sickness with which the Department of Justice seems to be afflicted on
Criminal Code Amendment

this particular question. I happen to know about it, because the Minister of Justice on a former occasion simply moved the adjournment of the debate, and nothing was done about it. That was done in the last hour or two of the session.
May I read an editorial from a Liberal paper, the Toronto Daily Star. I do not often quote that paper, but its sporting column is all right, and it is sound on many matters and in the matter now before us. They are copying the Evening Telegram, which has waged this battle for five or six years on the need of motor car regulation as a pioneer on the subject. Lawlessness has crept into Canada from the United States, with the result that the freedom of the press has been almost destroyed. The old weekly independent country papers, which were the backbone of the rural press, have been destroyed. May I pay tribute to the Toronto Star for what it said about my leader a few nights ago by the Observer. Hon. members have heard a great deal about the Premier of Ontario and his budget to-day. Now listen to this from the editorial in the Star on Monday, March 8:
Growing alarm over the increasing number of motor fatalities due to the use of liquor is being shown on both sides of the international boundary.
i .,[1Jl'rinK the year 1936 the number of persons killed in automobile accidents in the United States reached 38,000, which is more than half the number of United States troops who lost then- lives in the G-reat war. Every week last year 730 citizens of the republic on the average lost their lives in smash-ups on highways or streets. A graph showing liquor consumption monthly over a period of two and a half years and also the number of automobile fatalities shows the number of fatalities rising and falling in almost exact proportions with the quantity of liquor consumed.
Many factors contribute to automobile fatalities, some of which are not susceptible of change. But the drunken driver is not in that category. It is a terrifying experience to be on a highway when a car driven by an intoxicated person comes tearing towards you, swerving from side to side of the road. Premier Hepburn, Hon. Mr. Faulkner, Hon. Mr. McQuesten, Sir James Dunn and Mr. Walters, the comptroller of finance, when driving together on Sunday night were thrown about by another car side swiping them after hitting a third car, and it is alleged that the offending driver, as so often happens m such cases, wanted to pick a fight with those whose lives he had imperilled.
Something more must be done to reduce the loss of life and limb in motor accidents. The police, the magistrates and the crown attorneys have a serious responsibility in that connection, they should not permit charges involving the use of liquor to be reduced because of the influence of the person accused, but should act in every instance m the interest of justice and public safety.
I shall not go further, although I have more editorials from the Toronto papers, the Globe, the Mail and many others throughout Canada.

May I pay tribute to those newspapers in Ontario of various parties for the stand they have taken in this matter, and in attempting to call to the attention of the people the terrible slaughter that is taking place. The hospitals are full of these cases. One cannot stand in a Toronto hospital for more than an hour without seeing some one brought in, the victim of reckless driving.
I would ask hon. members to turn to Bill No. 22, section 1. It is proposed to strike out the word "intoxicated" and insert instead the words "under the influence of alcohol or of any narcotic"-the words used in the bill brought down in 1930 by the Minister of Justice. Then the words "or has the care or control of a motor vehicle or automobile, whether it is in motion or not," are deleted, the new section reading:
Everyone who, while under the influence of alcohol or of any narcotic, drives any motor vehicle or automobile is guilty of an offence, and liable-
And so on. There are some changes in the penalties. I do not say the bill is perfect- far from it. I introduced it only with a view to bringing the matter before the House of Commons. Under section 2 of the bill some changes are made in connection with racing and cutting in. Paragraph 7 of section 2 is a new paragraph, following the law in New York state, where they have what is known as unjustifiable homicide. That means that although a person may not have been altogether liable for the accident, yet it takes two to make an accident, and he is guilty of unjustifiable homicide. The Toronto Star stated in an editorial that in time to come any man who kills another on the highway, whether he be wholly or partially liable, will be penalized. A driver having caused a death ought not to drive for two years. What right has a person to drive who has killed another with his car? He should not be permitted to drive for two years. The person killed had just as much right to live as the driver, and there should be some penalty attached to causing death.
Section four deals with the charge of manslaughter arising out of the operation of motor vehicles. There is little change made in this section. Section five deals with trial by jury. On trial by a jury of persons who cause death or serious injury, it is desirable that the functions of the jury should not be curtailed or abolished. There has been much criticism of cases of gross negligence having been taken from the jury*. The jury are required to take the law to be what the judge

Criminal Code Amendment
says it is, and owing to the many cases withdrawn by order of the judge, trial by jury in those cases is negatived, and there are so many loopholes that many persons guilty of gross negligence get off. The increased accidents require that the law should be brought up to date to meet changing conditions, while preserving also the liberty of the subject.
Section six deals with another matter. In conclusion, I suggest that section one should be adopted and that during the recess a committee composed of members from all parties in this house should consider this problem. I am not criticizing motor drivers, far from it, but I believe that in the interests of public safety something should be done. We should not meet here year after year and do nothing about this important matter.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I have followed with a great deal of interest the discussions which have taken place on this proposed measure, not only when I was in a more responsible position, but during more recent months. Nothing strikes the average man more in these days than the loss of life upon our highways due to the operation of motor vehicles. Frankly, I have been astounded at the number of deaths reported lately in the press from this cause. I do believe the provisions contained in section one of this bill would go a considerable distance to end this condition There is no doubt, as the daily press states, that in many of these cases the drivers are under the influence of liquor, and there are disastrous results which in their saner senses would not be contemplated. In my opinion, if we add to the criminal law of this country effective provisions against the conditions that prevail, we will do much to remedy that of which we complain.
There are those who think that making an offence criminal does not add to the weight of public opinion against it. I disagree, when it comes to dealing with matters of this kind. This is a day of high speed, a day in which we hurry rapidly to get from one place to another. I can only say t/hat my own experience has been that frequently I have travelled at rates which upon looking back seem to have been improper. Most accidents happen through thoughtlessness, and the creation of public opinion by making the offence criminal I believe will do much to prevent them. I realize there are some substantially contentious provisions in this bill, but I believe section one will go a long way to end a lot of this difficulty. Section one declares :
Every one who, while under the influence of alcohol or of any narcotic, drives any motor vehicle or automobile is guilty of an offence.
The mere driving of a motor car while under the influence of alcohol or a narcotic constitutes an offence. I think that is a sound provision, considering present day conditions of our civilization. The section then provides for two classes of responsibility. The first is trial under indictment with appropriate punishment, and the other, under summary conviction. The section then provides that the provisions of section 1035 of the code, in so far as it authorizes the imposition of a fine in lieu of any punishment otherwise authorized, and of section 1081, shall not apply in the case of a conviction for an offence under this subsection. In other words, the punishment is imprisonment without the option of a fine.
Reading an English journal a few days ago I was struck with the fact that a speeding nobleman had been brought into the courts for the third time. His permit was cancelled, I think for a term of years, although it may have been only months. This gentleman was not under the influence of liquor, but he was a speed artist; he had been at it for some time and the authorities made up their minds to stop him. In this country I have noticed quite frequently that just at twilight cars travel at a rate of speed quite unsafe for the walking public. Largely through the efforts of Lord Buckmaster in the English House of Lords, the rights of the pedestrian have been established beyond peradventure. He has the paramount right upon the streets, and the man in the automobile must make the operation of his car subordinate to the rights of the pedestrian.
I am bound to say that this is not the case in continental Europe. I must confess frankly that on one occasion when in a continental city I found it almost like running an obstacle race to avoid being run over. We cannot afford to countenance that sort of thing in this country, and I suggest to the minister that when he brings down his amendments to the criminal code he should consider including section one of this bill among them. I recognize that there may be differences of opinion as to the other features of this measure. But I do not think it is unfair in a country such as this to introduce into our law, where it may be difficult to prove negligence in the sense in which that word is technically used but which really constitutes negligence in the sense that the person operating the machine is made liable, a provision that the causing of the death of another through the operation of a motor car shall constitute an offence. I understand this section is taken from a New York statute, and I believe it should operate very' well in this country.
Criminal Code Amendment

The first part of section two deals with racing and cutting in. The next subsection deals with the causing of death in a culpably negligent manner. The next subsection provides that a person having caused death shall not be permitted to drive for two years, or whatever period the house may think is reasonable.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a provincial law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If you make it a punishment for a crime they may or may not pay attention to it. We can make it a punishment for a crime, and the fact that you deprive a man of something he may enjoy under provincial law may be a valid exercise of the power of the dominion with respect to punishment for criminal offences.


Charles Avery Dunning: I meant that the present provincial laws provide for a man losing his licence under such conditions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid that some of them do not. They make provision for the suspension of the licence, but if a man is found not guilty, the punishment does not ensue. This section proposes that if anyone is killed in consequence of an accident there shall be no licence issued to drive for a period of time. I am not going to discuss the other questions raised as to the jury being the determinant factor and the provision that there shall be a certain number of women on the jury. Those matters are not relevant to this particular point.
But sections 1 and 2 deal with the enactment of safeguards in our criminal law whereby those who are becoming careless, and increasingly so, may realize that the long, strong arm of the state is to be extended to prevent them from continuing that course of conduct. I suggest to the minister that, rather than entirely disregard the provisions of the measure, he might give it his consideration when he is bringing down his statutory amendments. I know there exists in Montreal a voluntary organization the purpose of which is to render more safe travel by pedestrians on the streets and the use of automobiles. That voluntary effort is highly to be commended, and I think this measure is worthy of consideration in that it looks towards the punishment of offenders. I hope the minister will find: it possible to give it the consideration which in my opinion it deserves.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: After what has been said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) I do not think it is necessaiy for me to add anything. I should like simply to express my accord with the purposes of this

bill. I think we all realize that the streets and roads in their present arrangement were devised primarily for pedestrians and for horse-drawn vehicles. Automobiles have come along more recently and have pretty well pushed horse-drawn vehicles out of use; further, they have rendered crossing the streets extremely difficult for most people. Even in the cities where there are stop-and-go signals travel is not safe, because, though one may be watching the signals, a reckless driver will take his chance, and none of us on foot has any chance against a powerful car. It seems to me that in view of the tremendous toll which has been taken by traffic accidents, something drastic ought to be done. I hope the minister will insert in the criminal code a provision that will act as a deterrent and thereby lessen the large number of accidents, especially to children, which are taking place all the time in the streets of our cities.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: I should like to support the first section of this bill. I would far rather have a man sent to gaol for thirty days for driving a car while drunk than I would wait till he had killed somebody and then see him go to the penitentiary for three years for manslaughter, and if he gets the idea that he can drive a car while he is drunk he is almost certain to end by killing somebody. It would therefore, I think, be a benefit to such a man that he should be subject to this penalty. I notice that the provision is " while under the influence of alcohol." It is going to be very difficult to determine when a man is "under the influence." The old phrase was " while intoxicated."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is changed.


Alan Webster Neill: I notice that there is no provision under section 1 for the cancellation of a man's driving licence. It is provided in section 2 that if he is culpably negligent and kills a man he can be subject to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, which perhaps means a day, and to have his licence cancelled for a longer or shorter period. That is all right, but apparently there is a discrepancy between the two sections. A man who kills another wantonly while not under the influence of drink is only liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, and perhaps not more than a day, but a man who drives while under the influence: of alcohol and is caught doing it, but hurts nobody, must get a penalty of not Less than two months. I suggest that that term dhould be cut down to thirty days and that his licence should be cancelled for a period. Cancellation of the licence would be for wealthy people

Criminal Code Amendment
a more serious penalty than a fine. I notice that under section 1 it is proposed to do a>way with the opportunity of paying a fine, but I think that when no accident happens to punish a man whose one and perhaps first offence is that of being, not drunk, but under the influence of drink, with a penalty not exceeding six months and not less than two months is rather steep. I think the effect which is sought could be secured if he were imprisoned for thirty days or even less because no decent man likes to go to gaol even for ten days, and in addition take away his licence for six months.
The last two sections of the bill I do not think are necessary; to me they seem undesirable. As regards section 1, which appears to reflect the observations of both the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the sponsor of the bill (Mr. Church), I should like to see enacted some provision of this kind.


Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: No doubt something should be done
to curb the recklessness of the drunken driver. Just how to accomplish it is a matter of some doubt. The automobile has been in existence for but little more than thirty years, and the law relating to its use must be developed gradually. It has been said that the streets are made for pedestrians and horse-drawn vehicles. It may be true that that is what they were made for, but surely we are not spending all these millions of dollars on highways to-day just for horse-drawn vehicles and pedestrians. Conditions have changed, and though our streets wTere made for pedestrians and horse-drawn vehicles, the automobilist has some rights on those streets, just as much, in fact as either of the two other classes of travellers. True, he may not drive recklessly, but neither may the pedestrian be reckless; he must cross the street when it is safe; he cannot deliberately stop in front of an oncoming vehicle; also the horse-drawn vehicle must be driven with care.
We do not need to pass laws putting a speed limit on horse-drawn vehicles, but it seems to me that the present law regulating the speed of motor vehicles is capable of improvement. I recognize, of course, that this is a provincial matter. In Ontario the speed limit is thirty-five miles an hour, and to-day if you travel along the highways of that province at thirty-five miles an hour you are hindering traffic, you are lingering along the highway. Scarcely a motor travels along the highways in the daytime at less than fifty miles an hour. The automobile companies publish advertisements in which they announce that -their particular cars will travel
at seventy, eighty or ninety miles an hour. They are allowed to build and to sell cars to travel at ninety miles an hour, and we are allowed to buy them, but the law says: You must not go faster than -thirty-five miles an hour. Yet no one is prosecuted who travels well above that slow speed. It occurs to me that the public would have more respect for the law if the speed limit were increased to, say, forty-five or fifty miles an hour in the daytime, and for night travelling thirty-five or forty miles; and compel drivers to obey the law. If that were done there would not be so many accidents. We all agree that -there are too many drunken drivers, but just how that mischief can be curbed is to my mind uncertain. I am not so sure that they will be deterred by increased gaol sentences, but I agree with the suggestion made -by several hon. members that there should be a provision in the act for suspending the licence of anyone found guilty of driving while" drunk. The present term of imprisonment is long enough, but there should be added to that in every case the suspension of the licence for a period. Then anyone who had driven a car while under the influence of liquor would realize that such a thing simply could not be done; a-nd others would know, from the fact that he -could not drive his car, that he had broken the law, and that he had not only paid the penalty of imprisonment but had had his licence suspended. The licence might be suspended for a term of three months or six months or even a year, as might be determined. I suggest that the provinces would do well to consider an increased speed limit by day, and that it would help to make -the highways safe if the -licence of anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated were suspended.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I had not intended to speak on this question but the argument so far has been unfair. The man who drives a car after becoming somewhat tightened- up by good liquor is blamed, but in my opinion the person that sells the liquor or the government that sells it is just as blameable. The government that sells the liquor is just as much to blame as the man who drinks good government liquor that makes him unfit.


Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunen-burg):: The suggestion has been made that a part of the penalty for driving while intoxicated should be the suspension of the licence. I would point out that the licence is issued by the provincial government and an order for the suspension of any licence might be an invasion of provincial rights. We all agree,
Criminal Code Amendment

however, that the automobile is perhaps the most hazardous means of travelling to-day and demands our attention. In my experience I have found the truck a considerable hazard. There are great big trucks with trailers, and an automobile coming on the road and wishing to pass one of these trucks is in great danger of meeting someone who cannot be seen coming the other way. Some provision should be made to limit the width and length of trucks. Trucks are used in trade, which is to some extent interprovincial, so that we have jurisdiction to legislate with regard to them. With transportation what it is to-day trucks are numerous on every highway, the loads are so large, and the trucks themselves so high and wide that everyone regards them as a source of danger. I think the width of the truck should have some relation to the width of the road, because there are many narrow roads that are almost wholly taken up by a truck, and the long truck is a real menace on the curves.


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid I shall not have time to-night to answer what has been said and to give all' the explanations I should like, but I may assure my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) that I will give the matter all the consideration it is entitled to and that every provision of the bill before us will be studied prior to the bringing down of a bill which the government intends to introduce to amend certain sections of the criminal code.
May I say in answer to some hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate, more particularly my hon. friend1 from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), that there are at present very strict provisions in the criminal code governing the very matter which he has been discussing. The hon. gentleman discussed the subject as if there were nothing in the criminal code to protect pedestrians and those who make use of the highways, and urgedi that something should be inserted in the criminal code for this purpose. I assure him that there is something in the criminal code, so much so indeed that, unfortunately, the courts have declared' some of its provisions to be too severe. They have pointed out that it is impossible to get convictions because the sentence is too drastic, and applications are being made to reduce the penalties imposed by the law as it stands.
With regard to the remarks of my hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Church), I would make this observation as a matter of principle. Personally I believe that the best governed country is not the country that has the

largest number of laws. I remember reading this sentence in the Latin poet Juvenal: "The commonwealth abounded in laws, and corruption abounded in the commonwealth." What is important is, not that there should be such a large number of laws but that there should be good laws which are respected, observed and upheld by the people for whose benefit they have been enacted.
My hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Church) introduces some rather strange bills for the purpose of amending the criminal code. Sometimes his bills sin on the side of leniency. For instance, last year he introduced a bill under which, if it had passed the house, the person convicted would not have had to go to gaol at all; he might have served his sentence under the care of a constable in the court house. The hon. member thought that the sentence imposed by the criminal code was too severe. Some of his other proposals err on the other side.
As regards section 1 of this bill, this is far from being a new proposal. As the law stands, a driver who is intoxicated is subject to a strict penalty. My hon. friend proposes to change that and make it apply to anyone who is under the influence of liquor. This has been proposed many times, especially when the country was under prohibition. At that time, however, there was more reason for the proposal. The mere fact of drinking liquor was illegal; the purchase and drinking of liquor was illegal, but now it is a legal trade throughout Canada, and if you made it a crime for any man who drinks a glass of wine or liquor at meals to drive his car afterwards-because he would be to some extent under the influence of a stimulant-you would, I suggest, be going very far indeed. Most people cannot afford to have a chauffeur to drive them carefully when they have their liquor inside or under the back seat. For ordinary people I think this would be a very harsh proposal to insert in the criminal code.
I am afraid it is nine o'clock.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: In rising to take part in the debate on the budget I desire in the first place to join with other members of the house- in expressing my appreciation of the very fine manner in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) presented the budget to the house. His speech was not only delivered in the best of form but the subject matter was so well arranged that those of us who are not accustomed to budgets could readily discern the real intent and meaning of this budget.
I would remind the house that only two hon. members have spoken on the main motion since the Minister of Finance moved it some days ago-the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the speaker who preceded me in this debate (Mr. Tomlinson). I think probably the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) was correct when he stated that the leader of the opposition probably had something in mind when he moved his amendment in the first speech delivered following the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance. I am inclined to think that probably what he had in mind was that a budget so well delivered, and which would be so clearly understood by the people of Canada as well as by hon. members of this house, required the staging of a debate which might for the time being at least lead the mind of the people of Canada away from the importance of the budget address itself. But I am inclined to think that from the point of view of the party that he happens to lead the leader of the opposition chose the most unhappy topic for discussion.
A number of hon. members have called attention to the fact, which I wish to emphasize by mentioning it again, that when the late government came into power there were 117,000 unemployed in Canada, and when they went out of office, according to figures quoted from the other side of the house on a number of occasions, there were half a million unemployed people in Canada. In other words, the policies which were announced in 1930 as a cure-all for unemployment, after having been tried out for five years, proved conclusively to be no cure. That has been emphasized throughout the debate of the past week. Unemployment was not cured by those policies. The condition of unemployment has been improved by the policies which have been put into effect since the present government came into office. It has not been improved as greatly as hon. members and people outside the house would like to see; nevertheless it is improved, and as far as employment is concerned we are on the upgrade.
I wish to confine my remarks to-night mostly to a question which has been discussed in connection with the proposed amendment, and was discussed also by the leader of the opposition in the speech he delivered before moving his amendment-the question of wheat. Certain hon. members, especially those on the other side of the house in all three groups that are in opposition to the government, more particularly those who come from western Canada, have addressed the greater part of their remarks to the question of wheat. As I represent a constituency in a province which produces more wheat than any other province of Canada, in fact produces more than half of all the wheat produced in Canada even when it is suffering from drought, I think I should reply to some of the remarks bearing on that question. However, before dealing with the questions raised by other speakers may I make a few general remarks concerning wheat.
The question of how wheat is to be marketed is of great importance to all the people of Canada, but it is of particular importance to the people who produce it. It is also of great importance to the people who have put their money into the greatest wheat storage system to be found in any country in the world. We have storage capacity in Canada for 419 million bushels of wheat. In the year that we have just passed through we produced only 229 million bushels of wheat. The people who have equipped this country with storage capacity for 419 million bushels are very anxious that wheat should go into that storage, and as in some years there is only half enough wheat grown, or a little more than half, to fill the total capacity of those elevators, it stands to reason that certain people who have an interest in those elevators will put forth an effort to obtain wheat to store in order that they may collect storage charges on it. And all the people of Canada, who are interested in bringing about better conditions for our transportation systems, are interested in the production of wheat in this country. I might go on to deal with the governments of the different provinces and the government of Canada, and relate to this house the great expenditures which have been made necessary in order to maintain people during recent winters because of the fact that wheat did not grow in the same abundance as in some preceding years.
These general statements are of importance in discussing this matter. But I think all hon. members will agree that a matter of the utmost importance is the price obtained for wheat, and the men most concerned in that are those who produce the wheat. After

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner

all, the person who buys the wheat is concerned1 only with the difference between the price at which he buys and the price at which he is able to sell. It does not make so much difference to him whether the price is low or high, but it does make a great difference to the person who produces the wheat. I make that statement in order to emphasize this: It will be found by those who do not know the farmers of western Canada, and will be admitted by those who do know them-I am speaking of the rank and1 file of farmers who produce the wheat-that they are much more concerned about the price they obtain than about the agency that obtains that price for them. What the farmers of western Canada want is the very best possible price obtainable for the wheat that they grow. If they can get a better price by one. system rather than another they are very likely to be in favour of that system.
In order to place the variations in price on record, I ask the house to bear with me while I go back over a certain period of time. I should like to go 'back to the year 1908-09, not to deal with every year since in detail but in order to indicate in five well-defined periods the prices that have ruled for wheat produced in Canada.
Taking the years from 1908-09 to 1913-14, before the war, I find that the range of wheat prices was from S4-4 cents in 1912-13, which was the lowest price obtained in that series of years, up to 116-1 cents in 1908-09. That is, the lowest price obtained in that period was 84 cents-using round figures-and the highest price $1.16 at Fort William.
The next period is from the first year of the war, 1914-15, to 1922-23. That takes in the war years and those immediately following the war, until the wheat pool came into existence. During a considerable part of that period we had a wheat board; during the entire period wheat prices were influenced by the fact that we were in the midst of a war or had just been in a war. The lowest price obtained during that period was Sl.lOjt; the highest price was $2.24 at Fort William, and prices varied within that range. May I add that we had a wheat board during that time for the purpose of keeping down the price of wheat, not for the purpose of keeping it up. That wheat board was brought into 'being in order to control the price downward, so that the allied countries would not have such great difficulty in financing the feeding of their armies and their people.
Then in 1923-24 we had the organization of the wheat pool, and the lowest price obtained during the time the pool carried on in western Canada as a contract pooling

organization was in the first year they operated. That price was $1.07 a bushel. The highest price was obtained during the second year they operated, 1924-25; that price was $1.68|, and prices varied between those two levels during that period.
Now I come to the period when we had stabilization, under Mr. McFarland, beginning with the year 1930-31, and continuing down to the year 1934-35. During that period the lowest price of wheat was 54-3 cents per bushel at Fort William, and the highest price was 81-9 cents per bushel. What I wish to point out to this house is that the lowest prices ever obtained for wheat in the history of the Dominion of Canada were those obtained during the stabilization period under Mr. McFarland. I am not going to say there were no influences other than the fact that Mr. McFarland was stabilizing prices that brought about the low prices obtained in that period, but nevertheless that was the fact.
Two crop years have passed since then, and during those two years we have had a wheat board. Part of the time that wheat board was under the chairmanship of Mr. McFarland; part of the time it has been under the chairmanship of Mr. Murray. During the first year the average price received for wheat was 84-3 cents per bushel, three cents more than the price received in any year during the stabilization operations. During the period from August 1, 1936, to February 27, 1937, the average price obtained for wheat was $1.13-7. In other words, as between this year and last year wheat has advanced from an average of 84-3 cents to an average of $1.13-7 cents. And may I call your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this is the highest price that has prevailed during any year, or a considerable portion of any year, with the exception of the war years and those years that were influenced by the fact that there had been a war, including a period partly covered by the wheat pool, with the exception of the one year, 1908-09, when the average price was $1.16-1 per bushel. If the price that has prevailed during the past few weeks continues until the end of the year, Mr. Speaker, this year we will have the highest average price for wheat that we have had in any year, with the exception of those years that were influenced by the war.
If the thing that is most important to the producer is-and I believe every hon. member of this house will agree that it is- the price that he obtains for his wheat, then I think the record of the present government in the matter of price is something of which it need not be ashamed. I am leaving

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner
out of consideration the methods that have been employed, and disregarding for the moment everything that has been said by way of criticism. We have reached the point where we can show the members of this house, the country, and more particularly western Canada that we are obtaining the highest price for wheat that has been obtained in Canada since the beginning of the stabilization activities of Mr. McFarland, and the highest price that has been obtained for wheat in other than a war period, since we started to produce wheat in anything approaching its present volume in western Canada.
We have had some criticisms levelled at the government, more particularly by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), with regard to speculation. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the records show very clearly that with regard to the operations of last year, or with regard to the crop now being marketed, there has been probably less speculation than in connection with the marketing of the crop during any of the periods to which I have been referring. Let us go back to 1920, the first year during which we had an acreage under wheat somewhat similar to the acreage we now have, and let us take the three years before the wheat pools came into existence. The average amount of wheat exported from Canada each year during the months from August 1 to the end of November, which is usually the close of navigation, during that period of time was 75,500,000 bushels. Then coming to the period when the pools operated, when we had the highest wheat production we have ever had in Canada, the average amount exported during those same four months of each year was in that period 101,000,000 bushels.
Now taking the period when we had stabilization, from 1931 to 1934-35, the average amount exported in the same four months of each year was S3,400,000 bushels. Coming to the year 1934-35, however, the year during the greater part of which the present board operated in selling wheat, in spite of the fact that the old board did not export wheat itself but_ only sold 12,500,000 bushels of wheat during that time, there was exported from Canada, apparently by the trade-taking into account the 12,500,000 bushels sold by the board'-94,465,000 bushels. Then coming down to the present year, under the Murray board, during the first four months of this season 102,103,000 bushels of wheat were exported from Canada, and this in a year when we had the smallest yield since 1919. Well. Mr. Speaker, 102,103,000 bushels is greater than the average amount exported in any one of the periods to which I have referred, and
31111-103J
during that period of time what we have been pleased1 to call the private interests in the dominion have been handling the wheat of western Canada. But may I point out what I called the attention of the house to the other night, that the organization which bought, and I presume exported about half of that wheat, is the wheat pool organization. During the period wheat has been sold in the ordinary way; 102,000,000 bushels have been sold into export, and actually gone into export, out of the Dominion of Canada, during the first four months. Well, that is an indication to the people of this country when we are considering the question of speculation that there has been less of it proportionately than in preceding years. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when the pool has handled 47 per cent of the wheat of western Canada in that period of time, members of the house coming from western Canada who seek to prove that there has been great speculation in the marketing of wheat during this particular year are really attacking-if they are attacking anybody- the organization that handles the greater proportion of it. That organization was no doubt the wheat pool.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) has gone back to the old statement that some one said before the committee of the house in 1935-I think he said it was Mr. Mclvor-that fifteen cents a bushel profit had been made by the farmers of western Canada through the stabilization activities of Mr. McFarland. That is not exactly what Mr. Mclvor did say. What Mr. Mclvor did say was that the price was fifteen1 cents higher than would have been obtained if another method he had in mind had been followed. When pressed for an answer as to what that meant, he stated that if wheat had been dumped upon the world market, instead of held off, the price might have been fifteen cents lower. He emphasized, even that was only an estimate. His final statement on the point is to be found at page 412 of the report, as follows:
A. It was a hypothetical question and it was a hypothetical answer.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would you just read the part of the evidence that Mr. -


James Garfield Gardiner: I have only forty minutes.


Ernest Edward Perley: Read it all- what he said it meant as to the marketing of wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: The final statement he made in the evidence is to be found at page 412, and is this: "It was a hypothetical question and it was a hypothetical answer."
The Budget-Mr. Gardiner


Ernest Edward Perley: Marketed all the wheat they produced in four years.


James Garfield Gardiner: And even in making a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question there was only one possible condition upon which it could have been based, and that was upon the spread as between the price of Canadian wheat and wheat coming from the Argentine or Australia.


Ernest Edward Perley: What does the minister think about it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: That spread has been higher during the present year than it was during the years to which he referred.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then the hon. member for Qu'Appelle went on to say that some representative of Joseph Ranke and Company, or a subsidiary of Joseph Ranke and Company, had stated that wheat might have been ten cents a bushel higher last year. From that he deduced the argument that the farmers of western Canada had lost ten cents a bushel on wheat.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a few things we ought to know, and the first thing we ought to know is that Joseph Ranke and Company is one of the three great millers of wheat in the British Isles. Joseph Ranke belongs to the organization of millers which controls 80 per cent of all the milling in the old country. Of course, Joseph Ranke and Company, and others who are engaged in the milling business, have been interested in keeping the price down rather than in putting it up. There is a reason for that-the same reason the producers have in wanting to put the price up. I have not any doubt that an agent of Ranke and Company talking to someone who, after all, was interested politically or otherwise, might have made some particular statement with regard to this matter. But I presume that even the member for Qu'Appelle would admit that the gentleman of whom he was talking might have been two cents out on his price. That is, there might have been an advantage of eight cents instead of ten cents.


Ernest Edward Perley: How much is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: If there was a difference of eight cents instead of ten cents, do you know what would happen? The farmers of western Canada would not be in a single cent, because every farmer in western Canada

who delivered wheat to the wheat board last year obtained, because of the set price of 874 cents a bushel which was paid by all people in the Dominion of Canada, 7 13-15 cents a bushel more for his wheat than it actually brought on the market. So, in so far as the farmer himself is concerned, even on the statement of the representative of Mr. Ranke, he could not have lost more than two cents a bushel in price during that period of time. Those are some of the things I wanted to say in answer to what the hon. member said.
Then he said 63,000,000 bushels of wheat was sold by the board in July of 1936. He made that statement, Mr. Speaker, while he was dealing with the amount of money which the farmers lost on the 1935 crop. One would infer from the statement he made under those circumstances, that 63,000,000 bushels of the 1935 crop was sold in July, 1936. As a matter of fact, only 9,800,000 bushels of the 1935 crop was sold during that month. The other
53.000.	000 and some odd bushels was old wheat that had been carried over from the McFarland stocks of a previous time. Only 9,800,000 bushels was sold from the crop of that particular year.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Speaker,
I think the hon. member-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: I never said
that at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have only forty
minutes, or the hon. member could interrupt me as often as he wishes.


Ernest Edward Perley: On a point
of order-


An hon. MEMBER:: Can't take it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Ernest Edward Perley: On a point
of order: I did not make any statement to the effect that it was the 1935 crop that was sold. I said it was in the neighbourhood of
63.000.	000 bushels in all, both McFarland wheat and the 1935 crop.


An hon. MEMBER:: No point of order
about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I made it very plain
that he had not said that. But I said he did say it in the midst of his discussion of what the farmer had lost on the 1935 crop. That is when it was made, as Hansard will show. Now, let us look at the situation in connection with that.


Ernest Edward Perley: Stick to the
facts.

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner
Mr. GARDINER. The hon. member went on to argue that that 63,000,000 bushels should not have been sold at a time when everyone knew we were going to have a light crop in western Canada. On June 24, 1936, no less an authority on wheat than Mr. J. I. McFarland announced to Canada that the wheat crop of Canada would be over
400,000,000 bushels. That was on June 24- not at the beginning of the month. In the week following, no less an authority than Mr. Gordon Brown, who reports to all the people about whom the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has spoken, said that we would have 380,000,000 bushels of wheat. I was in London at the end of July and the beginning of August, and during that period of time I interviewed all the leading grain dealers in the British Isles, and discussed the question with them.
What I want to tell the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is this:	If at the end of June
he knew what the price of wheat was going to be, or if he knew what it was going to be at the beginning of July, or even in the middle of July, there were very few people who considered themselves authorities on the question who really thought they knew. As a matter of fact, in September, 1936, not even the wheat pool in western Canada considered the price was going to be very high. I have in my hand a resolution passed with regard to the formation of a pool in western Canada. In giving their reasons for not forming the pool they said:
Further in order to operate a voluntary pool in the best interests of its members, it should have been possible to take advantage of the higher prices in the early part of the season, and a substantial amount of grain should have been sold for future delivery at these prices in order to ensure the average price throughout the season.
That was on September 5.


Charles Avery Dunning: An absolute endorsement.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is an organization which at that time had over fifty per cent of the wheat delivered in western Canada. Apparently they did not consult the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. They did not know at that time that wheat was going to go up.


Mr PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: They did not consult the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: The record of every wheat board we have had in Canada, the record of every marketing organization we have ever had, and the record of every grain dealer has proven that when any man gets the idea that he knows what the price of wheat is going to be six months hence, he
winds up by losing millions of dollars for his principals. That is true of all cooperative organization officials; this is true of the gentleman who made a great reputation as the head of the first wheat board in Canada; it is true of the gentleman who was in control of the stabilization operations, and it will be true of every man who thinks he can guess what the price of wheat is going to be six months hence. Why? Because wheat is not produced just on the northern hemisphere; it is also produced on the southern hemisphere. Any man who drives through the wheat fields of western Canada and thinks he knows what the price of wheat will be the following February takes for granted something which any grain dealer who knows anything about dealing in wheat would not take for granted.
The result is that these men do not speculate. When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) stands in his place and says that he met someone on a street comer somewhere who told him that he had made half a million dollars speculating in wheat, he was not talking about the same brand of business man as he is himself. I remember the right hon. gentleman saying in this house, I think it was last June, that he had never speculated in grain, but I know that he had a very large interest in an elevator concern.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Charles Avery Dunning: He said that himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: The right hon. gentleman was a good enough business man to sell that elevator business at a profit. I do not blame any business man for doing that. Any profit out of the business I presume he made through conducting a legitimate elevator business, first by buying an interest in it, then by seeing that the business was properly conducted, and then by selling to advantage his interest in that particular concern. That is the way in which any legitimate grain dealer is going to make a profit; he is not going to make it by stating he has a paper profit of half a million dollars. Mr. John I. McFarland announced in 1933, when wheat was at 95 cents a bushel, that if he sold all the wheat he had at that price he would be able to pay off the $25,000,000 that stood against the three western provinces because they had guaranteed advances to that amount. A week or two later he had to admit that wheat had dropped so far that he could not pay any of it off, and as a matter of fact none of it has been paid off through the sale of the stocks then held up to the present time. A legitimate grain dealer avoids speculation because if he attempts speculation he usually runs into trouble.
The Budget-Mr. Gardiner


Charles Avery Dunning: The Holy Alliance.


An hon. MEMBER:: Quite different.


James Garfield Gardiner: The then leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in the province of Saskatchewan, and who is now the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) also came in. They brought an ex-C.C.F.'er from Alberta to run; they had in the constituency all the forces that they could amass from three different provinces contesting the election on this issue, and they tried to make it the only issue in the constituency. You know what happened? Right down through the one provincial seat included in the constituency which is preeminently Conservative I got three votes for every one that was polled by my opponent. In the whole constituency I increased what had been, when you total the votes of all the groups, a majority previously of 2,400 votes against us to a majority of over 3,000 in favour of policies which we were told the other night the people of western Canada do not want.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was a year and a half ago.


Ernest Edward Perley: Try it again.


James Garfield Gardiner: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Give me about two minutes of the time that my hon. friend has taken, and I shall be through.
During the period that wheat was being delivered to the wheat board, the farmers deolared whether they wanted! it delivered or not under certain circumstances. During the crop year 1935-36 the farmers delivered1 a considerable quantity of wheat to the wheat board. Do you know that during the period when the price was above 87$ cents a bushel they delivered to the wheat board1 only 47
per cent of what they brought to the elevators? But when the price went down below 87$ cents, 140 per cent of all the wheat that came to the elevators during that period went to the wheat board. When wheat went above 87i cents in the month of July, when that 63,000,000 bushels of which the hon. member spoke was being sold, 4,000,000 bushels of wheat of the previous year's crop was being delivered by the farmers to the elevators, but of that amount only 1,500,000 bushels wes delivered to the wheat board, and practically all of that was delivered at a time when wheat was still below 87^ cents a bushel; the other 2,500,000 bushels went to the trade. Is not that only human nature?
When men come into this house and suggest that the Dominion of Canada should maintain in existence a policy for handling our wheat which of necessity puts the farmer in the position where he delivers wheat to that organization while wheat is below the set price, but does not deliver when it is above the set price, only one result can follow, and that is that the government of Canada will have to pay for the losses of those who deliver when the wheat is below 874 cents, and will have none of the profits of those who deliver above in order to bring about an equalization of price. That is not fair to the Dominion of Canada, and the government has suggested that when the commission which is now investigating the question makes its report, this whole matter will be reconsidered and some policy suitable to the whole dominion and to the farmers in particular will be inaugurated to handle the wheat of this country in a systematic way.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: First, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) upon the very fine delivery of their speeches, though I fear I cannot be quite so complimentary about some of the statements which those speeches contain. I intend to deal very briefly with certain conditions that are prevalent to-day.
One of the most encouraging signs of the times is the fact that it is becoming generally realized that the prosperity of a nation does not so much depend upon stock exchange quotations, statistics of production or trade returns, but rather on the general level of the social well-being of the people. As we go through Canada from east to west we find so much poverty, squalor and actual want, that we must immediately realize that this vaunted prosperity is only for a very limited section of society. So much poverty might be excusable in a country which was producing
The Budget-Mr. Quelch

boards is very heavy in the various provinces, I would urge that additional boards be appointed in order to expedite the work of readjusting these cases.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: 
Mr. MICHATJD:: And good business.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Good business at times, but not as good, as it should be. I have enjoyed listening to the budget debate so far, and I must say that I enjoyed listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when he presented the budget the other day. He has a very pleasant voice, which I am sure we all delight to hear. The budget speech is the most important presentation made to parliament and, through parliament, to the people of the country. This is properly so, since its contents may favourably or adversely affect the lives of our people, and in any event it is almost certain to affect to a lesser or greater degree the economic and domestic arrangements of our industries and our homes.
Two great problems which confront the people of Canada to-day, and which have been confronting them for the past few years, are taxation and' unemployment. The taxpayer had expected some lightening of the tax burden, and I am sure he has been greatly disappointed. We all recall that in 1935, when the Liberal party were seeking the support of the people of Canada, one of their great promises was that if they were returned to power they would reduce taxation. We may well ask what has been done in this regard. Instead of burdens being made lighter the opposite has taken place, particularly in regard to the sales tax, which has risen to eight per cent, a record figure in Canadian history. With the huge increase in revenue from this source, together with the record figures of income tax payments, the Minister of Finance could only show a reduction from an estimated deficit of $100,000,000 to an actual deficit of $87,000,000. We admit that this shows some slight improvement, but nothing like the improvement that should be shown when we consider the colossal sum collected during the past year.

When we analyse the revenue from the sales tax alone, we find that it means that each man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada paid $10.50 during the year. On an average this represents $52.85 per family, or a dollar a week. When you add to that all the other taxes collected by the dominion government, by the various provincial governments and by the municipalities, you realize the great burden that is being borne by the taxpayer.
Previous to the election of 1935 we heard a great deal about the forgotten man, the taxpayer of this country. This afternoon one of the speakers mentioned the forgotten farmer, but in October of 1935 the forgotten taxpayer was the important man. He was represented as 'bearing a great burden on his back, and was promised relief, but this forgotten man is still forgotten. Last year he was remembered long enough to have an additional burden placed on his back, but this year he has been absolutely ignored by the government.
It is not my intention to dwell at any length on the subject of unemployment, which has been debated very extensively during the past week. I think most of the pros and cons have been well presented, but I should like to make a few observations with regard to unemployment in my own province.
Last year, not many months ago, the premier of New Brunswick took great credit for being the first premier in the dominion to take his province off direct relief. With regard to direct relief paid by the province that was a fact; but actually the burden was simply shifted from the dominion and the province to the taxpayers of the municipalities, and such a cry went up from the municipalities that further assistance had to be given by the province. I venture to say that instead of the province having fewer unemployed in 1936, when it went off direct relief there were more unemployed at that time than there had been during most of the depression.
In this connection I should like to read a report which appeared in the press about that time:
Relief Crisis Approaches in Cities of N.B.
Municipalities Feel Pinch of Carrying Relief Burden
Statements made at Montreal by Premier Dysart, that New Brunswick is the first province to "go off relief," are termed "ridiculous" by Councillor George E. Barbour of Saint John. Councillor Barbour told the city council he did not understand how the Premier could make such a claim in the face of figures showing the amount which relief is still costing New Brunswick municipalities, even though the province has not been contributing for the last few months.

The Budget-Mr. Brooks
He goes on to say:
Government contributions towards relief in New Brunswick terminated in the early fall. Provincial road development projects were intensified at that time with the view of absorbing the unemployed. This program did take care of quite a number of jobless-550 in the Saint John area, for instance-but hundreds were still left to be cared for. The men on the roads received $2 a day and were unable to put anything aside for the winter. Now the road jobs have ended.
Councillor James A. Whitebone, of Saint John, in making a statement at that time said:
"Something has to be done and done quickly." He predicts that further delay in facing the issue squarely will lead to "a very serious situation."
That is the situation, Mr. Speaker, as regards unemployment in the city of Saint John. The same was true of the cities of Moncton and Fredericton, and other municipalities of New Brunswick. It is very interesting to note, in a report for the year 1936 issued by the dominion commission for unemployment relief, that in October, 1935, when the late government left office there were 14,438 on relief in New Brunswick. In February, 1936, the latest month for which I can get records, the number has more than doubled. There were 35,300 on relief in that province. I am sure the situation as regards unemployment in the dominion must be recognized by all.
In his speech delivered a few days ago the Minister of Finance spoke about the disheartening effect of the obvious failure of employment to keep pace with the striking gains in business. We might then ask ourselves what the record of the government has been during the year and a half it has been in power. First, we can point to an increase in taxation, where the people of Canada were promised 'a decrease. Next we can point to unemployment, because the government has failed to carry out its promise to reduce unemployment.
There is another matter in connection with which the government is claiming great credit-the extension of the British Empire trade agreements. In other words, matters which required hlose attention or a cure, such as taxation and unemployment, have not been successfully handled, but for the empire trade agreements, which even before this government took office were of great benefit, the government claims great credit. The circumstances remind me of the story of the young doctor who had been called out to attend one of his first patients. It happened to be one of those cases in which a new member of the family is expected. When
the doctor came home his wife asked him just what the situation was and he said, "Well, I have lost the mother and child, but the father is still living." That is the case so far as the government is concerned. Unemployment and taxation have not been cured, but the empire tirade agreements are still living. It is not necessary for me to dwell at length on the great benefits of the United Kingdom agreement. Unquestionably the British market has been of great value in which to offer our wheat, live stock, lumber, minerals and meats, but it must be observed that the new agreement now under discussion is less favourable to Canada than the one negotiated by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). We are paying a higher price for a preference in the United Kingdom than the Bennett government paid. In a word, the new bargain is not as favourable to Canada as the one made in 1932.
Moreover, may I call the attention of the house to the striking inconsistency and insincerity and complete volte face which the Liberal government has shown in the matter. The Bennett trade agreement was denounced as worthless by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his followers when they sat in opposition. They described it as an agreement affording no substantial benefit to the Canadian farmer or producer. Yet within the short space of four years we have the spectacle of the Liberal party, headed by the same right hon. gentleman presenting to the house an agreement similar to the one denounced in 1932, and lauding it as capable of accomplishing the greatest benefits for Canada. A British statesman once termed his opponents a party of organized hyprocrisy. That oap would fit the Liberal party in its attitude towards trade agreements with the United Kingdom.
Any hon. member who has read Hansard for 1932, when the agreements were under discussion in the house, must realize that from the statements made by the then leader of the opposition and his followers might have been described in the language of the British statesman to whom I have just referred. The then leader of the opposition said it was nothing but a Tory conspiracy. At page 603 of Hansard for 1932, the hon. member for Perth South (Mr. Sanderson) said:
Mr. Speaker, after carefully studying the articles and the agreements I am free to admit that of all the great blunders that this government have made since they came into power in 1930 this is perhaps the greatest blunder of all. . . . There is nothing in it to give any consolation to the people of Canada.
The Budget-Mr. Brooks

Again, at page 392 of Hansard for the same session, Mr. Ralston said:
My hon. friends have inserted an article which they say will be of benefit to the lumber industry. Let me make this statement, that this article will not be of the slightest benefit to the lumbermen of the maritime provinces.
I intend to take a little time to show how the agreement has been of the greatest benefit to the people of the maritime provinces. Had it not been for the agreements of 1932, I am satisfied the lumber industry in my province would have gone out of business. It has given employment to large numbers of men, and has been the very lifeblood of the industry in the part of the dominion from which I come. Just to show what effects the agreement has had, I shall place on Hansard a statement showing the lumber exported through ports in New Brunswick during the fiscal years ending March 31, 1932 to 1936. I shall give the figures for planks and boards of birch:
United	United
,	Kingdom	StatesFiscal year	Mfeet	M feet1932	
10,250	4,2111933	
12,720	1,6441934	
16,211	3,3061935	
23,586	1,6661936	
32,187	5,292
May I now give the figures concerning shipments of planks and boards of spruce, the chief lumber commodity of New Brunswick, and I believe of the maritime provinces:
Fiscal year	United Kingdom	United States
	M feet	M feet
1932	. .. 5,389	45,6881933	. . . 21,539	29,2141934	. . . 94,778	29,6501935	. . . 105,230	17,4751936	. . . 45,799	30,040
From 1932 to 1935 shipments of lumber from New Brunswick ports to the United Kingdom increased from 5,389 M feet to 105,230 M feet. In spite of this, when Mr. Ralston was speaking on the possible benefits of this treaty to the maritime provinces he said it would be of absolutely no benefit to the lumbermen of that part of Canada.
There are other commodities to which I might refer. Take apples, for instance. This is a very important product to the people in the Annapolis valley of Nova Scotia, and it is becoming more important to the people in the valley of the Saint John in New Brunswick. I will give the figures for the three years before the agreements came into effect, and for the three years after they were in effect. I could not get the figures for particular parts of Canada, so I shall have to give figures for all of Canada.

In 1927 we shipped to England 980,715 barrels of apples. In 1928 we shipped 838,891 barrels, and in 1929, 912,488 barrels. In 1933, the first year after the British empire trade agreements came into effect, we shipped 3,092,274 barrels. In 1934 we shipped 1,844,026 barrels, and in 1935, 2,232,772 barrels. It will be seen that the percentage of increase was easily one or two hundred per cent.
Then, take bacon. The records show that in 1931 Canada sold to the old country 49,495 hundredweight of bacon. In 1936 our sales had increased to 1,092,401 hundredweight. I think these figures show the great benefits which the people of Canada in general, and the people of the maritime provinces in particular, obtained from these agreements. It is rather hard to give definite figures as to the increased employment which has occurred. We must consider the number of men employed in the lumber woods, the number employed in driving the logs to the mills, the number employed in the mills, in the lumber yards and in loading and shipping the lumber sent to the United Kingdom. This will give us some idea of what these agreements have meant in increasing employment.
Shipping from the maritime ports of Saint John and Halifax has increased greatly in the last few years, and it is particularly good this year. This improvement in business is due to a great extent to the additional shipments brought about by the British Empire trade agreements. There is no great increase of exports to the United States. Speaking for the port of Saint John and the province of New Brunswick I am very pleased indeed to note from the press that the New Zealand and Australia boats are again going to call at Saint John. I notice that a lot of credit is being given in certain places for the return of these ships, but it seems to me that the parties who were responsible for having these ships taken from Saint John to Halifax deserve more censure than praise.


Mr. ISNOR:: On what authority does the hon. member make the statement that the Montreal-New Zealand boats are to call at Saint John?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I make it on the authority of the press. Speaking for the port of Saint John, and for the port of Halifax if I may, it gives me much concern-and I think the same is true of all maritime people-when I pick up Montreal papers and read that the ice breakers are working feverishly on the St. Lawrence river in order to open up the port of Montreal. It seems to me that this is unfair to the winter ports in the maritime

The Budget-Mr. Brooks
provinces. An effort is being made to open up the port of Montreal and take away from the other ports that which is their right in the matter of freight. The maritime provinces are helping to pay for these ice breakers which are working to rob us of what we consider to be our just dues.
I have no intention of dealing at great length with the United States trade agreement, but I should like to point out that last year some hon. members attempted to show the great benefits which would accrue to the maritime provinces from this agreement. There has been no great improvement in the movement of lumber to American ports up to the present time. What may happen in the future I do not know. The statement is made, I believe by the Charlottetown Guardian, that the quota on potatoes was reduced by 50,000 bushels; that is, the market available to the potato growers had been reduced to that extent.
One of the members who spoke last year said that there would be great advantage to the farmers of the maritime provinces in the shipping of turnips. I have in my hand a statement of the exports of turnips from the maritime provinces to the United States during the fiscal years 1927 to 1936. I shall not take time to repeat all these figures, but I should like to give a few. In 1934, before the United States agreement came into effect, Nova Scotia shipped 243,890 bushels of turnips to the United States. In 1936, with the agreement in force, that province shipped only 142,335 bushels. These figures prove that there was no great benefit to the turnip producers of Nova Scotia.
In 1934 Prince Edward Island shipped 179,269 bushels and in 1936, 245,950 bushels. There was an increase there, but the shipments were less than in 1935, when a total of 263,874 bushels were shipped. The shipments from New Brunswick were practically the same. More were shipped in 1936 than in 1934, but the increase was not very great.
I made inquiries of the bureau of statistics as to the amount of cream shipped from the maritime provinces to the United States. I remember one member last year stating that this treaty was going to ibe of great benefit to the dairy farmers of Canada. I found that not one gallon of cream had been shipped from the maritime provinces to the United States during the year 1936 under the Canada-United States agreement.
I do not intend to speak of the fishing industry to-night, but at some later date it is my intention to say a few words with reference to the deplorable condition of the maritime fishermen-the fishermen who expected
so much from this government and have received absolutely nothing. Reading Hansard I noticed that the Hon. J. L. Ralston, discussing a few years ago the St. Lawrence waterway, told the then Bennett government that if it made any concessions to the United States it should be on condition that better opportunities would be provided for the fishermen of the maritime provinces. Our present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is discussing various matters at Washington with President Roosevelt. I hope he will remember at this time the fishermen of the maritime provinces, who were so inexcusably forgotten when the Canada-United States agreement was in preparation last year.
A few words regarding the county of Kings. Although we are modest and dislike to praise ourselves, I have every reason to be proud of Kings county and also of my native county of Queens, which comprise the constituency of Royal. Some hon. members may have read a short time ago in the editorial column of the Financial Post an article on a certain municipality which had not only been able to pay all its bills during the years of the depression but had a surplus each year. That municipality was in the county of Kings. We have in the town of Sussex one of the finest dairy centres not only in the maritime provinces, but I believe in the whole dominion. I was much concerned when I learned the other day of the great shipments of vegetable oils which are coming into this country. One of the speakers to-day-I think it was the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rickard)-said that his county was also a dairy county but that unquestionably the housewives of Durham would continue to make their shortening from the good butter produced by the cows in that constituency. I have no doubt that the housewives in my section of the dominion will do the same, but what worries us most is whether the housewives in the cities, the bakers, and others are going to use our dairy butter or will utilize the vegetable oils which are coming in in greatly increasing quantities.
During the depression my constituency has borne up better, I think, than any other part of my native province; I believe it stands high in the whole dominion. But there is one section which is hard hit at the present time, and that is the coal mining district in the counties of Queens and Sunbury, partly in the constituency of Royal and partly in the constituency of York-Sunbury. This area was one of the most prosperous during the years of the depression; at least the inhabitants were able to pay their own way. I should like to give the house a general idea of the coal
The Budget-Mr. Brooks

industry in our province. The annual output of coal is from 300,000 to 350,000 tons; the number of men employed, approximately 1.200; annual wages, approximately $1,000,000; royalties paid annually to the province, $30,000 to $40,000; capital invested, according to the government report for 1934, the last available, $1,856,392. Besides giving employment to a large number of men thus directly engaged, this industry provides good markets for large quantities of our farm produce and our lumber, and thus is of great benefit to the farmers and lumbermen of the surrounding districts. From 1931 on the situation has been as follows:
Selling
Year	price	Cost	Profit	Loss1931.. ..	.. $4 32	$4 18	[DOT]14	1932.. ..	.. 4 06	3 94	[DOT]12	1933.. ..	.. 3 50	3 36	[DOT]14	1934.. ..	.. 3 47	3 44	[DOT]03	1935.. ..	.. 3 43	3 54	[DOT]11
In 1935 the total loss to the producers was $38,000, and if they had expected 6 per cent on their invested capital their loss would have been $150,000. One of the principal causes of the decline of the industry in this area has been the competition with Nova Scotia mines. Those mines have been more highly subsidized than those of our province. From 1931 to 1936 Nova Scotia received in subsidies $7,023,976; New Brunswick, $36,506. If New Brunswick had been given freight rate assistance at the same rate as Nova Scotia in proportion to output, it would have received during the past six years $350,000 instead of the practically insignificant sum of $36,506. By freight rate assistance Nova Scotia has moved during the past four years 25 to 32 per cent of its total coal output while New Brunswick has moved a maximum of only 6 per cent.
Increased output naturally means a lower cost on every ton of coal produced. Thus Nova Scotia through government assistance is in a better position to undersell New Brunswick coal right in our own province. Nova Scotia sells more than twice as much coal in New Brunswick as do the New Brunswick mines themselves-that is to consumers other than railroads.
I make these comparisons not with the idea of showing that Nova Scotia receives better treatment than it should receive but to demonstrate that New Brunswick is not being as well treated as it has a right to expect. We are all pleased that so much encouragement has been given to the coal mines of Nova Scotia. Like my honoured leader, I believe that in that section of Cape Breton it would have been impossible for the coal mines to carry on during the past few years

but for the help they received. But we ask for New Brunswick the same assistance that is given to Nova Scotia.
Another cause of the decrease in returns is the rate paid by the railroads. In 1929 the Canadian National paid $4.08 per ton to the producers; in 1932, $430; from 1933 to 1936 it has been paying only $4. This price is too low; the quality of the coal has been improved and the cost of production has increased. I contend that the fuel board instead of dealing with individual operators and so occasioning overmuch competition among the operators, should deal with the producers as a body, and that a fair rate should be paid for all the coal required by the Canadian National Railways. We know that the railway employees are getting an increase, and the civil servants likewise, and we feel that the government could very well increase the price paid for coal for its railways in order to give work to the 1,200 men who are located in this area of Minto, which is partly in my constituency and partly in the constituency of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Clark).
It is almost eleven o'clock and my time is up, but I would make one observation in closing. I do not believe that we in Canada can live, as some of the western members would have us believe, by the production of wheat alone, nor can we live only by mixed farming, nor by our mines and forests alone. We must have some protection for our industries; we must have industries in order to have large centres of population, and the larger the towns we have the better it will be for the primary producers, the farmers of Canada.
Mr. VINCENT J. POTTIER (Shelbume-Yarmouth-Clare) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I shall speak to-night in another language than my mother tongue, and that is because what I have to say concerns a *community whose majority is English speaking.
(Text) I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on his budget and his presentation of it.
I propose to discuss the question of fisheries, a matter which vitally affects a basic production that is of paramount importance to the maritime provinces. I submit that the time has come when this industry must be looked at specifically, with a view to a definite decision being given. I am going to ask that the house apply its mind to the question of fisheries in the light of the interests of the maritime provinces, having regard also to the position of other provinces concerned with the same products and to dominion interests generally.

The Budget-Mr. Pottier
The fishing grounds of the North Atlantic are the most extensive in the world, and when one looks at a map of the maritime provinces and finds them located as they are, adjoining the fishing grounds, one would naturally arrive at the conclusion that these provinces must have a prosperous industry and a happy fisher-folk. It seems strange, however, that when one investigates, he finds in some sections probably the most destitute fishermen and a picture that would better fit other than present day standards.
We have the following fishing banks, so-called, in the North Atlantic available to our fishermen.
Square miles
Grand Bank	 36,000
Green Bank	 1,450
St. Pierre Bank	 4,800
Western Bank	 6,320
Georges Bank	 8,498
There are other banks, and the total area amounts to 69,553 square miles. These banks vary in depth from 10 fathoms to 100 fathoms, or in other words from 60 to 600 feet.
In addition to these fishing banks, there are other well known fishing grounds near the Atlantic coast, and in the gulf of the St. Lawrence. These banks, embracing an area of nearly 70,000 square miles, have in the past yielded annually on the average more than eleven hundred million pounds of cod alone and here undoubtedly is to be found the greatest cod and haddock fishery in the world.
The men who fish on these banks are ready for call twenty-four hours a day. They know nothing of regular hours-no danger of sit-down strikes there. They work in the majority of cases on what we call a lay-that is, they get a share of the return from the catch and every member of the crew gives his utmost in cooperation and energy. No other primary producer has to go through the personal hazards and hardships that the fisherman is obliged to suffer.
Inclusive of some of the fishing banks already mentioned, where cod and haddock are the principal products, there is around and adjacent to the maritime provinces a total ocean fishing area of approximately two hundred thousand square miles, or over four-fifths of the entire ocean fishing area of the North Atlantic. Fifteen thousand square miles of inshore fishing waters are controlled entirely .by the government of Canada.
The commercial products of these extensive areas consist for the most part of cod, haddock, hake, herring, halibut, pollock, mackerel, sardines, salmon, smelts, alewives, swordfish, tuna and shellfish, principally lobsters, scallops, oysters and clams.
I want to compare the number of square miles of these fishing grounds with the number
of square miles of land under cultivation in the dominion of Canada; in other words, the fishing area with the farming area of Canada. In 1935 we had in Canada 56,923,960 acres or 87,381 square miles under cultivation. This means that all land under cultivation in Canada is only between one-half and one-third the area covered by the fishing grounds that are available to the fishermen of the maritime provinces.
I sometimes think that the lack of interest in the fisheries is due to the lack of appreciation of the size, extent and possibilities of our fishery resources. We think of Canada as a great farming country, because it has huge areas under cultivation, and yet these areas are small in proportion to the areas awaiting harvest from the Canadian fishermen.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we must in the future deal more definitely and specifieially with the development of our fisheries in the interests of Canada. I am convinced that the people of Canada and of other countries are going to continue in more or less greater degree to eat fish products, and it is only fair and reasonable to say that this particular industry is worthy of consideration and must be taken care of.
On motion of Mr. Pottier the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in order that we may proceed with the debate on Thursday it is necessary to suspend standing order 28. By leave of the house, I therefore move:
That standing order 28 respecting committee of ways and means be suspended for the sittings of Thursday, 11th March, 1937.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 10, 1937