1937-03-05

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 43, to enable the establishment, operation and maintenance of free foreign trade zones.-Mr. Deslauriers.
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 Marguerite Emily Coombe Low.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Mary May Rowell Thom.-Mr. Reid (for Mr. Factor).
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Eva Josephine Millicent Good Ross.-Mr. Jacobs.

Natural Products Marketing Act


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to either the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and I am basing it upon a telegram which has reached me in connection with a very serious matter affecting the chairman of the vegetable marketing board in the province of British Columbia. Before I ask my question I will read the telegram.
Leslie Gilmore, chairman of the coast vegetable marketing board, is being sold out by the sheriff to-morrow, Thursday, on account of judgment against him in respect of claim for return of levies collected under Dominion Marketing Act. Surely dominion government will not permit such a thing to happen. Respectfully suggest immediate action be taken . . . to protect this man who acted in all good faith under a statute enacted by dominion government.
My question is: is it the intention of the government to take immediate action to prevent Mr. Gilmore, chairman of the marketing board, from losing all he possesses and being thrown out on the street; or in the event of this happening will the government protect Mr. Gilmore by indemnifying him?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Some questions have been submitted to the Department of Justice with regard to the operations of the marketing act in British Columbia, as a result of the recent decision of the privy council. There are a few actions already before the courts. One judgment has been delivered against the gentleman mentioned in the telegram which has just been read, making him responsible for his actions when acting for the marketing board. Upon communicating with the provincial authorities I have been given to understand that this judgment is being appealed, and we hope all the other lawsuits will be suspended until there is a final judgment on this action. Meanwhile I am informed by the attorney general of British Columbia that he is taking all possible steps to prevent any difficulty and to protect the individuals involved.



SOCKEYE SALMON TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
wish to ask the leader of the government a question based on an answer to a question
which I got the day before yesterday. I asked if the Fraser river treaty had been ratified; if so, whether it was subject to any reservations; if there were reservations, what were they, and would we be given an opportunity to consider them in this house. The answer was that it was considered that they were of such a character as to constitute only clarification or interpretation, and therefore would not be submitted to the house. I submit that the change is a very material one. equivalent practically to changing the treaty by order in, council. Since the matter is of great importance to British Columbia, I ask the government whether they will not afford an opportunity to debate it in the house. I for one at least would like to protest if the treaty is to be made law without an opportunity of debating such a material change.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the minister replies I would like to say that I have given some attention to the answer made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in connection with the approval of the treaty by the senate of the United States, and I should like to join with what has been said by the hon. member for Comoix^AIberni (Mr. Neill); for I regard the government's course as establishing a precedent of very doubtful validity. I trust no action will be taken until the house has had opportunity at least to express itself; for the treaty that we approved is not the treaty that will go into effect if the reservations made by the senate of the United States are to be regarded, as part of it. I make this observation in order that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who obviously will not answer the question to-day, may have that view before him when he considers what has been said by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE, (Minister of Justice):	Yes full consideration will be
given to the representations of both the hon,. member for Comox-Alberni and the right hon. leader of the opposition. Meanwhile we shall consider this as a notice of motion.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house
The Budget-Mr. Stirling
[Stage Direction]
to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett.
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I am sure I voice the feeling of every hon. member of this house when I express the hope that the measures which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will take in this early stage of his indisposition will enable him to return quickly, in health and vigour, to the discharge of his onerous duties.
Everyone who read the statement of the Minister of Finance will I think be gratified by the improvement in the trade figures of Canada and the increase of the revenue; will be gratified to realize that Canada in her trading adventure with other nations of the world still retains her forefront position, and will hope that the improvement which has started will continue. We are all gratified also, I imagine, to see that the minister has adopted the better precedent in the form in which he has presented to the people the national balance sheet. It is now a plain and intelligible document. It does not very much resemble the documents which were presented by ministers of finance when the Liberal party was previously in power; for now we do not have to take what was virtually a sham surplus, reduce it almost to the vanishing point by the deduction of certain special expenditures, and then turn it into a deficit by applying the deficits of the Canadian National Railways. Now we have exhibited to us the extent of Canada's commitments, the amount of her trade, where her revenues come from, and what they amount to. In all it is an understandable document which should be of great value to the people of Canada. I wonder whether it will have some effect in tending to diminish the number of applications, requisitions and even demands which are made by people in Canada on whatever government is in the saddle at the time. The dominion government is asked to provide money for this, to give grants for that, quite irrespective of the fact that the revenue which the dominion government is called upon to administer comes from the pockets of the taxpayer. Frequently it looks as if the people who make these demands are of the opinion that there is some hidden source of wealth into which the minister of finance can put his hand other than that which they themselves have to contribute. If this method of presentation will accomplish anything to help Canadian citizens to realize that their problem must be looked upon from a national point of view and no longer a parochial or even provincial point of view, great good will ensue.

The minister did not devote very much time to what is an undoubted fact, that the turning point in the improvement of Canadian trade dates back to the Ottawa agreements of 1932. It is a self-evident fact, a fact which every Canadian citizen acknowledges whose mind is not rancid with partisanship. But it is unfortunate that there were so many who in those days of abuse occupied their time in abusing the agreements in public and blessing them in private. The government of the United Kingdom saw fit to change its fiscal policy. That was the opportunity that the self-governing dominions had been seeking for many years, and due to the foresight of one man an invitation was issued to the self-governing dominions to send their delegations to this city in 1932 to discuss the possibility of arriving at trade agreements. The difficulties were great. Some of them were surmounted by little more than the presentation of the facts on both sides of the question. Others were more obstinate, and the fact that that work was brought to a successful termination is due to two things; one, the spirit which animated the delegates from all the participating nations, a spirit which was responsible for the determination that agreement should be reached; two, the ability and the patient genius exhibited by my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett). Outside Canada that fact is recognized; inside Canada it is not so often recognized by those who take part in partisan speeches on this question. But there is no doubt that the Ottawa agreement was the turning point in Canada's fight with the adversity ef depression.
The other agreement which was arrived at last year was undoubtedly arrived at by this government, but the fact is that the spade work had been entirely done when the government came into office. A year and a half previously the president of the United States had received power from congress which enabled him to reduce the tariff of the United States in order to obtain trade agreements with other countries. As soon as that had happened the technical men on both sides were able to prepare both facts and figures, and that work was accomplished in the summer of 1935. A draft of the agreement was presented, which was not in the opinion of the late administration one which Canada could properly accept. Negotiations were in process when the election came, and this government hurried to Washington, signed the agreement and accepted the terms offered by the United States; and it is perfectly right

The Budget-Mr. Stirling
that it should cherish this child as if it were its own even though it does rather resemble a foundling.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in presenting his budget warns us of two or three dangers which encompass us. He points out the seriousness of the financial position of certain of the provinces. He draws our attention to the fact that once more the get-rich-quick spirit is abroad, and I notice in yesterday's press that the president of the Montreal stock exchange is of the same opinion. He also draws our attention with emphasis to the fact that the position with regard to the relief of unemployment is a disheartening one. The relief figures are not responding in the same proportion as the figures of Canada's increase in trade. Whilst the Minister of Finance is disheartened, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is encouraged though not satisfied. I do not know to what extent the Minister of Labour's view that it is an encouraging situation will be borne out throughout this country, but he will no doubt on a future occasion enlarge on the brief statement which he made the other night in reply to my right hon. leader, and explain to us in more detail the measures which he has employed, with the assistance of the employment commission, to bring about an amelioration of the situation.
The minister does, however, find encouragement in the fact that we no longer have relief camps. He tells us it was the determination of the government that these camps should be closed. He tells us that he had a strong opinion based upon his knowledge of conditions in these relief camps, and his knowledge of the sense of frustration and despair which was developed by them, that the best way to deal with the relief camps was to close them as quickly as possible. That presentation is well known to have been this government's policy, and so a committee of investigation was set up which investigated the camps; and it is not surprising that the report of that committee bore out the opinion of the minister and advised that the camps should be closed. He does not refer to the fact that nine months before that committee reported another committee had reported. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to a few phrases from these two reports to show that, at least in the opinion of the men on these committees who investigated the conditions in the camps, their feeling was not as bad as the minister's.
The one that I have in my hand is the report of the committee set up by the previous administration under Mr. Justice W. A. Macdonald supported by Mr. C. T. McHattie
and the Rev. E. D. Braden, who were instructed to inquire into conditions obtaining in all camps and any complaints which had been made with respect to the administration and management of the camps established by the Department of National Defence in British Columbia. They proceeded to visit the camps, and listened to all who had evidence to give pro and con, and any complaints which anyone desired to make before them. I want to refer, because of what I am going to say later, to one or two remarks which are made in the report. On page 8 the committee men report:
Questions were continually submitted at the public sittings, as to the existence of any militarization in these camps. We feel no hesitation in reporting that it did not, and does not, exist in the slightest degree.
They inquired into food,-sleeping accommodation, cleanliness, sanitation and so on, and commenced the summation of the report as follows:
The object of the establishment of relief camps is clearly indicated in the manual of policy and instructions available in every camp as follows:
As a measure designed to care for single, homeless men without present employment and in need of relief the Department of National Defence lias been entrusted with the organization and execution of a series of projects on works to the general advantage of Canada which otherwise could not be undertaken at this time. We find that these camps have reasonably fulfilled the object of their establishment and afforded the intended relief. It is well known that they were expected to be only of a temporary nature. The reason for their continuance is the prolonged depression, and we hope that this cause will soon disappear.
The report then goes on to refer to various items of complaint and the committee men make their comments thereon. It will be seen from that report, therefore, that in their opinion at least, there was no truth in the allegation that there was militarization of the camps. The camps, of course, had been instituted as a temporary measure, and the committee men deal with the complaints that were so made.
Then I come to the report of the committee which this government set up and to which the Minister of Labour referred. The report is dated January 31, 1936, and after dealing with the visit which was paid to the United States camps, where it was found that the situation was so entirely different as to be of little value to a consideration of our problem-it having been found that the camps there were fully military in type-they go on to make the comment which the minister quoted about the desirability of closing the camps and they make the remark en passant
The Budget-Mr. Stirling

that no police authority is vested in the camp administration. I can well imagine the storm of abuse which would have fallen upon the late administration and the minister in charge of this particular piece of work at anything in the nature of a police organization being connected with the camps. I will read a paragraph which goes to show that there had been a certain amount of misapprehension on the part of the public with regard to the remuneration received by those who were in the camps.
A strong body of public opinion exists that is opposed to the principle of the allowance of twenty cents per day for work performed over a nominal period of eight hours. It might be emphasized that the fact is lost sight of that in addition to food, shelter, clothing and medical attention, tobacco is provided along with canteen supplies at a cost below that paid by the general public outside the camp, and recreation facilities varying in degree according to the size and location of the camp.
The report says that an adequate supply of warm and serviceable clothing is supplied; it deals with the fact that recreation and education were provided for those in the camps; it remarks that the meals served in the relief camps were plain but wholesome and clean; it deals with the facilities providing for the washing of clothes, with the provision of medical services and so on, and states that a canteen existed in every camp. Then I want to read the last paragraph but one:
The Department of National Defence has built up an organization that has been fair to the men under its charge, and efficient in the administration of the various activities in the management of the camps. The work is being carried on in addition to the ordinary departmental duties, assisted by a small civilian staff, reflecting a decided saving to the exchequer. It should be pointed out that the staff officials of the Department of National Defence, are by training eminently suited to the task of organization work of this character, and in this regard have rendered a distinct service during a most trying time. To brand the camps as military establishments is unfair.
I want the 'hon. members to remember that phrase.
In our inspection not the slightest trace of the general conception of military discipline was m evidence. In fact, the officers of the Department of National Defence have leaned backward in this regard. Not one man was seen in military uniform. Those in the service whose duties carried them into the camp wore civilian clothes. As far as we could observe, the administration is of a non-political character, a factor of vital importance in an undertaking requiring the utmost discretion if serious trouble is to be avoided. In this connection, if it is thought desirable that some change should be made, consideration might be given to the suggestion that the services of those branches of the Department of National Defence peculiarly suited to camp activities be retained.
It will be noticed1, Mr. Speaker, that the reports of both these committees of investi-
| Mr. Stirling.]
gation went to show that the camps, as such, were well conducted and carrying out the purpose for which they were established. The minister, however, considers that the policy was all wrong, that they were established as the result of a counsel of despair. I maintain that there was no counsel of despair at all connected with the policy with regard to the camps. Rather it was one step in the long chain of policies built up by agreement between the dominion and provincial governments, which resulted in the dominion government taking over a certain share of the responsibility in order to assist the provinces, whose duty it is to look after unemployment.
I suppose we all remember the abuse, the vilification, the innuendoes and the whisperings that went on with regard to these camps. It was not confined to the members of this house in this house; it was carried on throughout the country and was taken up by supporters of the then opposition. I am not going to fill the pages of Hansard with a large number of quotations of that description, but I do want to put on record two utterances which are attributed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), both taken from the Ottawa Citizen. The first is dated September 22, 1935, and is the report of a speech delivered by the right hon. gentleman in Prince Albert. I quote:
Organization of relief camps under the Department of National Defence was a great mistake, Mr. King said. They were military camps and could be nothing else while they were under military control.
"Has a government that would do a thing like that ihe least appreciation of the psychology of the whole situation?" asked Mr. King. "I say it has not."
Young men who were unemployed would have to be cared for but they should be paid wages and made to feel they were part of society, not outcasts to be thrust into internment camps. They should be employed on socially useful works in which they could take pride and organized under the labour or some other department.
The other extract I wish to read is from the Ottawa Citizen of October 14, 1935, referring to a speech delivered foy the right hon. gentleman in this city:
"At this time it is a necessity as well as an opportunity to have a strong, united government. We have had a 'one man' government during the past five years, but no one man or no one government can cope with the problems facing us to-day! In eight out of nine provinces we have Liberal governments whose leaders have pledged themselves to the support of the federal government. Our present social problems cannot be adequately solved without all these provinces coming together in unity of cause."
At this juncture in Mr. King's address, someone in the audience shouted: "What about the relief camps?" The Liberal chieftain replied:

The Budget-Mr. Stirling
"Yes, my friend, I will tell you about the relief camps. When the Liberal party comes back into power the unfortunates in these camps will be made to feel that they are human beings like everyone else, not lost souls placed out of the way in remote places! An agency such as the Department of National Defence, a department established solely for the administration of military affairs and warfare, will not be placed in charge of these men!"
I quite agree that the Prime Minister has kept his word. But he reiterated that the camps were militaristic; he referred to those in the camps'as unfortunates, and he called them internment camps.
Why was this work given to the Department of National Defence? It was done for this one reason, that under the Department of National Defence there existed throughout Canada an organization in skeleton form which could be expanded to take care of this emergency work. Without thought a man might say these camps should be under the Department of Labour. Why place them under a department which did not have the necessary organization? Why create an organization to do work which was looked upon as temporary, which was never considered as anything else, and which could be carried on quite well by a department which already had the organization established? It will be remembered that Canada is divided into some nine military districts. In each district there is an officer commanding who has under him an engineer officer, a medical officer, a commissariat officer and a transport officer, and in their turn they have under them staffs which could be and were expanded to take care of the work of looking after these camps.
I have the very greatest admiration for the work done by Major General McNaughton and subsequently by Major General Ashton and the officers under their charge, for the way they adapted themselves to the changed requirements and carried on this most difficult piece of work in the face of the vilification that was going on almost daily inside this house and out of it, in the press of the country and in correspondence between individuals. The work was carried on at a time when these men, like all other servants of the state, were foregoing a portion of their remuneration as their gesture towards assisting the government in that difficult time. It was carried on by day and far into the night, and was a most difficult type of work to do. I do not think sufficient tribute has been paid to those responsible for doing it. It was not their policy, but that of the government.
May I refer, too, to the technical staff which it was necessary hurriedly to get together to look after the superintendence of the work
and the camps. The Department of National Defence was successful in collecting a band of technical men, engineering men, superintendents, foremen; people, then out of work, who were connected with construction, which was then in the doldrums, and others. They took over the technical work in connection with the camps and carried it out with most commendable efficiency. In some cases they did it in the face of abusive opposition from those in the camps who did not want to conform to the arrangements made therein, and also in the face of the general criticisms so often directed against them by a public which did not always understand. It is most satisfactory to know that at a time of need it was possible for the department to collect a body of men who were experienced, and capable of doing the work. It must be remembered that in the course of time, while the camps were open, very large sums of money passed through the hands of those in charge. There was a commissariat and there were necessary petty cash expenditures. I believe it is a notable point that the total defalcations from beginning to end amounted to only a small fraction of one per cent. I am only too glad to have had this opportunity of paying tribute to the work which was accomplished in connection with the camps.
But the minister considers that the whole idea of the camps were a counsel of despair. I maintain it was nothing of the sort. I shall run over briefly the steps which preceded the setting up of the camps under the dominion government. It will be remembered that in 1930 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-and he was prime minister then -was not of the opinion that an emergent situation existed. He regarded the relief of unemployment as a matter to which the provinces should attend, a view with which in general this party was in entire accord. Buit that there was an emergent situation then was becoming more and more evident to the people of Canada. It was then, too, that he pronounced that strange partisan political doctrine, to which he referred again in one of the extracts to which I have referred, a doctrine which startled the people of Canada and filled at least some of his supporters with consternation. He referred to it only the other day when he stated his views with regard to a national government.
However, whatever the Prime Minister's political views were on that occasion, he did not come forward to assist the provinces to carry on this particular form of relief. When parliament assembled in the fall of 1930, immediately after the election, it was asked
The Budget-Mr. Stirling

to vote the sum of $20,000,000 for the relief of unemployment, and particularly for construction work, (to assist in the distribution of natural products, and to aid the provinces in carrying on their construction work. The $20,000,000 having proved to be insufficient, in the following year parliament was asked to empower the governor in council to expend such moneys as in its discretion might be deemed expedient for the relief of distress, for providing employment and for maintaining peace, order and good government.
From then on, annually-for these were annual measures-parliament was asked to vote certain sums of money for this purpose. Just prior to the passing of the 1932 measure, at a provincial conference it was decided the provinces were unable to extend public works, but they asked the dominion government to continue to contribute to direct relief, and in that the dominoin government acquiesced. In the following year, just prior to the 1933 act, the provincial conference requested governments to revert to the public works program, and the agreements were again arrived at as to terms. Again the dominion government acquiesced. Towards the end of 1932 it became evident in western Canada that the provincial governments were no longer able to cope with the burden of transient unemployed, the birds of passage who were here to-day and gone to-morrow. In order to give assistance to the provincial governments, and in order to lift that burden off their shoulders, by agreement the dominion government took over the entire responsibility for the transient unemployed in need of relief.
Once the federal government had set its hand to the task, what possible way, may I ask, would there have been to do the work, other than by camps? It was imagined that this would be a temporary measure. It was desirable that certain work should be carried out by the men in the camps, work which would be of general benefit to Canada but which would not otherwise at that time have been carried out. That was the policy the government adopted. May I remind hon. members first of all that it was commonly stated no work was accomplished as a result of what the Prime Minister chooses to describe as internment camps. Yet in the time elapsed up to September 30, 1935, I find from the last report available to me, and which was tabled at the last session, that 142,690 were taken into the camps, and that 31,502 definitely left the camps to take up employment. Besides there were a considerable number concerning whom there was not definite proof that they had gone to do any certain work.

It is well known, however, that they left the camps for the purpose of taking work; that they did take work, and so reestablished themselves.
The Prime Minister may go on saying that these camps accomplished nothing, and that they were mere internment camps, but may I place on record some of the work successfully undertaken. It will be remembered that in some parts of Canada there were disturbances. Those disturbances were at their worst in British Columbia. Ever since the days of railway construction the seasonally unemployed have flocked to British Columbia to spend winters in the milder climate. Into British Columbia the transients flocked, and it was there that the subversive elements got in their evil work and fostered disturbances which only to a limited extent spread from British Columbia, through literature, into other camps of Canada.
Here is a list of the works accomplished by the camps. There was the restoration work at the citadels of Halifax and Quebec. There were six airdromes and forty-two emergency landing fields. No doubt these will be found of considerable value to the Minsiter of Transport, as it would appear that we are about to embark upon an airways system. Then, there were municipal airports at Saint John, New Brunswick; Cooking Lake, Alberta; Cranbrook, British Columbia; Ladder Lake, Saskatchewan.


Mr. ISNOR:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he estimate the value of the work done at Halifax?


Richard Bedford Bennett: How could he do that?


Grote Stirling: The hon. member asks me if I can estimate the value of the work done, but it would be quite impossible for me to do that from memory. It can be ascertained by referring to the records. Air stations were developed at Dartmouth, Ottawa, Trenton and Lac du Bonnet. Forestry operations were carried on at Colter's Siding, New Brunswick; at Valcartier, Quebec; Petawawa, Ontario; Duck Mountain, Manitoba, and Kenanaskis, Alberta. Another operation was the clearing of the foreshores at Lac Seul to assist in regulating the flow of the Winnipeg and English rivers. This work was carried on in cooperation with the Ontario government, and1 was necessary for hydroelectric power development. Highway construction work was carried out in conjunction with the various provincial governments. Development of training areas took place at Valcartier, Petawawa, Shilo and Dundum. There was also building construction at Kingston, Barriefield', St. John's, Winnipeg, Esqui-

The Budget-Mr. Stirling
malt and Long Branch. Rifle ranges were erected at Winterburn, Sarcee, North Vancouver and Cranbrook.
It will be seen that a considerable amount of work was accomplished by the men in these camps. From my constant contact with many of them I know that the majority of the men desired to work in return for that which the taxpayers of Canada were providing for them. When the time came to close the camps there were scores and scores of these men who sufficiently appreciated* the treatment they had received to regret deeply the closing of the camps. The minister looked upon the setting up of these camps as the product of a counsel of despair. He has told us that they are closed as far as the dominion government is concerned, but he knows quite well-we shall perhaps have information in detail at a later date-that camps are being conducted in British Columbia for exactly the purpose that the minister condemns.
The minister referred shortly to the methods undertaken by his department, with the assistance of the employment commission, to take care of the men who left the camps. He referred to the farm placement scheme, and' to the fact that 46,000 men had' found employment on Canadian farms. He referred to the rehabilitation scheme which was largely the child of the employment commission. He referred also to the camps opened by the transportation companies. I was interested in just what results were obtained from this particular measure. I applied for particulars to the department, and certain information was furnished me by the director of labour transference. Unfortunately this information is not intelligible to me. I asked the department for information as to the number of men employed' in these railway camps, the period of employment, the cost incurred, and what share of the cost was borne by the dominion government and the transportation companies. I also asked the amount of remuneration received* by the man, what deductions were made and what hours were worked. Here is what I got:
Number of men transferred from camps
to railway work	 9,224
Total number of men employed by the railways, drawn when no further men
available in camps	 7,107
Number of men employed and paid directly by railways in servicing extra gangs	 2,432
Total	 18,763
It is not clear to me whether all the 18,763 men would come under the agreement, and I shall be interested at a later date in having the minister explain in greater detail the meaning of these figures. I
asked for the cost of these operations and what portion fell on the dominion government and on the transportation companies. So far as I can ascertain from these figures, the total amount expended by the government and the railroads was $5,591,199.18. As the total amount expended by the railways amounted! to $2,956,267, it would seem that the amount expended by the dominion government, that is by the taxpayers, would be $2,634,932.18. Whether this amount applies only to the 9,224 men who left the camps when they were closed, or to the total of 18,763 men, I do not know. In any event, it is a considerable sum of money to expend to provide relief work for six months for men who will have to have some provision made for them when the work was finished. The information given in connection with remuneration is as follows:-
The prevailing rate of 25 cents per hour was paid and the basic eight hour day was recognized but in view of the fact that the work was of a seasonal eharacted and subject to discontinuance owing to climatic conditions and other causes, arrangements were made that the hours of labour should not exceed 208 hours per month for a period of six months making the total 1,248 hours; this being carried out to permit as many as possible to reach the maximum of six months' work under the terms of the agreement. The summer turned out to be exceptionally dry and little time was lost because of wet weather.
The total number of men who completed 1,248 hours or worked until the gangs were broken up was 7,773. The deductions for board and medical services were the same as those of other extra gangs in the district and varied to some degree in different parts of Canada. The maximum charge for board was $6 per week, including bedding and blankets.
If my arithmetic is correct, the result is that at the end* of six months the maximum amount which a man would receive, after paying for board! and lodging, would be $156. It is hardly reasonable to expect that during the six months a man would, spend nothing for tobacco, clothing and incidentals. A total of 7,773 men received this maximum amount of $156, and how much that would be reduced by the time they left camp, I do not know. Nor d.o I know how they got away from camp to where they desired to reside, or whether they had homes to go to. The fact remains that the whole idea was built on the theory that if we could put these men to work for a number of months they would have in their pockets a certain sum of money which they could use to take care of themselves for a time after the camps closed. Whether or not that actually happened, I am not aware, and I shall look
The Budget-Mr. Hansell

forward to receiving further details when the minister places his estimates before the house.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The ho,n. gentleman's time has expired:.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate that I shall take up much of the time of the house with what I have to say. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in his budget speech referred several times to the financial position and operations of the wheat board, and it is to this subject that I wish to confine my remarks.
The institution of the Canadian wheat board was the result of a long-continued desire on the part of the western farmer. For years he has wanted some adequate plan of cooperative marketing of his wheat. For years he had been working to that end, until, in 1935, the wheat board was brought into existence by the government then in power. This action was hailed by the farmers of western Canada as a good thing. It was not, perhaps, all that they desired, but generally speaking it was received as a step-and a long step-in the right direction. Eventually the price of wheat was pegged at 87! cents. This was another step in the right direction. Western farmers would have liked the pegged price to be a dollar, but that was not thought advisable.
If any government should have brought in such legislation as the act of 1935 with respect to the wheat , board, it might have been expected that a Liberal government would do it, but instead it was left to a Conservative government. And what do we find? That when a Liberal administration comes into office it causes the function of that wheat board to cease. I may be challenged regarding that statement, but I claim that the action of the present government last fall in issuing instructions, by order in council, for the wheat board to refuse to take wheat until the price dropped to ninety cents, virtually meant the repeal of that act, and I contend that such action is beyond the scope of an order in council. I am not a legal expert, and if there is to be any legal discussion I shall be willing to leave it to hon. members who belong to the legal profession, but I believe the fact is as I have stated, and in support of my views I will read from the act itself. Section 7, clause (e), dealing with the powers of the board respecting the marketing of wheat, reads:
To pay to producers delivering wheat at the time of delivery or at any time thereafter as may be agreed upon such fixed price per bushel, according to grade or quality or place of delivery, as may be determined by the board with the approval of the governor in council; and to issue to such producers when such wheat i6 purchased certificates indicating the number
EMr. Stirling.]
of bushels purchased, the grade, quality and the price, which certificates shall entitle producers named therein to share in the equitable distribution of the surplus, if any, of the operations of the board during the crop year, it being the true intent and meaning of this section that each producer shall receive for the same grade and quality of wheat the same price on the Fort William basis. Such certificate shall not be transferable, and a statement to that effect shall be printed on the face thereof;
The duty of the board as outlined here is to receive wheat, not to refuse it, and the action of the government is tantamount to the repeal of the act and a refusal to accept wheat from the western farmers. This, I claim, results in a direct loss of millions of dollars to the farmers of western Canada. Many of the farmers were not in a position to hold their wheat until better prices were to be had. As a matter of fact many farmers in the west are almost in a state of bankruptcy. When the fall of the year comes and they harvest their crops they have to pay their living expenses for the year, their grocery bills, their hospital and doctor's bills; their taxes must be met; the machine companies demand a share of the cut, and the mortgage concerns always demand their pound of flesh. The price of wheat on August 27 last-I believe that was the date that the government's action was made known to the public-


An hon. MEMBER:: The twenty-eighth.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, on August 27 wheat stood at 98| cents; that was the Winnipeg price. A few days afterwards the market took a slight fall and wheat dropped nearly five cents. Then it rose more or less steadily until it reached its high point about the second week of February this year. I wish to put on Hansard a table of the weekly prices of wheat from August 22, 1936, to the end of February of this year. It is a table of the closing prices on the Winnipeg grain exchange-not Fort William or Regina or Calgary or Vancouver-and is, I believe, authoritative, because I personally made application for it to the dominion bureau of statistics. If this table of prices is reviewed it will be seen that the farmers who had to sell their wheat at the beginning of the crop year lost millions upon millions of dollars. To my mind that is a very serious thing.
I wish to refer for a short time to the protests that were sent to the government because of its action. I was particularly interested in the references to this matter which were made yesterday by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), because of an interruption hv tbp hon. member for Swift Cur-

The Budget-Mr. Hansell
rent (Mr. Bothwell). The hon. member for Qu'Appelle was asked if he had ever attended any of these protest meetings. He replied that he had not and had an adequate reason for not attending. But I did attend some of these meetings; by virtue of the fact that I was the person who, I suppose, stands between the organizations and the government, I was called in to several meetings held in my constituency. I wish here to refer to a remark that was made by the hon. member for Swift Current, and to protest against it. It was while the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was dealing with these resolutions that had been sent to the government. I quote from Hansard, page 1489:
Mr. Bothwell:	If I may ask the hon. member
a question, did he ever attend any of those protest meetings that were held in western Canada?
Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle):	Not one, and I
had invitations to hundreds.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Hundreds?


Ernest George Hansell: That is what he said.
Mr. Bothwell:	Has the hon. member knowledge of the manner in which those resolutions were prepared, and does he know that the resolutions were brought to these meetings already typewritten, and with the mover and seconder's names set out?
I protest that, Mr. Speaker; I protest it on the ground that it is not according to fact. I will admit that stereotyped resolutions emanating from some source or other were sent to the farmers of western Canada, asking them to send in resolutions of that type, but in all the meetings I attended I did not notice particularly that the resolutions submitted all came from the same source, as the hon. member for Swift Current would have us believe. I say they did not.


Malcolm McLean: What is the hon. gentleman's authority for denying the statement of the hon. member for Swift Current with regard to the meetings of which he was speaking?


Ernest George Hansell: I did not understand that the remark here was relevant to the meetings he attended.


Malcolm McLean: I am referring to the meetings of which the hon. member for Swift Current was speaking yesterday, the meetings in western Canada, particularly Saskatchewan-the meetings which were under discussion by the two hon. members yesterday. What is the authority of my hon. friend who is now speaking for taking exception to the statement made by the hon. member for Swift Current?


Ernest George Hansell: My authority is my personal knowledge of the meetings I personally attended.


Malcolm McLean: Ah, that is a different thing entirely. Everyone knows that the resolutions were prepared and brought in.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let the hon. member make his speech.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Any hon. member may ask questions, but only with the permission of the member who has the floor.


Ernest George Hansell: I am quite able to take care of myself along this line. The discussion that took place yesterday afternoon and to which I refer was brought up by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. He referred to the many resolutions that came from western Canada to the present government, and in reference to those resolutions the hon. member for Swift Current made the statement which I have already quoted and which I will read again:
Has the hon. member knowledge of the manner in which those resolutions were prepared, and does he know that the resolutions were brought to these meetings already typewritten and with the mover and seconder's names set out?
I say that that is not altogether according to fact.


Malcolm McLean: He was referring to Saskatchewan.


Ernest George Hansell: At the meetings I attended that was not so. I have copies of resolutions sent to the Prime Minister's office. I have looked them over and I declare that there are not two alike. The statement made here to which I have referred-and this is another reason why I protest-could have no other meaning than that the farmers and business men of western Canada were stampeded into doing something which it was beyond their intelligence to do for themselves, and I protest that. The farmers of this country are too often held up to ridicule. You cannot go to a moving picture show and see the character of the farmer depictedi without discovering that he portrays the part of some hayseed hillbilly ignoramus from the backwoods somewhere. I claim that the farmers of western Canada are as well-informed as any one body of men you can find in Canada to-day. They are wise and trusted men and I protest against any attempt to make a clown of the man who has been most instrumental in building up the Dominion: of Canada. But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that these stereotyped resolutions were sent
The Budget-Mr. Hansell

out, and let us suppose further that they were adapted by these various farm organizations: does that render the resolutions any less important? Of course not. Then why bring in such a thing as this?
I might 'say that these resolutions and protests did not all come from the farmers of western Canada; some of them came from various boards of trade, others from municipal councils, others from business men, and of course the majority from farm organizations. Between five and six hundred resolutions were received by the Department of Trade and Commerce. That does not mean to say there were only between five and six hundred protests. There were between five and six hundred resolutions, petitions, telegrams and protests from between five and six hundred different people or organizations, representing in the aggregate thousands upon thousands of farmers in western Canada, and I say that, with all these resolutions, the Department of Trade and Commerce cannot produce one that was of the nature of an approval or commendation of the action that was taken.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to the marketing of wheat, a,t least, the western farmer should be given some consideration. Some notice should be taken of his desires.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad to hear the "hear, hear," but that does not give the farmer very much, does it?
Now, with regard to the amendment that has been proposed, I wish to say just one word. The .amendment reads:
That all .the words after the word "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets that the government has failed to take effective measures to deal with the problem of unemployment."
I am not going to speak now of unemployment and I am not going to speak particularly on the effective measures; I can well leave that to some of my colleagues. But I am interested in the phrase, "has failed to take effective measures." That is subject to wide interpretation. Our claim in this corner is that measures could have been taken whereby the government could have adjusted the economic system so as to issue debt free money for public works or other purposes in order to solve the problem of unemployment.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member referred to some figures that he desired to put on Hansard. I am not quite clear what they are.


Ernest George Hansell: It is a table of the closing prices of wheat on the Winnipeg grain exchange from August 22, 1936 to February 27, 1937, a weekly price.


Frederick George Sanderson: That can be done only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read' it.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member had better read' it.


Ernest George Hansell: The figures are as follows:
Cash Closing Prices of No. 1 Northern Wheat at Winnipeg on Saturdays from August 22, 1936, to February 27, 1937
August 22	 1.0016
August 29	96
September 5	92%
September 12	 1.01%
September 19	 1.05%
September 26	 1.10%
October 3	 1.10%
October 10	 1.12%
October 17	 1.14
October 24	 1.09%
October 31	 1.08%
November 7	 1.08%
November 14	 1.08%
November 21	 1.08%
November 28	 1.09%
December 5	 1.13%
December 12	 1.16%
December 19	 1.25%
December 26	 *....
January 2	**....
January 9	 1.28%
January 16	 1.25%
January 23	 1.21%
January 30	 1.20%
February 6	   1.29%
February 13	 1.31%
February 20	 1.26%
February 27	 1.25%
*Market holiday (Dec. 24, 1.28%).
**Market holiday (Dec. 31, 1.29).


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: It is
my intention at this time to deal not with the main motion, but rather with the amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). The amendment was presented in what was to me one of the most brilliant, capable and effective speeches it has been my pleasure to listen to in this house, in which he demonstrated that the principal object that this parliament should have before it is the solution of the unemployment problem. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), replying to the leader of the opposition, said something about the leader of the opposition having said during the election campaign of 1930 that he would end unemployment. Well, I remember that during the last election campaign every billboard in my riding had plastered all over it, "Action,

The Budget-Mr. MacNicol
not promises." "End unemployment." "Vote Liberal." Yet I believe every hon. member will admit that unemployment is no nearer ended to-day than it was when the present government came into power.
I want to refer to two outstanding statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). On page 1430 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
I was present in the house when, last session, the minister dealt with the problem of the young men then in relief camps across the dominion. He announced that on July 1, 1936, it would be possible to close the relief camps, and that he had a solution in view. He proposed to solve the unemployment problem of these young men with the plans he was then about to table.
Then a little later on the hon. member for Vancouver North made this powerful and telling indictment of the government:
The relief camps are not closed; many of the camps in British Columbia have been reopened. In the constituency I represent the camps which were operating prior to July 1, 1936, are again operating under practically the same conditions, and the men are engaged in exactly the same work as before.
When the hon. member for Vancouver North made these statements the Minister of Labour was in his seat, and he did not challenge either one of them. My own observation, travelling around the country, is that the camps are still in operation. They are in operation in northern Ontario, and if they are not any worse than they were under the previous government they are not any better. My own personal mail daily is cluttered up with letters from single young men and married men in Toronto begging that I do something to help them obtain employment. I see no difference during the last sixteen months. To-morrow morning when I get home I shall be met by many married men and young men out of work beseeching me to do something to help them to saye their homes, or provide employment for them.
A little later on the Minister of Labour himself replied to the leader of the opposition. I wish to quote two or three lines from what he said, because he lost complete control of himself-and he usually has control; he lost his usual courtesy-and usually he shows courtesy-when he said this to the leader of the opposition., as reported at page 1424 of Hansard:
Was this amendment introduced, sir, because the leader of the opposition had some constructive suggestion to offer after five years of extravagant futility. . . .
during the last sixteen months are phrases used in the classrooms of universities or schools, but they add nothing whatever to debate and do not clear up anything. If the minister had considered for a moment what the leader of the opposition did during those strenuous days of the depression, which continued to get worse and worse from 1930 to 1933, I think in his usual generous spirit, instead of using, in reference to the leader of the opposition, such a phrase as "extravagant futility" he would have said "outstanding achievement." Considering what the late administration had to contend with, their achievements were outstanding. I do not intend to labour that point, but before I go on to try to present something constructive for the min ister to consider by way of providing employment I should like, without commenting on each item, to record a few of the achievements that the Minister of Labour should have given the late government credit for.
First, the present government is asking this house to endorse practically the same trade agreement, barring slight changes in tariff schedules, that the previous government succeeded in negotiating with Great Britain. Surely that indicates that the negotiation of that treaty was an outstanding achievement. Second, in introducing his budget in 1936 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) said the physical volume of business in Canada rose from the low of 69 in 1933 to 102-4 in 1935. That was an increase of over fifty per cent over the low point, and surely that was a worth while achievement. Third, during the term of office of the previous government, from 1930 to 1935, according to "Industrial Expansion," some 272 new factories or businesses were started in this country. In those factories, together with all the other industrial plants of the country, directly or indirectly, from 350,000 to 400,000 men were given employment, making new lines of goods for Canadians which, prior to the last government taking office, were made outside this country. Anyone who knows anything about business and employment will admit that to be an outstanding achievement. Fourth, construction rose from 9-2, the low of 1933,' to 19-7 in 1935, or an increase of 100 per cent. Fifth, when the previous government came into power it had to contend with an adverse trade balance of $103,000,000.


Mr. GOLDING:: For how many years did they have that adverse balance of trade?
Now, sir, "extravagant futility" and "com- Mr. MacNICOL: That is immaterial; when pelling reason" and a lot of the other phrases	they came into power they had to meet a
which we have been hearing in this house deficit in trade of $103,000,000, which was the 31111-96

The Budget-Mr. MacNicol

legacy left by the previous government. When they went out of office, however, they left the incoming government a favourable trade balance, not including the export of gold, amounting to $134,000,000 for the period of eleven months. In the republic to the south between six and seven thousand banks closed their doors while the previous government was in office, but not a single Canadian bank failed during that time. Could any reasonable man say that was not an outstanding tribute to the financial policy of the late government? Then there is the new gold policy, with which the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) had more to do than any other man in Canada and, with the exception of the President of the United States, perhaps more than any other man in the world, by having the world economic conference adopt a gold policy that placed at the disposal of the present government, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) said last session, many hundreds of millions of dollars of new money which was created as a result of the actions of the previous government.
Then I come to industry, with which I have been associated for many years. I observe that employment from the low of 83-4 in 1933 increased to 106-1 in October of 1935, when the previous government went out of office. I should like to refer also to the social legislation, all of which has been jettisoned by the opposition of the present government, which exerted itself to create objections to that program. I say now that if the minimum wage act and the measure providing for a forty-eight hour week, which we in this country were in duty bound to adopt as a result of the draft conventions we entered into, had gone into effect, many thousands of men would have been given work.
I think that is sufficient on that part of the question. I am very glad to see the Ministei of Labour in his seat again, because I am one of those who think a great deal of him; I believe he is sincere and honest, and that he tries to do his best. I should like to be able to induce the hon. gentleman to withdraw the expression he used, " extravagant futility," concerning the previous government. It certainly should not have been made in this house, and it certainly was not fair to the right hon. leader of the opposition.
There are just one or two other matters along that line to which I should like to refer. The present government surely cannot claim credit for the increased employment in the forests of British Columbia and other provinces. Any man who wants to be fair will admit at once that it was the trade agreements

with the United Kingdom and the rest of the empire that increased our exports of lumber to New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain, and that these agreements were directly responsible for placing twenty-two thousand men at work in the forests of British Columbia. Then there is the copper industry. In 1933 the price of copper had dropped to 7 cents a pound, but under the administration of the previous government the price rose to 10 and 11 cents, and to-day I believe it is between 12 and 15 cents. That is some achievement. Let us look at nickel and steel. Could anyone claim that the expansion in the nickel industry of Canada has been the result of the action of any governmental activity? I think everyone in this house knows that the expansion in the nickel business, and in the plants manufacturing various kinds of machinery for the nickel industry, of which I know several, has been a direct result of the war scare in Europe. That expansion will fall flat when the war scare is over, or the war itself if it does come; or, if it does not come-as I hope it will not

it will fall flat anyway, as it did after the great war.
Then there is the question of steel, and I know something about the steel industry. At the moment that industry is flourishing in Canada, partly because of the protection given by the previous government on steel plate, but more than anything else because Great Britain cannot produce enough steel for her rearmament program. To-day Great Britain is ordering steel manufactures from Canada; I know of many manufactures of steel that have been so ordered. In addition I know of several plants that are manufacturing munitions for the old country. When the war scare passes, all these plants will stop making munitions and1 the men will be thrown out of work.
I have now concluded' that part of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and following the suggestion of the minister that instead of spending our time criticizing the activities of the government we should suggest something constructive I am going to bring to his notice some methods by which employment might be provided in Canada.
During the recess I travelled about twelve thousand miles through many states of the republic to the south in order to make a personal inquiry into just why the people of the United States were so overwhelmingly behind their government. One did not have to travel very far to ascertain the reason. Everywhere men were working; they had been put to work by the government of that country. I am one of those who believe- and I wish I could persuade the minister to

The Budget-Mr. MacNicol
believe it also-that the time has come for the minister and the government to realize that unemployment is not just a passing phase. In this I may be partly adopting the argument advanced last session by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. In the United States they have arrived at the conclusion that it is not a passing phase, and in that country they have made preparations to take care of millions of men, not only for the present but as time goes on, if the necessity continues. Certainly if war broke out to-morrow in which Canada became engaged, or from which she could not free herself, this or any government would1 find all the money required to carry it out. And what for-to send young Canadians. What for?-to be shot. I say to the minister and the government that it would be better if they were to consider that they are now waging war against unemployment, and1 in my view whatever money is required should be obtained for that purpose.
In the course of my surveys I first looked into what are known as the CCC camps, which I believe have been mentioned before in the house. I am a confirmed believer in the fruitfulness and efficacy of CCC camps. The government takes young men, whose parents are on relief, and looks after them. At one time there were 600,000 of these young men in the camps. No doubt a much greater number have been taken care of during the time the CCC camps have been in operation. First they send the young men to military concentration camps, where they are inoculated, cleaned up, and taught civility and discipline. After fifteen days of that they are sent to construction camps of one kind and another. I went to about a dozen of those camps. May I say that they are quite different from the camps in Canada, as described by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). I have not been in any of the camps in Canada since the late government left office, but listening to the observations of the hon. member for Vancouver North I would conclude that in the camps there has been no improvement over anything provided by the previous government.
In the camps of the United States young men work during the days at useful employment. The work they do adds to the national wealth and does not cost the country anything, although they receive $30 a month, $25 of which is taken from them and sent to their parents or guardians. In other words, they are allowed $5 a month. Then, there are contest* in the camps to see which young man can send the most home to his parents of the $5 he receives. I thought that 31111-964
was a very creditable contest to have in any camp. Through it they were taught thrift and shown how to save their money. In the evening they are taught all sorts of necessary knowledge.
To close this part of my observations in connection with the CCC camps may I say that on visiting Washington I found, upon talking with the heads of the departments, that approximately sixty per cent of all the young men called to the CCC camps, because of the reputations they have established for themselves, have been recalled into industry. I believe that is a creditable feature of the camps. May I suggest to the minister that a similar system might well be adopted in Canada, because our streets are cluttered up with young men who are not in camps and who have nothing to do. The young men in the CCC camps do all sorts of useful work, but on this occasion I shall not take time to give details, because there are other matters to which I should like to refer. May I state briefly, however, that the work they were doing could be classed as useful work, and will not cost the country anything.
I made many other surveys, because upon discussing matters in Washington with the heads of departments I found they were carrying on their activities along many lines. Following these discussions I set out to visit the different kinds of activity and, in this connection, may I deal first with their treatment of education. In the United States they have the same problem as we have in Canada but, owing to our population, of course our problem is small in comparison with the one they face. No doubt in Canada there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of school houses throughout the country which are a disgrace. They are old and possibly some are disease ridden. Probably not all, but certainly many of them are fire traps. What do they do in the United States in this regard? They have adopted the policy of assisting education whereby they lend money to boards on longterm low-interest notes. In addition the federal government makes free grants of certain sums of money to any board which will take advantage of the opportunity. The result has been that in the last three years about 40,000 new class rooms have been built in the United States, and $500,000,000 has been spent in that connection, thereby giving employment to a hundred and one different kinds of tradesmen. Then, behind the tradesmen are the employees in the factories who are given work in making the necessary equipment.
The Budget-Mr. MacNicol


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Did the individual states controlling education show any objection to interference by the federal government?
Mr. MacNICO'L: No; on the contrary, they assist. Then, although I must hurry along may I make one or two observations about what I found in connection with the installation of pure water systems. From 1,500 to
2,000	towns and cities have been assisted in obtaining pure water, and the results have been very satisfactory. Any hon. member interested in seeing a magnificent system of water purification would be well repaid if he were to inspect the system in Birmingham, Alabama. Under ordinary circumstances neither the city nor the state alone could have done the work, but with the assistance of the United States government it was done. In the whole of the water purification projects $200,000,000 have been spent.
Then, $350,000,000 have been spent in sewage disposal projects. I made a careful survey of the greatest sewage project in the world, namely that of the city of Chicago, where they have built three immense purification plants and have built a tunnel from 24 to 36 feet in diameter under the city. This tunnel is from six to eight miles long, and is placed 60 feet underground. The project provided a great number of men with work.
As another project, outside many cities and bordering canals and rivers dumps of one kind and another have been cleaned out. The best work I saw was done along the Illinois river. They are beautifying that old sewer-ridden river, and eliminating the dumps along its banks. The dumps are being changed into paries and parkettes, a procedure greatly appreciated by the people.
Next I should like to speak about hospitalization. In the United States about $130,000,000 has been spent in this connection, and about 40.000 beds have been added. Any person would be prepared to do a great deal to help those afflicted with the disease. The finest hospital, for tuberculosis, was at Secaucus, New Jersey, and the next in importance was the naval hospital in Philadelphia.
Business men have arrived at the conclusion that playgrounds are necessary, and people in the United. States may be proud of the playgrounds in that country. The United States is spending $13,000,000 in the promotion of playground siport and in that way are helping to maintain the health of their citizens. The best example of this work was in Kansas City.
Then, hurrying along, may I say that I learned of about 50 slum clearance projects which are being carried on adjacent to 35

cities, and that 25,000 model homes have been erected. By these works they are providing employment and at the same time giving health, education and hospitalization to their people. I shall not take time to mention the great numbers of bridges and tunnels which have been built, but will be content by saying that in 1934 employment was provided for 700,000 men at one time. When we consider the great numbers who are behind those men, doing the work in factories, we may add at least another 500,000 to 700,000 more. That is handling relief in a big way, and I would, urge upon the minister that he begin, as soon as he can, to do it, because he is sitting on a volcano, he is in the path of a cyclone, he is facing a great disaster, unless the Canadian people can be put to work. They are not being put to work by the measures offered: by the present government, as was admitted when the minister spoke. A paltry few thousand of the 400,000 unemployed have found work. A considerable number have been taken on in steel plants, in the gold fields and in the nickel business, industries which are dependent on the present war scare in Europe.
May I touch upon one of the great projects which has been undertaken, namely that in the Tennessee valley. I made careful inquiry there, and in view of the recent floods in the Ohio valley, which caused damage to the extent of $500,000,000, I am glad I made the inquiries. If $500,000,000 had been spent to save the Ohio valley as has been spent in the Tennessee valley, much would have .been added to the national wealth, and that $500,000,000 would not have been lost to the country. In the Tennessee valley there are seven large dams-Norris, Gumtersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick, Chickamiaga and Fowler-ranging in height from 72 feet to 300 feet and in length from 1,265 feet to 7,715 feet. The horse-power production ranges from a low of 66,000 to 261,000. The immense reservoirs give absolute control of the flow of water. During the recent catastrophe extending over the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana and southern Illinois, they demonstrated this absolute control.
I should like to refer to what the minister can do in the province of Ontario as a start, and then carry it on into, the other provinces. Almost daily in the press we read news of floods. Here are some of the headlines :
Fifth flood this winter halts Fergus business.
Waterloo county hit and some residents forced from home.
Port Hope facing acute situation from flood waters. Grand river rises.

The Budget-Mr. MacNicol
The towns of Hanover, Kitchener, Galt, Walkerton and many other places are in constant danger from floods. The business section of Port Hope was nearly wiped out last spring; it faced another flood this winter, and there are possibilities that it may be repeated this coming spring.
We read that the Grand river submerges roads adjacent to Galt and causes considerable destruction to adjoining farms.
In order to get a clear insight into this matter of flood control I visited the one place where they are proposing what I consider a perfect flood control plan. I refer to the state of Wisconsin. In that state is lake Winnebago, into which flow the Fox and Wolf rivers, as well as many other smaller streams. The Fox river then continues into Green bay. There are some very important municipalities in this district, such as Fond du Lac, Oshkosh and Menasha. I gave particular attention to the proposed flood control work in the vicinity of Fond d.u Lac, because it approximates the conditions here in Ontario. I obtained some figures from the engineers. The area to be served is 210 square miles. Bad floods occurred in 1905, 1912, 1915 and 1924. The 1924 flood cost the city $700,000. The amount of rainfall at that time was suffi-sient to cover the whole area 2-75 inches deep. The flow of water amounted to 1,342,000.000 cubic feet, which was sufficient to cover the 6-7 square mile area of Fond du Lac to a depth of seven feet. That is just about the depth to which it was covered at the last flood. The rainfall was equivalent to a flow of thirty cubic feet per second' per square mile. The total cost of erecting the five dams necessary to provide this control and prevent a recurrence of these floods is $300,000. Five hundred and seventy men would be employed for four months.
I endeavoured	to	make a	comparisonbetween what had been estimated at Fond du Lac and what should be done at four or five centres in Ontario. The government engineers in Wisconsin told me that these floods are bound to recur with greater frequency and greater volume because of the deforestation of	the	countryside.	Unlessmeasures are taken to prevent them, there will be considerable damage to the cities and the surrounding	countryside.	The	Moira
river flows through Belleville. Its watershed is 1,038 square miles. Applying the Fond du Lac basis of figuring to this river, we find that the flood volume of flow would be 6,650,000,000 cubic feet. During the last flood damage to a total of $300,000 was incurred in the city of Belleville. It would cost $1,500,000 to build the necessary storage dams, which would provide work for four months for 2.800 men.
Coming to the Ganaraska river, which flows through Port Hope, we find that the area concerned is 90 square miles. The volume of flood water would amount to 575,000,000 cubic feet. It would cost $130,000 to provide the necessary works, which would give employment to 250 men for four months. When one looks at the little bridge on the main street of Port Hope and observes that this tremendous flow of water must pass under it, he will realize what is bound to happen. Most of the business houses on the main street of Port Hope south of the St. Lawrence hotel were flooded' out. This is the type of work which should be carried on. It provides a maximum of employment and is much better than the pork-barrel stuff. Many small public buildings are being erected, but this type of work is governed largely by patronage.
I come next to the Grand river, flowing through Galt. The area of the watershed north of Galt is 1,360 square miles, and the flood volume of water 8,700,000,000 cubic feet. The cost of the necessary works would be $2,000,000, and employment would1 be provided1 for four months for 3,700 men. The Thames at London serves an area of 1,100 square miles. The flood flow would be seven billion cubic feet and the cost of the necessary works would be $1,600,000 to provide work for four months for 3,000 men. The Saugeen river at Port Elgin has a watershed of 1,565 square miles. The flood flow here is ten billion cubic feet. The cost of the necessary works would be $2,250,000 but employment would be provided for 4,000 men for four months.
Works of this kind would add millions to the national wealth of this country. I can see the minister presenting a proposition to the city of Belleville whereby this government would agree to advance $1,500,000 for the erection of necessary control works, the money to be returned on a thirty-year basis and paying such low rates of interest as the government could obtain. What a boon such a proposition would be to Belleville. They would know they would be saved from further disaster, and employment would be given to 2.800 of their unemployed for four months. These things are being done in the United States; why should we not do them?
I am sure the minister has the best of intentions but perhaps he has not sufficient background to permit him to grasp matters of this kind. I have no doubt that in time he will gather sufficient information and equip himself to accomplish these things, but I suggest to him that these are matters for engineers and business men. The minister should surround himself with a few township reeves

The Budget-Mr. MacNicol
and county engineers and men of that calibre, instead of those who know little or nothing about giving employment to unemployed men. I feel that the government is faced with a golden opportunity. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said last year, the time has come when the government must provide the money with which to go on with the necessary work. Millions would be added to the national wealth by what would be saved through the avoidance of disasters, and in the meantime perhaps a hundred thousand Canadians could be put to work.
I will conclude with this thought. If Canada to-morrow had to enter a war-which God forbid; I am one who believes that he who wants war should be the first to be put in the front line, so that he may get all that is coming to him before the real, honest, wholesouled men who are gathered from all over the country have to go-this government would quickly find a hundred million dollars; it would find five hundred million dollars if it had to. Let the minister put into action those fine principles which he has long taught to classes in the old university at Kingston. He has the opportunity; let him take hold of it and provide employment for the hundreds of thousands who are out of work in this country-I believe the minister admitted that they number around 400,000. There is nothing surer than that if something is not done for these men they will make their voices heard in no uncertain way, perhaps sooner than the government anticipates.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: I should like for a short time to address the house on the amendment. I realize that in this discussion a good deal of latitude has been allowed, but I intend to stick as rigidly as I can to the text. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) moved:
That all the words after the word "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets that the government has failed to take effective measures to deal with the problem of unemployment."
Most hon. members who have spoken have dealt with the budget rather than with the amendment. It is true that some hon. members opposite have made some reference to the amendment and have offered certain suggestions, but I think I am safe in saying that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) who has just sat down has contributed more in the way of suggestions touching the amendment than any other speaker of his party.

When at the end of the leader of the opposition's speech of three hours I heard
the amendment moved, I was astonished, but I assumed that he felt there was nothing else he wished to amend except unemployment, because the government had done so well with all the other measures brought down in the budget. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition appears to have been an afterthought, because I found on looking up Hansard that his speech covered forty-nine pages, or about ninety-eight columns, and that only five pages or at most eight and three quarter columns were devoted to the subject of the amendment. Of those five pages, the first column was occupied with a recital of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in 1935; one column gave figures of unemployment during and after 1931; five and a half columns were devoted to the names and salaries of employees of the National Employment Commission, and the remaining one and a half columns were devoted to the merits of his case. When the right hon. gentleman sat down, just on the stroke of six o'clock, I was astounded at the figures as presented by him. I thought that here was an instance where bureaucracy had gone mad, that this commission had engaged such a tremendous number of employees that I expected the newspapers next day to carry headlines something like this: "Tremendous reduction in unemployment in Canada owing to the vast number of employees taken on by the National Employment Commission." It was rather a shock to me, and I wondered what the truth of the matter might be. When, during the evening, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) gave some particulars with regard to the employment of these persons, it seemed to me remarkable that the leader of the opposition, a distinguished lawyer, accustomed to the analyzing of evidence, should go so far astray as to impute to the National Employment Commission responsibility for engaging all the employees that he named. If the Minister of Labour had done nothing more than make that explanation he would, I think, have demonstrated the futility of the amendment.
I do not like to use the tu quoque argument and to say, because we are accused of a certain thing, " you yourselves did the same thing," but the leader of the opposition invited that retort, because he said that he followed the example of the opposition of the day when he was leader of the government, when the opposition moved an amendment similar in form to the one he has now moved.

The Budget-Mr. Glen
I heard my genial friend the hon. member for Davenport speaking this afternoon of " extravagant futility " as being merely academic words, words used only by a college professor, but I would ask him, for he as well as any man knows the value of words, was there ever any more extravagant futility than the efforts made by the government of which he was a supporter from 1930 to 1935? When he takes this critical position with regard to all these projects, one wonders if the lessons of years have not even yet penetrated the Tory mind. For five years, animated by intentions the credit for which we are always ready to give them, the Tory government spent money for the relief of unemployment but missed entirely the essentials of the problem. To-day we find the same kind of arguments being used by the Tory protectionists, that only by providing public works and creating work through employment upon public undertakings can a solution be found. They have absolutely missed the essence of unemployment. It is extraordinary that the hon. member for Davenport should admit, as he did today, that unemployment is not a passing phase. Some of us would like to believe that it is, but a great many of us believe that the effects of unemployment can be considerably minimized by a proper direction of legislative policy.
The hon. member also spoke of the large sums expended in the United States, but it is conceded that they are not thereby curing unemployment. The last figures I saw showed that about 11,000,000 of their people were out of work. Will the hon. member assert that the president believes his administration is abolishing unemployment by these methods? Although great amounts have been spent, there is no apparent diminution in the numbers of unemployed.
Our Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) says frankly that the results of the efforts of the employment commission are not at this moment entirely satisfactory. No one is satisfied. But I think he has the right to take the position that this is not a mere passing phase; it is something that must necessarily involve a long period of education. I would recall to the house that during the five years the leader of the opposition was in power his government were asked to form a commission to deal with the question of unemployment, and it was stated at that time that such a commission would be appointed as soon as the Liberals regained power. They have done what they promised to do, and we are now invited to pass judgment upon what they have done.
There is no one in this house who is not willing and anxious to give the very best that is in him to cure the disease of the body economic to-day. I know that every member, whatever his party, is anxious to find a solution of it; but I wish to point out, and particularly to the members of the Conservative party, that the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite are bound to create unemployment. To-day in the old land there is a good, deal of employment. But how is it created? By something which I hope is only temporary, namely, the building up of armaments. In Germany to-day there is very little unemployment, and for the same reason, the building up of armaments; and in the United States there is also a large measure of employment created by the same agency. I am submitting that the results of that policy, as exemplified in Canada, are such that we have to address ourselves to solving the problem, and I say further that no commission dealing only with the question of unemployment can possibly solve iit unless they go further and deal with the causes of it.
I happened to notice in the Family Herald and Weekly Star of March 3, 1937, the comparative income taxes paid in Canada. The agrarians, representing 31-7 per cent of the population, paid in income tax $56,427; the merchants, $4,354,099; the manufacturers, $15,192,403; the financial people, $10,718,946. Here we see that the agrarians, 31-7 per cent of the population, pay $56,000 odd while the financial men pay $10,718,946. That is a disparity that is prevalent throughout the prairie part of the country, and I believe that to a large extent it is prevalent also in the maritimes. When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) speaks of the integrity of Canada he must realize, as every one of us does, that if any member of the body is maimed the health of the whole body is impaired to that extent, and with conditions as they are in the maritimes and in the prairies, what is the reason for the present situation in this growing period of prosperity which is indicated in the budget speech? I say you cannot and will not cure unemployment simply by building public undertakings; that is only a palliative which mu^t pass. You have to go further, and when this National Employment Commission is	functioningand it should have the right to function for some considerable time-it should deal with the disparities that prevail in the far eastern parts of the maritimes and in the
The Budget-Mr. Glen

middle west part of the prairies, which as we see it are not getting their share of the prosperity of Canada.
When the leader of the opposition was discussing the question, of unemployment, I thought it would be interesting to find out what results might have accrued from service performed by the employment commission in relation to the strikes that have taken place in Canada in, the last few years, including the time since this government have been in office. I got some figures from the Department of Labour showing the number of strikes and lockouts involving disorders, that have occurred from 1930 to 1936. Those in which riots or arrests and prosecutions occurred were reported; minor disturbances, with pickets and so on, were not included. I find that in 1930 there were five strikes and lockouts; in 1931, fifteen; in 1932, nineteen; in 1933, twenty-three; in 1934, thirty-eight; in 1935 the number began to decrease, there being only eighteen; and in 1936 there were thirteen.
I submit that if the commission has done nothing else to justify its existence, the figures I have quoted show that there has been less disorder in Canada since the Liberals took office and since this national commission has begun to operate; and I suggest that instead of doing that commission the disservice which the leader of the opposition did in his budget speech, we should all cooperate and give it every assistance. The commission should be given the confidence of parliament to go forward in a work which everyone is satisfied cannot be done in a day or a year. But apparently there is to be no cooperation from the leader of the opposition. I submit further that we have to dig and delve much deeper than the commission's functions at present allow.
The leader of the opposition said that one way of getting money was to soak the rich. I do not believe that any of us in this house is anxious to soak the rich, but some of us are really anxious to relieve the poor, and in this regard I would give a warning to the house. We in the west are sometimes met with cries of dissension and secession. Well, Abraham Lincoln once said that the union could not live half slave and half free, and I will go so far as to say that you cannot maintain this nation if you speak of it in terms of east and west. The unity of Canada depends upon that unity among us that is necessary for the survival of all. Those of us in the west who do know the circumstances believe that the agriculturists have not received their share of the plums that are given out in Canada, and when we hear the leader of the 
opposition making the protectionist argument again and referring to the woollen mills that may be affected by the budget, I must say that for my part it leaves me absolutely cold, because I realize that there are men in the west who are not only willing but are working and receive no pay. Moreover, I know that for a number of years past these industries have been receiving much more than they are entitled to in the way of protection. When they speak of the lack of employment, I answer that there is no unemployment on the farms of the west, nor I assume, is there any in the fisheries of the maritimes. Unfortunately, however, their returns do not make the work of these people worth while.
My plea to-day is this-and I will deal with the point further when we come to the main motion that in the endeavour to preserve the unity of Canada there must be some degree of regard for all parties. Surely the time has come, after the experience of high protectionist doctrines in the years from 1930 to 1935, when Canada should begin to try the effect of a policy of lower tariffs, and I believe that the Liberal party, following the present trend noticeable in the budgets of last year and this, is moving along lines that we in the west can support. We would like to hurry them along faster, but nevertheless we are satisfied that their direction is right. Only by dealing with the fundamentals of the economics of this country can unemployment be cured. There is only one way to cure unemployment, and that is by increasing work, and the only way you can increase work is by developing trade between nations.
I submit that the amendment proposed has no bearing on the budget speech. It was indeed a work of supererogation, and despite what was said by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) that every man in this house could support it, I am satisfied that the large majority realize that the amendment is offered as a slight embarrassment to the government and was not intended as seriously as it was offered. For the reasons I have given I intend to vote against it.


Mr. O. B. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: 
Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Before the hon. member takes his seat I should like to ask him whether the increases he quoted with regard to clothing had to do with retail prices or costs.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: Retail prices.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: In all cases?


Otto Buchanan Elliott: I visited a clothing store this morning and the manager told me that the general increase on men's clothing had been twenty per cent.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member was quoting
retail prices in all cases?


Otto Buchanan Elliott: Yes.


Mr. H. W. WINKLER (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a few of what I consider the most important reasons why I am going to support the government and vote against the amendment. I believe the return

The Budget-Mr. Winkler
of prosperity to this country has resulted in large measure from our trade relations with other countries, and further I believe the government has concluded with our best customer, Great Britain, a trade treaty that will facilitate the flow of trade in both directions. I consider it most important that trade should flow in both directions. It is conceded that if we are to sell abroad we must buy abroad, though this may not apply in all particulars to all commodities. In the case of nickel, for instance, we know that nowadays there is such a demand for that commodity that nations will take it at whatever price they have to pay, but with regard to raw materials generally we know that this dominion, producing such commodities in large amounts, must sell them in world markets, and the trade treaty that has been negotiated with Great Britain will increase our ability to sell abroad. As I have said, in return for selling we must buy and, as the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) pointed out this is perhaps one of the most important reasons for supporting the government at this time.
Rather than deal with the whole range of raw materials, the products of the forest, the sea, the mine and the farm, I shall content myself with discussing the products of the farm and in particular our most important commodity in the world market to-day, wheat.
With the consent of the house I should like to place on Hansard figures of wheat production and consumption in Canada for the years 1921-22 to 1935-36, inclusive, as supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics.


Frederick George Sanderson: If the hon. member wishes to place it on Hansard, he should read it.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I shall be glad to do so. The table is as follows:
Year	Production Consumption
1921-	22	
300,858,100	98,946,7761922-	23	
399,786,400	127,792,1041923-	24	
474,199,000	114,138,8621924-	25	
262,097,000	85,658,5331925-	26	
411,375,700	77,799,7511926-	27	
407,136,000	101,640,5951927-	28	
479,665,000	117,388.2391928-	29	
566,726,000	133,750,5451929-	30	
304,520,000	112,927,3911930-	31	
420,672,000	139,238,2831931-	32	
321,325,000	116,745.9261932-	33	
443,061,000	99,034,2961933-	34	
281,892,000	105,275,1971934-	35	
275,849,000	101,711,6791935-	36	
277,339,000	117,043,073
According to my own figures the average production in that fifteen year period
amounted to 378,558,680 bushels and the average consumption was 109,940,750. Subtracting the consumption from the production we arrive at an average exportable surplus in that period of 268,617,930 bushels. May I mention in passing that we would require a population in the neighbourhood of 38,000,000, rather than 11,000,000, to consume all the wheat we produce. If we had a population of
38.000.	000, our railway problem would probably be solved. Unfortunately this is not the case, and it is scarcely likely that many of us will live to an age when we will see so great a population in Canada. There is no doubt, however, that some time in the not too distant future it will reach that point.
With an exportable yearly surplus of over
268.000.	000 bushels in the fifteen year period, it is reasonable to expect that there will be about the same production in Canada for many years to come. That in itself presents a problem. I believe it is of the utmost importance that we should have been able to conclude a trade treaty with the mother country, with its possibilities of greater trade, we taking her goods in exchange for the commodities we may sell her. Undoubtedly the trade agreement will open wider markets.
May I add a word about secondary industry? Many hon. members from the east have suggested that in many instances secondary industry has been neglected or ignored, for the benefit of the west. It seems to me that when the economic history of Canada is written much will be said as to our industry being top-heavy and archaic. May I illustrate how an industry can thrive? In my constituency a new industry has grown up as the result of the ingenuity of a young mechanic. Most agricultural implement companies manufacture what is commonly known as a grain crusher or grinder. By a very simple invention the young man in question is able to produce in a rural community, where power costs are high but where overhead and labour are comparatively low, an article that he is able to put on the market to compete with implements of a similar kind produced by some of the large implement companies. I believe the heavy industries in the east must bear in mind that if sufficient ingenuity is brought into play they need not suffer as much as they would if, for instance, they had imposed upon them conditions such as those which obtained in the drought areas of western Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Railway Act Amendment

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) moved the second reading of Bill No. 20, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: I do not think it is necessary for me to take up much of the time of the house in explaining this bill. The bill itself is very simple. It proposes to amend one section of the Railway Act to provide that claims against the railways for damages caused by snow fences shall be taken before the board of railway commissioners instead of going through the ordinary courts. Section 20S of the act reads:
Every railway company may, on and after the first day of November, in each year, enter into and upon any lands of His Majesty or of any person lying along the route or line of the railway, and erect and maintain snow fences thereon, subject to the payment of such land damages, if any actually suffered, as are thereafter established, in the manner provided by law with respect to such railway.
2. Every snow fence so erected shall be removed on or before the first day of April then next following.
Up to the present time all disputes between the railway companies and individuals with respect to damages caused by snow fences have had to be taken before the ordinary courts. This generally involves considerable expense and delay, and it was thought better to have these cases come before the board of railway commissioners. There are no costs before this board, while the costs in the courts are sometimes quite heavy. Furthermore, cases brought before the railway board are generally decided more speedily. The board of railway commissioners might be termed a poor man's court, whereas the ordinary courts are sometimes luxuries which the ordinary farmer, especially in these years of depression, cannot afford.
Very often the claims agent of a railway company scares a farmer by mentioning the possible costs involved in an action. The claims agent may suggest a sum to a farmer in settlement and then intimate that if it is not accepted the farmer may sue; but the railway will take the case to the court of appeals, then to the supreme court and even to the privy council in England.
Mr. FINN:: You would have to get a fiat; you cannot sue the crown without a fiat.


Mr. BOULANGER:: I think you can sue the Canadian National Railways, and certainly you can sue the Canadian Pacific

Railway 'Company without first obtaining a fiat from the governor in council. In most cases the amount involved is not large enough to warrant going to the court of appeal, but the farmer may not know this. Quite often the farmer is scared at the possible costs if he takes his claim to court, and for this reason he sometimes settles for almost nothing. I d'o not blame the claims agents of the railways for doing this. Their business is to settle claims for as little as possible, but at the same time I feel the farmer should be given a chance.
At the present time most farmers have no money to go to court. Going to court is a very expensive business, especially in my province. I think it would be doing a great service for the farmers of this country if these cases were adjudicated by the board of railway commissioners instead of being sent through the ordinary channels of court litigation.
It would be quite easy for the railway board to decide these cases as there is very seldom any question of law involved. Speaking for the only province in which I have practised law, I can say that in Quebec the courts cannot award damages which have not yet been incurred. In other words, the courts can award only damages which have actually been incurred. They cannot award a farmer future damages from snow fences; he must wait until they have actually occurred. This means that the farmer must sue at least every two years as damage actions are barred after two years in the province of Quebec. It would be possible for the board of railway commissioners to fix annual damages in connection with the erection of snow fences, and thus obviate the necessity of going to court at frequent intervals.
The damages suffered by farmers located alongside railway lines have increased in recent years. In past years the railways employed ploughs and a different type of snow fence from that in use to-day. The old fence used to be a big, clumsy sawhorse affair which was erected in November, and which was soon covered with snow. It was only about seven or eight feet high and there was not a great deal of snow accumulated against the fence. But a different type of fence has come into use during the past few years. Posts from twelve to fifteen feet high are placed in the ground in the fall. Along these posts is strung a fence of slats, held together by wires. As soon as these slats are covered with snow they are pulled up on the posts to the top of the

Railway Act Amendment
snow, and this process is repeated until the snow has reached the top of the posts. This means that more snow is accumulated and greater damage is done.
I do not think it is necessary for me to give details how this damage occurs. Accumulations of fifteen or twenty feet of snow are not unusual in my section of the country, and this means that the farmer cannot use his land in the spring. This is especially true in my own parish where the railway lines run through many vegetable gardens, strawberry patches and potato fields. These are rendered almost unusable by the accumulation of snow. That snow takes a long time to melt. Sometimes at the beginning of June there is still snow on the ground where these accumulations have gathered during the winter. That prevents the farmer from using some of the most valuable land on his farm for the cultivation of vegetables or strawberries or potatoes. Every farmer knows, of course, that these things have to be planted early in the spring, and at the latest, by the middle of May. If the ground is covered with snow and ice, or with cold water, or if it is soggy, it cannot be used; and if it is not culti-vatable until June the farmer loses almost half of his crop. Potatoes planted in June do not produce as large a revenue as when they are planted in due season; everyone knows that.
For these reasons, for the purpose of providing a quick and inexpensive way of settling farmers' claims against railways due to the use of snow fences, I have presented this bill to amend the Railway Act, and I submit it to the kind consideration of the house.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the amending of the Railway Act is considered quite a serious matter. At the present time I have, I believe, some thirty submissions by railway organizations, each of them calling for an amendment to this act. I have pointed out to those organizations that, while some of the amendments they propose are non-contentious, they must await a general revision of the act. I believe that the last amendment was undertaken in 1917 and finished in 1919-nearly twenty years ago-and I think the act is due shortly for further revision.
There is another side to this particular bill, and that is that it changes the nature of the duties of the board of railway commissioners. Under the Railway Act provision is made for settlement by a method of arbitration for claims in respect of snow fences; that is. if the parties cannot agree, the local judge is brought
in as arbitrator. One appeal is allowed, namely to the judge of the superior court, unless the claim is for more than $5,000. In my opinion that is a fairly simple procedure.
This bill proposes a reference to the board of railway commissioners instead of to the local judge. This would mean, I assume, either that the litigants would have to travel to Ottawa to appear before the board, or a section of the board would have to travel to the locality to hear the case. It hardly seems to me that this would be cheaper than to resort to arbitration. A note from the chairman of the board of railway commissioners states that the board has always resisted any attempt to make it a court for the settlement of claims. He points out that the board is not constituted for work of that kind. He also mentions that in 1917, when the act was last revised, an attempt was made to impose upon it duties of this kind, and that the board resisted strongly and successfully having such work assigned to it.
I regret to have to oppose this bill. It could be sent to committee for further discussion, but as I should have to oppose it there, I think the proper time for me to voice my opposition is at the moment, and I therefore ask the house to reject this bill.


Robert Emmett Finn: I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Boulanger) who has been looking after fences in the province of Quebec. I listened also to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), and in my opinion his answer is not satisfactory. The board of railway commissioners may not be what all of us may think they should be, but nevertheless they are in office. It may be argued that to assign them somewhat trivial duties would not be advisable, and it is clear that this does not appeal to the Minister of Transport. There are many difficulties in reference to the railway situation in Canada. In the past some measure of fairness was meted out to the various provinces, but that principle seems to have gone into oblivion; it has receded into the dark ages. We in the maritime provinces. and particularly in the province from which I come, felt when we signed the pact of confederation that we were doing something against our will. Perhaps I should speak only for myself; other members from the maritimes are here and can speak for themselves. I am neither a leader nor a follower; I am one who loves to live and learn. I say to the Minister of Transport that, in my thought, his answer to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) was not satisfactory, and this bill should be adopted. I
Government Railways Act

regret very much that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not here on this
occasion.
When it comes to a question of damages, with all the intricacies involved in pursuing a claim, where is the farmer at? He is out in the cold icy snow of which the hon. member has just spoken. Is it to be supposed that the railway commission will be a saviour of all souls, bringing to this young Canada of ours the ideal of universal justice? I do not think the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) believes that. I see him there, his brow contracted., his hand over his face.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why pick on me?


Robert Emmett Finn: I believe he is sunk, not in iniquity, but in meditation on ideals which will make Canada a great nation.
I hope that the Minister of Transport will not impress his own views on all those around him, because if he does he will be in a whirlpool deep enough to drown him and them. What I have said comes from my heart. I love the right. Perhaps I should not be on this side of the house because I oppose the minister. I recall very well an hon. gentleman who sat on this side in 1923 and who crossed the floor and took the seat which the hon. leader of the reconstruction party occupies to-day. It was -said that the exprime minister was dogmatic, that he was a dictator. In some respects I do not agree with that. At any rate, I say to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) that if he is going to bring anything into this house and try to push it through he will make an awful mistake, because it cannot be done.


Malcolm McLean: As seconder of the motion, I do not think I need add much to what has already been said with regard to this bill. There are one or two arguments I should like to make but at the moment I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the Government Railways Act.
He said: I considered it necessary to amend not only the general Railway Act but also the Government Railways Act, because in the section of country from which I come, which is traversed by the old Intercolonial Railway, formerly owned by the government, we are not quite sure whether the dominion Railway Act or the Government Railways Act applies.

There is still some doubt in the minds of men better trained in the law than I am and for that reason I have proposed the amendment not only of the Railway Act but also of the Government Railways Act so as to cover the ground completely, leaving no loopholes. I am interested in having claims against the old Intercolonial Railway settled to the advantage of my constituents. I hope, if it is not hoping too much, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) will change his attitude. What I am asking is very little; it would add hardly anything to the duties of the board of railway commissioners, and would do the farmers a great deal of good. We have always claimed that our party stands for the poor people.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Not now.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I am trying to give the government a chance to prove this by fighting the fight of the poor farmer against the big railway companies. The board of railway commissioners travels throughout the country at the present time, and these amendments would not necessitate their travelling any more. There is therefore no argument from that standpoint. They have to travel all over Canada to hear cases that come within their jurisdiction, and if we gave them jurisdiction to try these small damage actions it would not oblige them to do any more travelling nor would it give them any more work to do than they are doing to-day, while it would help the farmers and give them a chance to have claims settled against the railways in an equitable and inexpensive way. In spite of what the minister has said, I submit that these bills will serve a good purpose and should be passed.
On motion of Mr. McLean (Melfort) the debate was adjourned.



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, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett.
Hon. J. E. LAWSON (York South):: I
trust that the other members of this house who have spoken in this debate in support of the government will not consider me invidious if I select for some attention, two of

The Budget-Mr. Lawson
the speeches delivered, one, that of the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) and the other, that of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). The speech of the former was indeed entertaining and euphonious, and that of the latter a beautiful example of sophistry, yet naive. The hon. member for Huron North started off by telling us that he was a great reader of fiction, particularly of detective stories. I had always suspected that, sir, because in every campaign when I came across that consumer pamphlet of the Liberal party, of which the hon. gentleman is alleged to be the putative father, I thought he must have dwelt in the realm of fiction.
After listening to the Minister of Labour I came to the conclusion that he had probably been infected by the hon. member for Huron North and had also become a great reader of fiction. I shall return to the minister in a moment, however. The member for Huron North, referring to the speech of the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bennett) and his amendment said of him:
He did not perish unless a return to this house, surrounded by a rather diminished band of sometimes mute and somewhat inglorious Miltons, constitutes the act of perishing.
I admit that on many occasions those of us who sit in the Conservative group are mute; it gives us some time for thought; and as we do not have to stand in the glaring light of a self-appointed protector of the consumers of this country we have some little time for reflection. And our time for thought and reflection has thoroughly satisfied us that, at least so far as we are concerned, we cannot accept the proposal of the hon. gentleman from Huron North as a solution of the unemployment problem. In a word or two the hon. gentleman says that what we need in order to solve the problem is a reduction in the cost of manufactured or industrial commodities, and he goes on to propose that industry should be moved out to the small towns in order that cheaper production may be attained. Well, for many years prior to
1932	it has been contended by free traders that the secret of prosperity was low commodity prices. But from my reading, and as a result of our experiences in the depression years 1930 to 1932 or 1933, I think that by
1933 most of the economists even were in agreement that lo- prices were not a solution of the problem; that in fact what was needed was higher prices and not lower prices. Possibly, however, the Minister of Labour might desire to relegate the economists to the realm of fiction.
The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) told of having propounded' a question to a shoe merchant in a town in his riding, which the poor unfortunate shoe merchant, apparently being one of those mute and somewhat inglorious Miltons, was not able to answer. But we are not all shoe merchants. However, the hon. gentleman used1 the illustration that the shoe merchant in this town was a man who many years ago had been the shoemaker who made the shoes with his hands and sold- them himself. And my hon. friend from Huron North cannot understand why, now that we have modern machinery to make shoes, he still has to pay the same price or a higher price for shoes than when the shoemaker made them by hand. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will accompany me for a few minutes in the sphere of realism instead of the realm of fiction I shall make one or two suggestions for his consideration.
When the shoe merchant was a shoemaker we had an entirely different standard, of living. In that dlay even the shoemaker's children went to school in their bare feet, in order to save shoes and stockings, as did most of the other children.


Robert Emmett Finn: Where?


James Earl Lawson: In the small towns and in that constituency.


Robert Emmett Finn: Not in Halifax. Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman to name the constituency or constituencies in Canada where these conditions exist.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


James Earl Lawson: I think I had better choose another occasion, having regard1 to all the circumstances, to deal with my hon. friend's question. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, if you will be good enough to take care of the hon. memberT shall try to take care of myself.


Robert Emmett Finn: The hon. gentleman is attempting to give a second edition of his story to the public, and I ask that he retract those last words of his, because he is out of order.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. No hon. member has the right to interrupt another member when he is speaking.


James Earl Lawson: I was in me course of outlining some factors which enter into the cost of shoes to-day. I named one. Secondly, in the days when the shoe merchant of today was the shoemaker of yesterday, the shoemaker's wife probably got one new dress a year. To-day the shoe merchant's wife probably gets three or four or five or six new
The Budget-Mr. Lawson

dresses a year. In the days when the shoe merchant was a shoemaker there were no radios, and the shoemaker probably would never have purchased one if there were, whereas to-day they are owned as a necessity, not a luxury, by all workers in the shoe factories that make the shoes which are sold by the shoe merchant. In fact, the shoe merchant of to-day probably never dreamed in the days when he was a shoemaker of owning even a horse and buggy, much less the automobile in which to-day he travels, nor did he dream of having even a secondt-hand Ford such as is possessed by a great majority of the workers in the shoe factories of this country to-day. What does that mean? It simply means that you cannot compare the standard of living of thirty or forty years ago with the standard of living to-day. If the hon. member for Huron North had wanted to put a reasonable proposition to the shoe merchant he might have asked him why it is that a shoe made to-day in a Canadian factory by Canadian workmen with this modern machinery is sold for less money than a shoe made by hand1 to-day as a custom made shoe. Subject to adjustments which undoubtedly should be made in certain industries, never let us forget that we cannot lower costs without lowering wages, and you cannot lower wages without creating more unemployment.
That in turn gives me a thought that I should like to suggest to the Minister of Labour and to this house for consideration. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had something to say on this score during the last election campaign. In speaking at Vancouver on September 30, 1935, according to the reports in the newspapers, the right hon. gentleman set out ten points of the policy of the Liberal party. It will be noted that when the leader of the Conservative party sets out a policy he is always confronted with it as a promise, and then accused of breaking his promises. Let me suggest one point to the Minister of Labour; No. 5 set out by the present Prime Minister in Vancouver was, the democratization of industry by giving labour equal rights with capital in forming industrial policy. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour to tell us to-night what has been done towards implementing that promise and that policy. I suggest to you, sir, and to this house, that if the Minister of Labour had exercised as much effort in accomplishing the purpose declared by his leader as he has in fussing about with his employment commission he probably would have contributed a great deal more to the solution of this country's unemployment problem.

The hon. member for Huron North, again in his speech said concerning the leader of the opposition:
Unemployment gave him his greatest victory, unemployment led to his defeat, and I think it must have been for him a supreme pleasure that he was able to return to this house and review the army of the unemployed which he and his party did so much to create.
Well sir, there may be those who disagree with the policy pursued by the Conservative party during the time they were in power for the solution of the unemployment problem. Undoubtedly there are those who will say that we did not entirely succeed. But I suggest that there are few who would accuse the Conservative party of creating the unemployment problem, having regard to the conditions prevailing in this country when we came into power, and having regard to the economic upheaval which swept the whole world at that time. The hon. member says the leader of the opposition came back to review the army of the unemployed; I should like to suggest that if the employment commission in this country appoints as many more appointees by order in council in the next nine months as it has in the last nine months, the hon. member for Huron North in his field of fiction will have the Minister of Labour going out in the uniform of a little colonel to review that army of employees of the employment commission and to accept the salute from those loyal Liberals who obtained jobs through that medium.
Now I come to the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), who dwelt at great length on the cooperation that existed between this government and the employment commission, and the cooperation this government was receiving from the provinces and municipalities. Well, sir, that language had a familiar ring, so I looked up some of the election speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Sure enough I found that on August 6. 1935, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen the Prime Minister said:
Nationwide cooperation under a national commission in the twin tasks of administering relief and providing work for the unemployed is the policy of the Liberal party on the unemployment question.
Then, a little later, he said:
A program of useful relief works, including slum clearance . . . public buildings, highways, level crossing elimination, preservation of historic sites and other projects was envisioned by the Liberal leader as an outlet for the energies of unemployed Canadians-
Well, Mr. Speaker, where are they all?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: To the
right of Mr. Speaker.

The Budget-Mr. Lawson


Richard Bedford Bennett: The unemployed?


James Earl Lawson: Oh, no; those to the right of the Speaker are employed. It seems to me that this session we had some hon. members of this house propose that something should be done in the way of slum clearance. The Prime Minister promised it, but have we had any legislation? Will someone please tell me what great highways have been constructed or contributed to by this government since they have been in power, in order to create employment? It seems to me that in my own province of Ontario either the minister of highways or the minister in charge of northern development has complained very bitterly in public speeches that he cannot get cooperation and assistance from this government in the matter of the construction of highways. Then there is the question of cooperation on the part of the provinces. Has this government had any cooperation from the province of Ontario with respect to the development of the St. Lawrence waterways, a project that would create an enormous amount of employment? If I can believe what I read in the daily press, the Liberal premier of Ontario not long ago loudly declaimed against this development, and I saw recently that the Prime Minister of Canada had gone to see him in order to try to assuage his feelings. That is cooperation with the provinces!
What cooperation has there been with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, other than to provide them with money with which to pay their debts? What cooperation has there been with the municipalities? Only within the last two or three weeks a delegation representing the city of Toronto, one of the two great metropolitan centres of this country, came to Ottawa seeking cooperation in the expenditure of $400,000 for an airport in order to help establish that trans-Canada air line which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) contemplates, and to create employment. If I mistake not, the answer they received here was "'Oh, we may join you, but you must get the cooperation of the province of Ontario." Then they went back to Toronto and interviewed the government of the province of Ontario, where they were informed, "Oh, we might assist you, but you must get the cooperation of the dominion government." Well, Mr. Speaker, these are both Liberal governments; these are the governments to which the Prime Minister referred during the election campaign, by means of which we were going to have a maximum of cooperation throughout this country. Yet to-day we face the fact that one of the two 31111-97
largest cities of Canada has in the estimates, the supplementary estimates and the special grants, a grand total of approximately $25,000 to create employment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may interrupt the hon. member for just a moment I should like to say that the information he has given the house with regard to the answer on the part of this government concerning the airport is entirely incorrect.


James Earl Lawson: I can only say that I was present with the delegation when it was in Ottawa, and the Minister of Transport was not there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the delegation interviewed me, and on that occasion I gave them a very definite answer in regard to the airport. The hon. member was not with the delegation.


James Earl Lawson: I accept the statement of the Minister of Transport. My good friend the dean of the Toronto members, who sits behind me, informs me that the delegation, consisting of the mayor and two members of the board of control, were badgered about the first day andi apparently did not get to see the proper authorities. On the second day they did see the minister, and I confess that I was not there. But may I say this? If they did see the Minister of Transport, if the information I gave the house was not correct, may we have some evidence from this government before this session is over that money will be provided in order that this work may be carried on andl employment afforded some of the unemployed in that great city?
We are told by the Minister of Labour that all we do is criticize, and he wants some concrete suggestions. Well, I am going to try to give him one or two, though I hope they will not be of such solid concrete that he will not be able to see through them. Why not let us get a little cooperation from the provinces in order to enact those measures of social legislation which are so badly needed and which would provide employment in this country? How well I remember the present Prime Minister going up and, down this country during the last campaign appealing to the people to elect a Liberal government in Canada. In effect he said, "We have Liberal governments in almost all the provinces now, and if you elect us to power at Ottawa we will be one big family. We will all be able to get together and agree." Apparently a tremendous number of electors took him at his word. After he came to power he did call a conference; representatives of the provincial governments

The Budget-Mr. Lawson

did come to Ottawa and they did agree, but to what? They agreed to get rid of all this social legislation by hoisting it over to the courts for opinions on hypothetical questions, instead of waiting for a concrete case that could be decided on the facts. As a result of the decision of the court it has been determined that the provinces have the power to enact legislation dealing with minimum wages and maximum hours of labour, measures which I am confident even the Minister of Labour will agree would create a great deal of employment in this country if put into force. Why not seek the cooperation of the provinces with Liberal governments, and have them enact uniform legislation in respect of these social measures? Or, in the alternative, why not get all their Liberal friends to put their feet un^er the table and agree to turn over to this national parliament the power to enact those measures, and deal with them by amending the British North America Act? That is one concrete suggestion which I think wili make m-ore jobs.
I fear, Mr. Speaker, that the true policy of the Liberal party was best expressed by the frank speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) in which he pointed out that in his opinion there is just one way to solve the problem, and that is to get more trade. If you get enough trade, no matter where you get it from or what price you pay for it, you will solve your employment problem. Well, that is the true Liberal policy.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: A good policy.


James Earl Lawson: But how the Prime Minister has changed his tune in respect of trade, since the last election! Speaking at Victoria during the campaign he said:
"Recent increases in trade between Canada and Great Britain were not due to the Ottawa trade agreements, as Prime Minister Bennett claimed, Liberal leader Mackenzie King said here last night. They were due to a general increase in world trade, and to a slight relaxation by Mr. Bennett of the trade restrictions he, himself, had imposed." The Ottawa agreements were a mistake, Mr. King believed, because they "pegged" the intermediate tariff for a fixed term of years, and thus prevented concessions to other countries.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Ottawa agreements were a mistake, then the present Prime Minister I fear has blundered terribly in running over at the first opportunity to renew them. A mistake because the intermediate tariff was pegged for a term of years? Well, Mr. Speaker, by a backhand method it is just as much pegged under the new arrangement as it was under the former, with the

exception of 129 items; and the only difference in terms is that instead of it being pegged for five years, it is pegged for three years. The empire trade agreements were a mistake? The policy of the Liberal party is that trade is the solution of the employment problem? and yet, Mr. Speaker, under that very agreement Canada's trade increased by $300,000,000 between 1932 and 1936.
The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) says he wants to solve the problem by increasing the purchasing power of the farmers. May I make him a suggestion in that regard? His leader made a speech during the last campaign in which he dealt with farmers. Shall I recall what he said? I read a Canadian press dispatch appearing in the Montreal Star of October 1, 1935, in which the utterances of the Prime Minister at Calgary, speaking to the wheat growers, were reported as follows:
Farmers were just as much entitled to fixed prices for their products as labour was for fixed minimum wages.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


James Earl Lawson: The press item continues:
Mr. King said he believed in fixing these levels for the purpose of maintaining standards of living.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and their colleagues certainly fixed the wheat growers' prices, after they assumed office, and they certainly fixed them well.


Mr. GARDINER:: Thirty-three cents up.


James Earl Lawson: He fixed the prices for the wheat growers by taking away from them their participation certificates, so that they had to sell their wheat at a lower price, although it was passed out later at a much higher price by the grain speculators of western Canada. If the hon. member for Huron North wants to increase the purchasing power of Canadian farmers, then I say the wheat growers of western Canada would have had a mighty sweet increase if they had received one-half of the money made by the grain speculators under the participating certificates.
The Minister of Labour wants concrete suggestions to create employment; I shall make one or two. If you want to create jobs, give the grain growers a fair share of the ultimate price of their wheat. If you want to create jobs, give to industry a reasonable measure of protection, so that Canadian industry may have equal opportunities in competing in the home market. If you want to create jobs, then call together your friends in the provincial governments, and agree as to maximum hours and minimum wages for labour. If

The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
these things are done the minister will make a much greater contribution towards solving the unemployment problem than he will by setting up an employment commission.
For these reasons I propose to support the amendment.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the budget and the amendment. As I study it, I am more than ever convinced that I shall support the amendment moved by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). As one examines casually the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) it would seem that there has been an endeavour to better conditions, but when one scrutinizes his oration a little more closely, he is compelled to change his mind somewhat. I believe in the dire circumstances in which we find ourselves something greater than endeavours are necessary to alleviate conditions in which due to the depression our people find themselves to-day.
One thing upon which I should like to commend the government is the subvention on coal. If there is one thing which will assist the country I believe it is the furtherance of interprovincial trade. Alberta, from which I come, and concerning which I am more qualified to speak, is one of the greatest coal producing sections of Canada. She needs assistance to enable her to produce and deliver her coal to the east, and to compete with the provinces with which she must compete in the industry. I would go further and say that greater assistance should be given to the coal industry, not to the detriment of the eastern coal producing provinces, but to the advantage of all the provinces concerned.
I am sorry indeed to note that millions of tons of coal are shipped in from Pennsylvania, great quantities from Wales and, as was pointed out the other day, even from Germany. I do not believe it is proper to permit coal to come in from foreign countries, particularly when we are faced with an unemployment problem. The coal is permitted to come in and to compete with coal produced in our own provinces.
I do not believe tariffs will solve our difficulties. In my opinion it does not make much difference whether tariffs are high or low, so long as we do not protect the home market for our own people. Subventions, which the government is continuing, have been recommended by the party in this section of the house to which I belong. We call it a price discount; but no matter what it may be called, the principle remains the same. I believe that any industry should be assisted by bonuses or subventions if it can prove conclusively that 311X1-974
it is in need of assistance. Under such circumstances proper assistance should be given to it.
I should like now to refer to page 1213 of Hansard where the minister refers to the wheat situation in the following language:
With regard to wheat, the 193<i yield was about 52-7 million bushels below that of 1935, and was the smallest crop since 1919. Drought conditions again played havoc in certain areas, destroying crops completely in some districts and reducing to meagre levels the yield in others. In spite of the smaller 1936 yield, however, the value of this crop was substantially above the value of the 1935 crop due to greatly enhanced prices, which are again reaching levels which promise more profitable and stable conditions for the western farmer.
I am glad he put in the words, "which promise." I admit that there is some degree of correctness in that statement, but from the farmer's standpoint it is absolutely untrue. The farmers of western Canada have been living on promises so long that they will not be able to carry on much longer. There is an impression among certain members of this house, as well as throughout eastern Canada, that the western farmer has benefited greatly by the rise in the price of wheat. Those of us who live in the west know only too well that the farmer never receives the top price for his wheat. His financial condition generally forces him to sell his wheat in the fall when the price is at the lowest point. It is not he who makes the profit out of the wheat, it is men, such as the one referred to the other day by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who make profits of half a million dollars out of wheat operations.


James Garfield Gardiner: Can the member tell me who is that individual who made half a million dollars?


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not believe the man's name was mentioned, and I think it was proper that it was not.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does the hon. member think it is fair to make a statement of that kind and thus imply that any one of the many grain dealers in Canada might have made a profit of that amount?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the hon. gentleman is quite correct. There are many others who have made tremendous profits. When you consider the price at which the average western farmer was forced to market his wheat and the price at which it sold on the world market, you can realize the tremendous fortunes which have been made.
1538	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it not true that the wheat pool handled 47 per cent of the wheat, and that the pool is organized by the farmers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has that to do
with it?


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not know whether that is true of this year, but I do know that the farmers of the west never made any huge profits out of wheat. As has just been suggested to me, the wheat pool is not operating this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It operates as a line company.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not operating as a wheat pool, but they are buying grain the same as any other grain company. The elevators are owned by the farmers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are owned by the pool.


Charles Edward Johnston: As I said before, because of financial difficulties caused by the orthodox system under which we work, the farmer is compelled to sell his wheat in the early fall and he does not get the top price. It is the speculator working through the grain exchange who buys at the low figure and sells at $1.30 a bushel. Had these farmers been given participation certificates they could have shared in the profits made. The farmers would have been in a much better position, and such a step would have gone a long way towards solving our unemployment problem. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) pointed out quite clearly that the farmers have not been getting a sufficient share of the profit. At page 1213 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
Since that time, however, prices have greatly improved, particularly in the past year, and by the end of 193C this index had moved up to 32-4 of the 1926 level. While prices of things which the farmer sells have been moving upward, there has been relatively little change in the prices of things which he buys. In fact, taking 1926 prices as equal to 100, we find the retail price index in December, 1936, standing at 81-8, while, as noted above, prices of agricultural products had reached the 82.4 level after a rapid rise in the last few months of the year. At the end of 1936, therefore, the farmer's relative position, as far as prices were concerned, was slightly better than in 1926. Wide disparity between prices of primary and finished products is perhaps the most significant feature of what we call a depression, and it is greatly to be hoped that this approximate parity between agricultural and other prices can be maintained.
It certainly is greatly to be hoped that this approximate parity between agricultural and other prices can be maintained. These figures show that the position of the farmer in 1936 is approximately 20 per cent below what it

was in 1926. How do you expect the farmers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to meet their present obligations when they must produce approximately 20 per cent more to meet those obligations? Had the government been a little more considerate and permitted the farmers to have these participation certificates, the farmers would have been much better off. This is one more instance of how the west has been discriminated against. There certainly has been an increase in business, but I would not say that has benefited the western farmer.
There is one other question I should like to deal with before I sit down. This is something of which we have heard a great deal in this house, but it is always referred to very guardedly. I have in mind the financial position of certain of the western provinces. I do not mean to be sarcastic when I say that this question is treated much too lightly; it is more serious than many of us realize, and the results may be more disastrous than we expect. During the last two or three weeks I have received many letters protesting against what is considered the discriminatory attitude of this government towards the west. I should like to read one letter which I received only to-day, and which is a sample of the many I have received lately. This will give the house some idea of what the people in western Canada are thinking. I might mention that I have received letters from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia as well as from Alberta. The following was received from Alberta:
At a regular meeting held by the above group, the following resolution was made and carried:
"'That this group go on record protesting the obvious discrimination shown by the federal government against Alberta in regards to financial and relief matters."
I do not think there is any doubt, at least in the minds of many people in the western provinces, that there has been discrimination shown by this government.
If this idea prevails widely, it may result in very grave consequences. In regard to this particular question I wish to quote from Hansard, page 1214:
It is unfortunately true, however, that the financial position of several of our provincial governments is such that they are unable to take advantage of prevailing low interest rates in order either to reduce their fixed charges by refunding outstanding debt or to obtain new funds for relief or other expenditures. Despite drastic efforts to reduce expenditures and increase taxes, and despite a long record of honourable dealing


The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
I hope that remark was made in all seriousness, and I believe it was.
-with their creditors, they have been unable either to balance their budgets or to have recourse to the investment market for the funds necessary to meet their commitments.
This is- a problem to which the government has given the most serious and unremitting attention since the day it assumed office. I need not recount the efforts which were made last year to find a solution. The plan then evolved which would have made low rates available to the provinces as a result of dominion assistance under appropriate safeguards, proved unacceptable in several quarters. The acute stage which the problem has reached in Manitoba and Saskatchewan during the recent past_ led the government to make the decision which was announced by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the house last week.
The question is being asked, and I think rightly, why is Alberta being discriminated against? Manitoba and Saskatchewan were assisted by this government, but Alberta was not.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: The question that arises in the minds-


Robert Emmett Finn: The hon. member cannot introduce into debate something that has been said in a previous session. That is the reason for my remark.


Charles Edward Johnston: Alberta was forced


Robert Emmett Finn: Was it something he said this year or last year?


Charles Edward Johnston: The fact that the other two provinces were not permitted to default-


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member must say whether he is quoting from a speech of the Prime Minister last year or this year.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the hon. member be requested to refrain from interrupting.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I draw the attention of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) to the fact that when a member is attending a sitting of the house he must not talk loudly and he must not interrupt any member who has the floor by disorderly noises or in any other manner. I do not think there is any point of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: The fact that the other two western provinces were assisted would lead people to believe that Alberta was discriminated against. Whether
intentionally or not is not the point at issue. But I think it is quite obvious that that is one of the circumstances which have led the people to believe that there was gross discrimination. A moment ago I read one of the many resolutions in that regard that I have received. Not only are the people as individuals in the three prairie provinces, and1 in British Columbia also, discussing this question, but the press is taking it up. The other day I cut out an article in a western paper, the Calgary Albertan of Saturday, February 20, 1937, entitled, very appropriately, An Ace in the Hole:
The great oil resources of this province have proved to be Alberta's ace in the hole. For the benefit of the uninformed it may be explained that an ace in the hole is an unexpos-ed playing card of that rank which, in a stud poker game, often comes in handy. Recent developments in Turner Valley should convince all people that if there is one part of Canada which has the assets on -which credit may be properly and safely founded that place is Alberta.
Neither the scolding nor the sophistries of the financial spokesmen, journalistic and otherwise, can obscure that fact. There is no doubt that at the time Alberta requested aid from the dominion government for the purpose o' paying interest and avoiding default this province was entitled to assistance both as a matter of business and as a matter of equity.
I should like to emphasize that-"as a matter of business and as a matter of equity."
It could not and cannot be seriously asserted that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba are entitled to better -treatment than Alberta from the standpoint of possession of assets. These are the firmest bases for credit.
But someone is sure to say that Alberta has been discriminated against because of its Social Credit government. That is doubtless stating the true situation. But it only makes the discrimination more shockingly unjust. If a government is to be penalized because it is engaged in an earnest and honest endeavour-
And in -the minister's budget speech he said they had made an honest attempt:
-to restore hope and prosperity to Alberta, then it is none too soon to let all men know it'.
It is refreshing to note that Right Honourable R. B. Bennett has publicly stated that Alberta has been discriminated against. The Albertan may not agree with all or many of Mr. Bennett's ideas, but we hasten to admit that on more than one occasion it has been constrained to admire his trong sense of justice. It cannot be said that Mr. Bennett is a Social Crediter, or at least he has not yet indicated it. But he objects, as many others do, to Alberta receiving unfair treatment because it turned out a government of which it was thoroughly weary and supplanted it overwhelmingly with a new one.
All Albertans believe that Alberta should have fair play.
That is all they ask, Mr. Speaker, that Alberta be fairly treated; and the people are determined that they shall get at least justice.
1540	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
From the point of view of the assets of the province of Alberta there should be no doubt in the mind of anyone that that province should be given greater assistance than any other in the dominion. Alberta is one of the leading wheat producing provinces, one of the leading coal producing provinces, and the dominion's leading oil producing province; I will go further, and say that her actual and potential oil production is the greatest in the British Empire. That asset alone in time of war, as to which we are all so greatly concerned, should make it important to every member of parliament and every Canadian citizen that assistance be given for the development of that industry. I am told by very well informed men that financial institutions in eastern Canada are seriously hindering or endeavouring to hinder its progress.
Some may say that it is because Alberta has a Social Credit government; in fact some hon. members have already said so. I refer hon. members to page 985 of Hansard, to a statement made by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). For the sake of continuity I will read the preceding paragraph:
Mr. Bennett:	If the hon. gentleman will
permit me, that statement happens to be inaccurate-although I am bound to accept it-Alberta was driven to default, and people holding its bonds have in some cases been practically ruined because of the inability of that province to pay. The Minister of Finance would not help Alberta although it asked for help, and now the other two provinces are to be helped.
Then the hon. member for North Battleford said:
In answer to the statement made by the leader of the opposition I would say that if Alberta is seeing evil days financially and industrially the fault does not lie _ with the dominion government, the finance minister, or the Prime Minister of this country. It lies very largely with Alberta, headed by the government existing in that province at the present time.
That is the impression which is being given. We in Canada take pride in our democracy; our government is elected by the people. I say, therefore, that any dominion government that discriminates against a particular province because of its government, a government elected by the people of that province, takes an altogether wrong attitude, and the people of the west are resenting it most strenuously. Surely the time has come for us to take a broader view of things than the view which this government has taken of the situation in Alberta. When hon. members get up and defend the attitude of the government it is time for us to consider the question seriously. The people of Alberta elected their government by an overwhelming majority, one of the largest

in history. They were not to blame for the debt that was created by other governments. I do not necessarily suggest that the other governments created that debt intentionally; nevertheless that was the condition of the province when they were in power. The present government of Alberta was elected by the people to help them and that is what that government is doing, and the people of that province are more determined than ever, and justly so, to see that they get fair play.
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : I desire at this time to make a few general observations on the amendment before the house. First may I refer in part to a statement I made last year when I opposed the appointment of the National Employment Commission. I opposed it then and I still oppose it in principle to-day, especially when its accomplishments have been reviewed and the matter has been fully considered. In part I said at that time: We have a bill before us which has for its purpose the setting up of a national employment commission. What purpose can be served when we consider the dire necessity that faces many of our Canadian citizens? What is this commission to do? Is it to review the statistics already compiled by one authority or another, or is it just another way of spending money to no good purpose?
My claim was that the urgent need of the day was to protect the lives and ideals of our Canadian people. That need is even greater to-day than it was at that time. The generation of young voters that has come into being, those who voted in 1935, are still talking about the conspicuous posters that were emblazoned across Canada, and I frequently hear them referring to one in particular. It has often been referred to in this house, the one we were all particularly interested in, which predicted the beneficial effects that would come from voting for the Liberal party-"Vote Liberal and End Unemployment."	.
It has often been said here that unemployment is a question of paramount importance; that has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister and every member of the house. Challenges have been made to the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King), and when I pointed out last year what the government had promised, hon. members across the floor said "hear, hear" and declared that the promise that had been made would be carried out. I ask now, to what extent has that promise been fulfilled? Someone may say at once, "Has there not been an increase

The Budget-Mr. Lockhart
in the number of those absorbed into industry?" Very true; I agree that there has been, but it has been only to a very small extent. I am quite sure the statistics will bear out that statement. We find, however, that as a whole throughout Canada unemployment has increased by approximately 100,000.
Let us turn to the increase in trade with Great Britain since 1932. That was a definite accomplishment of the late government, and a statement of this remarkable increase has already been placed on Hansard. Every newspaper in the country has been lauding the efforts and accomplishments of the late government and there is no need to repeat it here. Our home markets were preserved and with slowly improving world conditions-Canada was enjoying her full measure of that prosperity, perhaps even greater than any other nation in proportion to population. To-day, however, young Canadians are asking all the time when they may expect a fuller measure of the benefits from that growth of trade. But, I repeat, unemployment is on the increase. These young Canadians, young voters of whom I have spoken, continue to point to the subsidies that are being given by the government to steamship companies, railways, western farmers, and in many other directions. Many of them are very worthy, but the younger generation can scarcely understand the vast subsidies that are being given, and they ask, and rightly so, "When are the wage earners to be given their just share and to find a greater demand for their labours?" Surely this is a pertinent question to-day when we are spending millions in various ways. There is apparently a tendency to spend money easily and that is something that perplexes the youth of 1937.
It has been pointed out clearly in this house that after the western farmer has been aided in the purchase of fine seed grain, and in many other ways, he has been deprived of his rightful share of the increasing profits from the wheat he has grown. This government has so manipulated the sale of the farmer's wheat that he has never realized on the increased prices paid in foreign markets, these profits having found their way into the pockets of private speculators. That statement also is spread on Hansard in detail, and I do not intend to enlarge upon it. At any rate I do not hear from hon. members any contradiction of the statement that on the whole the struggling farmer was sold out, whereas we do hear a good deal about the private interests. In all the newspapers, both from the west and from the east,
we are told how the farmers' wheat was sold at a sacrifice, the profits going into other private pockets, through what might be called illegitimate channels.
Is that a good way to get the confidence of the Canadian people, and particularly the younger generation, who are perturbed in many ways and wondering what this is all about? Is it not playing into the hands of the disturbing influences that we have heard so much about and the many elements which we are told1 are undermining the very democracy of which we are proud. Is it not undermining the ideals and ambitions of our young Canada? Only this week I received a strong protest from a young Canadian farmer in Saskatchewan who was formerly in my employ. I quote this as an illustration of how this may work out in practice.
He was a keen and ambitious young man; he served overseas for four years and was one of the few who came back unmarked. He decided! to take up a quarter section in Saskatchewan, of land allotted to returned1 soldiers who qualified. He pioneered, as those we have heard so much about in the early days. I have often heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) speak of the pioneer days of the west. This young man went through similar experiences. He lived in a shack built by his own hands; for several years he laboured early and late; he saved his money, bought more land, and built himself a small comfortable farmer's home. He married1 and has a small family. Along with thousands more he was obliged to sacrifice his wheat, which went into the hands of private speculators who, assisted by the present government, were in a position to capitalize on the farmer's necessities. He did not realize enough from, his grain to keep solvent, and this week I have received a letter saying that he has given up in despair and intends to move as soon as he can gather his few belongings together, to the United States and start anew. Another good Canadian gone, broken in spirit. Is it any wonder he writes in bitter condemnation of being sold out and his just earnings diverted into private hands? It takes a lot of courage and conviction for a young man to retain his morale after going through such an experience and coming out at the short end.
I think this whole position was very clearly dealt with by the leader of the opposition, and I have not heard anyone contradict the statements he made in moving his amendment. People talk of immigration, when we blot out the lives almost of Canadians who have pioneered and who have a right to a place in Canadian life. I lay such instances at the door of the present government, and I
The Budget-Mr. Lockhart

venture to say that many hon. members could testify to experiences of that kind. There is surely a day of reckoning coming, if we deal with young Canadian life in that manner.
I again remind the government that unemployment is the paramount question of the day. We hear rumours of relief camps being again established1. Surely with improving conditions we are not going back to the distress of those former days! Surely two years of study of unemployment by duplicating statistical departments should have convinced any government by this time that the amount of money already spent by the National Employment Commission is spent to no advantage. It provides merely a duplication of statistical records. Our young Canadian manhood and womanhood are sick and tired of statistics. Their whole cry is that they want work, and more work, pay envelopes and more pay envelopes. No wonder they are cynical when they discuss the present home improvement plan.
I had the privilege recently of being asked to act on the executive in connection with the administration of this plan. It is a worthy piece of legislation; I am quite satisfied it is good legislation, and I heartily endorse this effort of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). On the other hand, how can a man without a job apply to any lending institution for a loan of a paltry few hundred dollars to repair his home when the first qualification he must have is a job? No wonder he is critical. No wonder at times these young people come to us and scoff.
In the presentation of the Canada-United Kingdom trade agreement I consider that too much stress is laid on foreign trade, and that our home markets are being overlooked. Scores of small towns and urban municipalities are dependent on small industries such as textiles, which produce steady pay-rolls for their people. Surely it is apparent that reduced protection to this industry will have far-reaching effects. Recent inquiries have revealed that many textile mills are even now finding it difficult to carry on. If their home markets are further invaded one of two results is bound to follow; either wages will be reduced and the standard of living be lowered, or many of these mills will go out of business. Canada has seen this happen before.
The fabricated steel industry of this country should also be better protected. I have some knowledge of that industry, although not engaged in it myself. Why can we not help ;his industry to expand in Canada, instead jf passing prohibitory measures which only curtail its operations?

The Minister of Finance is to be commended for his efforts to reestablish the building trades and increase employment in that direction. I think, however, that his estimate of the proportion of labour employed in the building trades and in the manufacture of building material was considerably lower than is actually the case. The production of steel in all its forms should be one of our largest secondary industries. It plays a most important part in the construction of homes and buildings of the larger types. Sheet metal could and should be manufactured in Canada, and no restraint should be placed on production of this kind.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am in favour of expansion of our foreign markets providing that is not done at the expense of our home markets and our basic and secondary industries. Nations can change their foreign policies overnight, as we have seen happen so often in the past. We do not want to wake up some morning and find that our home markets have been sacrificed, but I am definitely of the opinion that this is being done by the lower protection that is proposed.
I strongly criticize the apparent neglect by the government of the unemployment situation which exists in Canada, and the apparent decrease in opportunities for employment. I heartily endorse the amendment proposed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and I think hon. members would be well advised to consider the far reaching effects of the lower protection that is being afforded our basic and secondary industries. I feel that the youth of the country are disappointed because they realize the possibility that our home markets will be invaded and their chances of securing employment thereby be lessened instead of increased. I hope many hon. members on the government side will express themselves on this question, because I know there are those in the house who have had the same experiences I have had, and we all hope that our industries and our citizens will be protected to the fullest possible extent.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the address of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in the course of which he moved an amendment to the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). When the right hon. gentleman moved that amendment I had the feeling that probably he did not think he was quite doing justice to the government. At that time he knew that the only real policy he attempted to apply in

The Budget-Mr. Tucker
the solution of the problem of unemployment was that of raising tariffs, and he knew that policy had failed. He knew that he had spent five years in endeavouring to cure unemployment in Canada, and he knew that only sixteen months had passed during which this government had an opportunity of applying its policies. He knew very well that it takes time to get policies in operation and more time for them to have the ultimate effect expected. So I have no doubt that when the right hon. gentleman moved his amendment he realized that it was really too early to condemn a government which had been in power only sixteen months, when he had failed after five years.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend more or less attempted to justify himself by saying, in effect: "I am moving this amendment because it is the same amendment with which I was met when I was at the head of the government." I submit that moving a motion such as this when the policies which you are condemning are failing is very different from moving a similar motion when apparently those policies are succeeding. So it seemed to me that the right hon. leader of the opposition felt that perhaps he was not doing just the right thing by the present government in moving his amendment.
In that connection, and especially in view of the remarks of the preceding speaker (Mr. Lockhart), I think it is only fair to go back to the figures disclosed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in his speech on this amendment. According to the right hon. leader of the opposition the number of unemployed in this country when he assumed office was 117,000. When he left office there were 435,000 unemployed, but in October last that number had been reduced to 392,000. In other words, there has been a reduction since this government has been in office. I was glad that the Minister of Labour did not pretend to be satisfied with what had been accomplished, but merely said that the improvement was such as to give hope and confidence. As far as this country is concerned I think it feels that since coming into office the present government has applied itself unremittingly and faithfully to the solution of the various problems confronting it, and I think the country at large really feels that more has been accomplished by this government in sixteen months than was accomplished in a similar time by any other government that occupied the treasury benches of this country since confederation. When I say that I do not pretend that I agree with all that has been done by this government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Its monetary policy, for instance.


Walter Adam Tucker: No, and I am glad the right hon. gentleman mentioned that. But I do not think he would pretend that when he was a young private member in this House of Commons, supporting his leader, he agreed with all the policies of the government of that time. But that did not prevent the right hon. gentleman from consistently supporting that government because on the whole he thought it was the best government for the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I voted against them, though.


Walter Adam Tucker: The right hon. gentleman says he voted against the government at times. Perhaps I may do the same thing if my conscience compels me to do so. No, Mr. Speaker; as I say, it may be that in some matters I should have liked to see the government adopt different policies or go further in certain directions, but I do not believe that anyone should expect any government to do everything that each private member would like it to do. After all, Mr. Speaker, all any member can expect of any government is that on the whole it should be doing, as he thinks, fairly well, making as few mistakes as a government can be expected to make.
A great deal has been said, for example, in regard to what the government has done concerning wheat. I know many hon. members who have had a good deal to say about wheat who had nothing to say when the western farmer was selling his wheat for 21 cents a bushel. But to-d-ay, when the farmer is getting over a dollar a bushel, these members are weeping crocodile tears over his plight. The people of this country and the farmers take note of these things, and they are not misled by this late concern for their interests. They do not forget all that has happened since 1930. I will deal with the government's wheat marketing policy later on.
The hon. member who just spoke, together with many of those who have taken part in the debate on behalf of the official opposition, suggested that by the small tariff reductions being made by this government the home market was in some way not being preserved, so that unemployment will be increased.
Since it has been incorporated, the Dominion Textile Company has made on an average 97 per cent on the investment in its common shares. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the Dominion Textile Company had been forced by lower tariffs, and the competition it would have had to face on account of lower tariffs, to charge less for the goods which it produced, would it not have sold
The Budget-Mr. Tucker

more of those goods, and would it not have promoted more employment as a result? Would it not have been better if the Dominion Textile Company had sold its goods cheaper, and sold perhaps twice as much to the people who needed the goods, instead of making 97 per cent profit for the promoters, on the common shares? Would it not have been better if it had distributed some of those millions of dollars to the working people of this country, about whom the official opposition pretend to be so much concerned?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman had not made his last observation I would not have risen to a point of order, but I must point out that this matter is now before a royal commission which has not yet made a report. We have scrupulously refrained from any references to it until the report is made. The rules seem to be reasonably clear with respect to royal commissions, but if the hon. member desires to pursue it in that way, then I am bound to raise the point of order.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like the right hon. gentleman to state the rule which prevents anything being said in this house on any question of fiscal policy just because a commission is investigating it. If he can state any such rule, I shall be surprised.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about wheat?


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point
of order raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition, may I say that all through the debate a very wide latitude has been allowed. Hon. members from all parts of the house and belonging to all parties may have been out of order in the wide latitude they have taken. I do not think the point of order is well taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I only directed attention to the fact that on the budget the widest possible latitude is given to all speakers who deal with any problems affecting the welfare of the country as they see it; but the rule with respect to committees is laid down, and the same rule has been followed with respect to royal commissions. I only mention it; but it is not important at all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think
the right hon. gentleman is correct. The same rule would apply to a discussion of the wheat situation, which is under royal commission investigation at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The royal commission
on wheat is not taking evidence; in order to provide a job in perpetuity, apparently, the judge has been permitted to go on with other work.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. gentleman is entirely wrong. The wheat commission has taken evidence on other matters besides barley; they have taken evidence on wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very little.


Walter Adam Tucker: I had completed the
remarks I had intended to make on that branch of the subject; but I am quite interested to see that the right hon. the leader of the opposition feels as he does about the textiles matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that is an inference which I cannot permit the hon. member to make. I have not- expressed any opinion with respect to the textiles matter, and I expect the hon,. member to withdraw any implication of that character. The time will come when we will express our opinions upon that, and my views will then be known. I have expressed none so far.


Walter Adam Tucker: I meant no unfair implication; I took it that he felt that the unjustifiable profits of the Dominion Textile Company were exorbitant, and that he hated to have them brought up at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, that makes it only so much worse.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I say that this has been the second budget speech to which I have had the opportunity to listen. I felt it was a most complete review of the financial situation of Canada and most understandable to any person even one who is not an expert in financial matters.
I was particularly pleased with the introduction of pensions for the blind. I felt that it was altogether fitting that an administration headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should have introduced such a system, in view of the fact that it was his administration which introduced the system of old age pensions. I notice that in the appropriations for the Old Age Pensions Act the estimated expenditures for the next fiscal year are placed at $22,500,000, which means that apparently it is expected there will be at least 112.000 old people who will benefit by the act in the coming year. Knowing of some of the suffering that prevails now and has prevailed during the last five or six years I think every hon. member must have been grateful on many occasions to know that an Old Age Pensions Act is in force, and has been in force during those years of suffering and hardship. I believe one of the things for which the present Prime Minister will be gratefully remembered is that he introduced in this Parliament one of the first measures providing for

The Budget-Mr. Tucker
social security for those unable to take care of themselves. I have no doubt that already many thousands of old people have gone to their last reward, having enjoyed a much happier evening of life than they would have but for the action of the administration headed1 by the present Prime Minister in establishing a system of Old Age Pensions.
Similarly, in connection with pensions for the blind, supported as they were by all parties, I am sure every hon. member was delighted that it was deemed possible to introduce the measure at this session. Presumably it will benefit at least 2,000 people who, after all, have enough handicaps to face without having the extra one of not being sure of at least a bare subsistence.
I do not intend now to discuss in detail schedules in the budget, but there is one point which strikes me and it is this, that while not destroying a reasonable amount of protection (and many will still regard as unreasonable the protection left-the protection is still so high that even the official opposition should regard it as reasonable) by introducing a certain amount of competition from old country textiles, the textile people in Canada will be forced to reduce their prices so that people who have just come through the depression will be able to buy more goods, thereby increasing the general wellbeing of the poor people of Canada. Employment will be increased', and no one, with the exception of those people who have had exorbitant profits in the past, will be injured.
How anybody can condemn a budget like that is more than I can understand. The only condemnation that I would have of it is that it leaves far too much protection for those people who to-day, we are told, are going to be forced to the wall because they cannot get along with a thirty per cent protection. I submit that if there is an industry in Canada that has to have a protection of thirty per cent or more in order to exist, it is uneconomical and an absolute burden to Canada. It would be a great deal better if the capital invested1 in that industry were put into another industry economically sound, one which would provide more labour, and contribute to the general well being.
To find out how the tariff actually works out I looked into a few items, one of which was blankets. On December 30, 1936, a shipment of blankets weighing 1,226 pounds and worth $590, entered this country. The tariff was 22^ per cent less 10 per cent if the goods came through empire ports, so the ad valorem duty was $119.48. There was a specific duty of 10 cents per pound, less 10 per cent, which amounted to $110.34 on these blankets. This
meant that this shipment of blankets worth $590 paid a duty of $229.82, or 39 per cent upon an ad valorem basis. Under the new tariff the ad valorem rate is 20 per cent, less 10 per cent, which amounts to $106.20. The specific rate is 5 cents per pound, less 10 per cent, which amounts to $55.17, or a total of $161.37. Worked out on an ad valorem basis, this amounts to 27-35 per cent. In other words, the tariff on blankets has been reduced from 39 to 27-35 per cent.
For every $100 worth of blankets, the manufacturers in this country can still charge $127. They can charge $27 more than would be charged if there was no tariff. I submit that in connection with a necessity like blankets, if the manufacturer in this country is not able to function with the natural tariff imposed by the cost of shipping the goods from another country, plus this 27 per cent, then the industry should not exist. Anything beyond that is too much of a burden upon the consuming people of this country, especially in connection with a necessity like blankets.
Let me refer to a shipment of five dozen woollen socks, valued at $8, which came in on November 7, 1936. The duty was 30 per cent ad valorem, less 10 per cent, which amounted to $2.16. The specific duty was 75 cents per dozen, less 10 per cent, which amounted to $3.38. The total duty on those $8 worth of socks under the old tariff was $5.54. Under the new budget, the ad valorem rate will be 20 per cent, less 10 per cent, or $1.44. The specific rate will be 30 cents per dozen, less 10 per cent, or $1.35. This makes a total duty of $2.79. Worked out on an ad valorem basis, the previous duty was 69 per cent, a rather high duty on an article which is absolutely necessary in this country. This is the sort of duty that was imposed in order that our textile barons could make almost 100 per cent on their money. Under the new tariff the ad valorem rate is 34-87 per cent. When my friends of the opposition cry out because a duty is too low at 34-87 per cent, I wonder how much they really care about the consumers of this country. If they were saying that that duty was too high, that it should be lowered still more in order that more goods might be bought and employment increased, then I might be able to sympathize with them in their argument. But when they condemn the budget because prices are going to be reduced and employment increased, and then move an amendment to the effect that the government is not curing unemployment fast enough, I cannot follow their reasoning.
There is another matter in connection with the budget to which I should like to
The Budget-Mr. Tucker

refer. It should not be forgotten that when the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) came into power in 1930 Great Britain was still a free trade country. He went over to England and suggested that that country should change its tariff policy and give a preference to Canadian goods by putting on a tariff against foreign goods. That suggestion was treated with scorn by the government of that day in Great Britain. The leader of the opposition then suggested that Great Britain might be at the parting of the ways. There was a hint there; and then that if England did not adopt the tariff policy which the right hon. gentleman, then Prime Minister of this country, suggested to them, it might not be so good for trade relations within the empire.
The British people listened to the opinion of that eminent statesman, and who knows but what that opinion may have had something to do with causing England to be no longer a free trade country. England became a protectionist country when she adopted the policy suggested by the leader of the opposition. In fact, I believe the party of which he is the head took a great deal of credit to themselves because for the first time in history we had a market open to us in Great Britain which was closed to other countries by means of a tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not closed.


Walter Adam Tucker: Partially closed by a tariff. They took credit for that situation, but I ask you: Was it something for which they should take credit? What was the situation? The farmers of Great Britain obtained a certain amount of protection against the foodstuffs of foreign countries, but they obtained none against the food products of the dominions. What was the attitude of the farmens in Great Britain? It must be known to every member of this house that the farmers began to take the attitude that as British manufacturers were protected, they the farmers, should also be protected against empire as well as foreign food products. They contended that as the dominions had put on a tariff against the main products of Great Britain they should have a tariff against the food products of the dominions. Our right to free access to the British market was endangered, and always will be endangered while England is on that basis. For the first time she was no longer a free trade country.
The same thing was true when the present government came to negotiate the new treaty. The people of the United Kingdom began to realize that through the Ottawa agreements we had increased our sales tremendously in

the United Kingdom, but we had not given them entry to our market to nearly the same extent. The argument was used that if Canada was going to deal on that unfair basis, then they wanted protection against the food products of Canada. They began to argue for protection against Canadian hams, bacon and wheat to the same extent as they were protected against the food products of foreign countries.
I do not think there is any doubt that if we are not very careful we may lose our preference in that great market. Why? Because of the very thing over which the official opposition boasted, that they had got England to adopt a different fiscal policy. What was this government faced with? They had to go to England and say to the British government: We will give you concessions in order that you may be able to justify your not protecting your own farmers against our food products. The farmers of Great Britain contended that if the manufacturers of that country were protected, they should also be protected. I presume it was pretty hard for the government of Great Britain to deny a certain measure of protection to their farmers. Therefore, we had to offer a much better deal to the British government than that held out by the right hon. leader of the opposition.
But we profit by that deal. If we lower the tariff on goods coming into this country, prices are lowered to the consumers. It means that more of those goods will be purchased. If there remains some protection to the producers of these goods, it means that more will be made and sold in this country, and the result will be that we shall have benefited in several ways, by preserving our markets in Great Britain, by increasing employment at home, and by enlarging our ability to enjoy more of the goods upon which these tariffs are lowered. That is the situation in regard to the tariff as I see it. There is no doubt that the agreement was received with great gratification, especially by the farmers of this country. For example, here is a statement made by Mr. H. B. Cowan, secretary of the Canadian Dairy Farmers' Federation, representing 150,000 organized dairy farmers. He said:
It is gratifying to farmers that the Canadian overnment has reached such an important and avourable agreement. National farmers' unions of the United Kingdom backed by strong Conservative support in the British house have been urging imposition of levies and quotas on imports of farm products, and the government there issued a white paper almost committing it to this policy. Farmer organizations in Canada and the other dominions have contacted their governments to combat that policy.

The Budget-Mr. Tucker
The opportunity to ship into that market
280,000.000 pounds of bacon and ham in the next three years should give us, in view of the fact that we have used in the past roughly only one-half of that quota at any time, a chance to expand that production tremendously. Will anybody say that that is not something worth while? The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) may say that under the treaties which he negotiated we had that right. But I submit that because those treaties were so one-sided-and the official opposition are inclined to take credit for driving such a good deal-because it was such a "good deal," although really, through its ultimate results, a bad deal-this government should be heartily congratulated upon overcoming the handicaps they had to meet in the hostility of many interests in the United Kingdom owing to the one-sided way that the Ottawa treaties have worked out, and upon getting such a favourable treaty for this country.
One of the speakers for the official opposition referred this evening to the fact that the present government when in opposition objected that there were still certain items on which the preference was bound. But it should not be forgotten that in the treaty negotiated by the present leader of the opposition there were 215 such items, and that that number has been reduced by the present government to 91. The opposition may inquire, why did you agree even to 91 items? After all, we all admit that it takes two to make an agreement, and that when the United Kingdom had an absolutely guaranteed preference on 215 items, it was quite an achievement to get that number reduced to 91. I submit, as well as hope, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of our power to lower the tariff on those items which have been dropped from the bound list, it will now be possible for us to negotiate once more with the president of the neighbouring republic and get an even better treaty with Washington than we got last year. Through this agreement with the United Kingdom the foundation has been laid for extending the United States trade agreement from which we have already benefited so much. That is another reason why I intend to vote against this amendment and for the budget resolution.
There is another matter with which at the moment I should like to deal because it is one in which I, as one of the younger members of this house, am very much interested. We hear a great deal, and properly so, from hon. members representing the central provinces about their unemployed young people. We have unemployed young people whom I would
designate as the forgotten young people of Canada. They are not on any unemployment relief list. They cannot come under a farm placement scheme. Their ages range from fifteen to thirty years. Their parents do not need them any longer at home, but they remain there because there they get food and shelter. The young men and young women of western Canada are staying in their parents' homes long past the time when they should be out establishing homes of their own.
A very competent observer of Saskatchewan conditions told me to-day that in his opinion there are at least 50,000 young men in Saskatchewan from eighteen or nineteen to thirty years of age who are staying with their parents and for whom there is no real work, who cannot get married and establish homes of their own; at the same time, naturally, there is roughly the same number of young women in the same position. When we pay as much as we do for tariff protection, which helps people who live near these protected industries in central Canada, we should be willing to do something to give our young people the chance to get settled and started in life. We hear something of immigration policies. I submit that this government should set aside a certain sum of money from which a young man wishing to start up for himself and establish a home should be able to apply for a reasonable loan, which he should receive provided he can show he has a piece of land that he can go on with a reasonable hope of making a success. That loan should be repayable at a low rate of interest over a long period of time. If that were done it would enable several thousands of our young men to settle on their own land, get married, establish homes, and begin to raise families the way their fathers did before them. Seeing that Canadian governments have spent millions of dollars in past years in bringing in immigrants from other countries, to-day we should, I submit, have enough vision and imagination to spend some money to settle and give a start to young people who were bom in this country, and who are the best settlers we can have. When it is suggested that we spend money on cooperative schemes to bring strangers to our shores from other countries-I care not where they come from- I say that before we fetch anybody in from outside we should look after our own boys and girls who want to make a start in this country.
I congratulate this government upon its decision to appoint a commission to investigate dominion and provincial relationships. I suggest most seriously, though, that that commission should have the power to investigate
The Budget-Mr. Tucker

the question of tariffs. A great deal has been said in this house about the tariff. One hon. member belonging to the official opposition asked how long were Ontario and Quebec going to remain a pair of placid milk cows to be stripped dry to pay the bills of provincial governments over whose expenditures they had no control? He referred to the provincial governments of the west in making that remark, one which, I submit, was not justified by the facts. I would say that in view of the fact-and I intend if I have time to prove it-that we have been feeding these two milch cows we should have a right to do a little bit of the milking. The Nova Scotia government had a royal commission investigating its relationship to the dominion. It got the present Minister of Labour, who was at that time I believe a professor-an eminent professor-in one of our universities, to prepare a submission to that royal commission on its behalf. As he was at that time appearing for Nova Scotia, not for western Canada, I do not suppose he was trying particularly to make out a case for Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba. He examined into the question of the benefit and injury done by the tariff to the various provinces of this country. That was for the year 1931. I should like to give a few of the figures to the house. He found that the estimated amount of the tariff subsidy to protected manufacturers in Quebec was SI32,867,447, that being 31 * 23 per cent of the benefit from the tariff. He found that the estimated tariff subsidy to manufacturers in Ontario was $220,722,484, Ontario benefiting to the extent of 58-88 per cent. Saskatchewan, with over 900,000 people, almost one-tenth of the population of this dominion, benefited to what extent? Not one per cent, no; it was -77 per cent-S3.275.950. And he found that this tariff subsidy per capita was as follows: Quebec, $46.23, Ontario $64.32 and Saskatchewan $3.55.
We have a few manufacturers in western Canada, but it is interesting to see how little Saskatchewan benefited by the tariff. He gave a table of the net loss or net gain. He found that in one year the province of Saskatchewan paid in extra prices on account of the tariff $29,228,285. He found that it benefited by the tariff to the amount of $3,275,000 as I have already said; in other words, that the tariff cost Saskatchewan in one year, 1931, $25,909,790, or $28.16 per capita. The amount the provincial government collected from our people that year was, I believe, less than $14,000,000, and this tariff subsidy cost our people in one year over $25,000,000. I submit that the year 1931 may be taken as a normal

year; and if you multiply $25,000,000 lost in one year by, let us say, five years, you have the tariff costing Saskatchewan alone since 1931-
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like to be allowed to finish the argument.


Frederick George Sanderson: With the consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Walter Adam Tucker: In other words, Mr. Speaker, in five years the tariff has cost Saskatchewan alone $125,000,000. With the consent of the house I want to deal for a moment with something that may be of interest to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He mentioned that the present government had suggested) that we should follow sterling when England went off the gold standard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said) that a motion to that effect was moved1 by Mr. Coote, in amendment to the acceptance of the British agreement, and that the now government voted for that motion.


Walter Adam Tucker: I thought I said that, but perhaps I did not. I understood the right hon. gentleman to say that the members of the present government had supported the suggestion that we should have followed sterling when England went off the gold standard. I submit that in fairness to the primary producers we should have done that very thing. By virtue of the fact that we refused to follow sterling, which was our natural market, and instead followed more or less the United States dollar, the growers of wheat in western Canada lost in 1931 $3,469,000. That was the loss to the western wheat growers alone. What all the primary producers lost I do not know; I have not the figures. In 1932 the western wheat growers lost $24,664,000; in 1933 they lost $6,747,000; or a total in those three years of $34,880,000. Why did) we lose that money? Because it was deemed a good thing that we should keep our money as near as possible on a par with United States money so that the government and the financial interests of Canada would not be embarrassed in making payments in the United) States. For that reason the primary producer of Canada was penalized to the extent of millions of dollars, the western wheat grower alone suffering to the extent of $34,880,000. Had we followed Australia, which is a great primary producing nation, had we, like them, considered the interests of the primary producer as being of

The Budget-Mr. Tucker
greater importance than the interests of the financial institutions, in the years from 1900 to 1936 inclusive, the western wheat growers instead of receiving $882,970,000 for their wheat, as they did, would have received $1,112,402,-
000.	Hadi we followed the policy of Australia, which had some compassion on its primary producers, we should have given the western wheat producers $229,432,000 more for their wheat than they got.
There is one more' point I wish to discuss; it has something to do with this very question. I find that in the autonomy act of Saskatchewan it is provided that we could not tax the Canadian Pacific railway, and as a result of that provision Saskatchewan, though it has made attempts to tax the railways in that province, has been in a weak position and has been unable to push taxation very far in view of the fear approaching almost to certainty that such taxation would be declared ultra vires.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A Liberal government did it.


Walter Adam Tucker: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the hon. gentleman is taking more than his time, perhaps I may be allowed to ask him a question. Does he know that the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan exempted subsidized roads from taxation?


Walter Adam Tucker: I know something of the things I talk about, but I do not pretend to
have the encyclopaedic knowledge of the right hon. gentleman. When I am as long in this house and as old as he I may perhaps be able to answer more questions than I can now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think there is any reason why the hon. gentleman should abuse a privilege. I asked him a reasonable question and he has answered in a manner in which Hansard will indicate. When one is trespassing upon the house, with its unanimous consent, one is expected to show at least a little observance of the amenities of debate,


Walter Adam Tucker: If I have in any way transgressed the amenities of debate I offer the leader of the opposition, for whom I have a great deal of respect, my most humble apologies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not to me, to the house. Thank you just the same. I am not concerned about myself.


Walter Adam Tucker: If I have not yet satisfied the right hon. gentleman, then I offer my apologies to the house. Just to conclude that argument, Mr. Speaker, I do' not know to what extent the lines in Saskatchewan were exempted, as suggested, but I rather suspect that the exemption does not amount to much, and it does not affect the argument anyway. If we were permitted to tax the railways to the same extent that Quebec taxes them, we should receive from the railways $2,970,640. We actually receive $404,000. In other words, we are short $2,566,640, and the subsidy which we receive in common with and on the same basis as the other provinces, under our autonomy act, is $2,144,000; that is to say, by virtue of that exemption from taxation we not only lose the amount of the subsidy which we get in common with the other provinces, but $422,640 in addition thereto.
I do not intend to transgress any further upon the time of the house. I wish to express my appreciation of its courtesy in allowing me to finish the argument I was endeavouring to present. May I say in conclusion, however, that any remarks I have made are not intended as a complaint against other parts of Canada. What I am trying to impress upon the house is this: that if the dominion is to be happy in its confederation of provinces; if the provinces are to be content to remain in that confederation; if they are going to work together in that unity and harmony which are essential to make any nation great, then justice has to be done to each part of the dominion. And I lay these facts before the house in answer to the suggestion that western Canada is getting more than it is entitled to. I submit that if you consider our troubles in recent
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde

years and the amounts which we have been
deprived of in consequence of the considered policy of the central government of the country, what we have received is pitifully small in comparison,


Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (LaJbelle):: Permit me to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who presented to us what I might call a budget of hope. His statement regarding the present financial position of our country gave rise among our Canadian people to a deep feeling of confidence in better days.
While the international situation is one of the factors of our economic recovery, we must noit forget that the Liberal administration has had much to do with the satisfactory results which we are now witnessing. I have not the slightest intention of analyzing this whole situation; I shall deal with only two questions of local importance, but both are relevant to that intricate problem of unemployment to which our active Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is giving very particular attention.
For some years northwestern Quebec has been making great strides. Towns and villages are growing in the mining districts of Abitibi, and the greatest activity is being displayed especially in the country around the great lake Chibougamau. I have not the latest figures before me, but I can assert that the new mines in that district are employing now almost 10,000 people and are producing millions in gold and copper. It is needless to emphasize further the amazing progress of Abitibi.
Unfortunately, beside this comforting picture there appears a shadow. The trade of the district, amounting to more than $15,000,000 this year, instead of going towards its natural centre of attraction, namely Montreal, is directed rather towards Ontario's metropolis, Toronto. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the city of Toronto is about to outclass Montreal in the economic rating of our Canadian cities. There is no better chart of our economic life and no better evidence of the deficiencies of our distribution system. Abitibi absolutely needs an outlet towards the Quebec centres. A road is being built the cost of which will be borne in equal shares by the Quebec and dominion governments, but this road will not be sufficient to ensure a continuous outlet to Montreal for Abitibi's traffic. What we need is a railway. Several attempts have been made in that direction, and more or less earnest promoters have made surveys of the district. If I am correctly informed, in 1910 the dominion govlMr. Tucker.]
ernment went so far as to purchase from Mr. Clergue of Aylmer right of way for a railway to run from Mont Laurief towards the Senneterre district. Later the Northern Railway Company applied for a charter; then came the Abitibi Southern Railway, which also applied for a charter and then let it lapse. To-day we have the Goldfields Transportation Company endeavouring to secure a provincial charter to build a railway from Mont Laurier to Senneterre, to run parallel to the road to which I have already referred.
We are complaining of the heavy deficits of the Canadian National Railways, which constitute an enormous liability in our annual budget. One of the most efficient means of doing away with those deficits would be to build paying lines. I respectfully submit to this house that without further delay the government should advance the necessary funds to enable the Canadian National Railways to build a line from St. Remi d'Amherst to Mont Laurier and from there to the Great Lake-Chibougamau district, through Ferme Neuve, Mt. St. Michel and St. Anne du Lac parishes. This railway would serve four parishes which are being rapidly developed, and would afford an opportunity for settlement in those tracts which are now included within the timber limits of the International Paper Company, more particularly along the Piscatousin river. Investigations have shown that this area contains excellent farming land. Moreover, this railway would become an appreciable source of income for our federal railway system, for all the traffic from the mines now operating in the Chibougamau district would pass over this road.
May I be permitted to utter a warning? The company now asking for a provincial charter in Quebec possesses a boundless appetite. According to official notices in the press it wants to secure not only the area extending from Mont Laurier to Senneterre but also the tract from St. Remi d'Amherst to Mont Laurier and thence to the Great Lake-Chibougamau district. Obviously, therefore, the economic prosperity of our province and the successful operation of our national railway system demand that vigorous steps be taken at once by this government in order to hasten the construction of this line, and also to take over an area that really belongs to the Canadian National Railways, leaving to the Goldfields Transportation Company the privilege of connecting Mont Laurier with Senneterre. I bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) in order to fulfill my responsibility as member for Labelle. Should this government not avail itself of this splendid opportunity of bringing

The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
under its control this area which offers such possibilities from the standpoint of revenue and mining development?
In the second place, may I be permitted to point out to the government the fact that the constituency of Labelle has not been pampered by the federal authorities in the past in regard to the trans-Canada highway from Montreal to Ottawa. I should like to read certain documents, showing that the Quebec government of that time decided upon a change in the route that will be detrimental to my constituency. On May 15, 1936, I placed a question on the order paper, as follows:
1.	What is the location of the proposed trans-Canada highway from Lachute, county of Argenteuil, Quebec, to Ottawa?
2.	Has the location been decided by the provincial or by the federal authorities?
3. Does the highway pass or will it pass through the villages of Fassett, Montebello, Papineauville, Plaisance and Thurso, in the county of Labelle, Quebec?
The reply was:
1,	2 and 3. The route of the trans-Canada highway in the province of Quebec is covered by a report of the Honourable the Executive Council of Quebec, dated October 1, 1931, approved by the lieutenant-governor on October 2, 1931; subsequently amended by a report of the Honourable the Executive Council of Quebec dated March 24, 1933, and approved by the lieutenant-governor on March 25, 1933, and further amended by a report of the Honourable the Executive Council of Quebec dated June 7, 1933, approved by the lieutenant-governor on June 8, 1933, copies of which executive orders are attached hereto.
Copies of these reports in French were attached, and with the permission of the house I will place them on Hansard:
Copy of the Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Executive Council, dated the 1st of October, 1931, approved by the Lieutenant-Governor on the 2nd of October, 1931.
Respecting the Trans-Canada Highway
The Honourable the Minister of Roads, in a memorandum dated the 1st October (1931), recommends:
That a highway running across the province of Quebec be created and designated under the name of the Trans-Canada Highway.
That such highway be constituted as follows: Highway No. 2, from the New Brunswick limit between Saint-Jacques, New Brunswick, and Sainte-Rose-du-Degele, province of Quebec, as far as the city of Levis, passing through the town of Riviere du Loup, and following the riverside road between the village of Andre-ville and Sainte-Anne de la Pocatiere.
Highway No. 3. starting from the city of Levis as far as the intersection of Highway No. 1.
Highway No. 1, passing by the Quebec bridge, from the intersection of Highway No. 3, as far as Quebec.
Highway No. 2, starting from Quebec as far as Montreal, following the riverside road between Saint-Sulpice and Charlemangne.
Highway No. 8, from Montreal to Hull.
Certified.
(Signed) A. Morisset,
Clerk Executive Council.
Copy of the Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Executive Council, dated March 24, 1933, approved by the Lieutenant-Governor on March 25, 1933.
Respecting the Trans-Canada Highway, in the Province of Quebec
The Honourable the Minister of Roads, in a memorandum dated March 24 (1933), recommends that order in council No. 2510, approved on October 2, 1931, respecting the location of the Trans-Canada Highway, in the province of Quebec, be amended so that the location of that transcontinental highway, between Montreal and Ottawa, follows highway No. 8, as far as Grenville, at which point it would pass over the interprovincial bridge on the Ottawa river, and thence toward the dominion capital, on the Ontario side.
Certified.
(Signed) A. Morisset,
Clerk Executive Council.
This ought to be sufficient, Mr. Speaker, to prove that for no reason at all we have been robbed of our share of the trans-Canada highway. In January of this year I had the following question placed on the order paper:
1.	Since July 1, 1936, has the government of the province of Quebec recommended to the dominion government that the location of the trans-Canada highway from Montreal to Ottawa be changed to serve the actual line of highway No. 8 from Grenville to Hull?
2.	If so, what is the date of the recommendation?
Answer: No.
By the end of January last I had communicated with the provincial authorities of Quebec, without receiving any reply. The municipalities concerned, Fassett, Montebello, Papineauville, Plaisance and Thurso, have passed resolutions requesting that the highway follow its former route, but this has not brought about any practical result.
I make this statement, Mr. Speaker, not with a view to criticizing the government of Quebec but so that the people in my constituency may know the facts of the matter, and for that reason only. In making this statement I suggest to all those interested in the welfare of the provincial constituency of Papineau that they should cooperate and exert their influence and authority in order that we from Labelle may also have a few crumbs from the rich man's table, that we may recover what has been taken away from us, and that our unemployed may be given a little work and bread.
Whiat can we infer from the two foregoing suggestions? I respectfully submit, that by

The Budget-Mr. Lalonde

cooperation between tie dominion and provincial governments we should undertake without delay the works I have mentioned, which would prove a real gold mine for the indigent of the western part of the province of Quebec. It is true that tlus year unemployment has been almost unknown ini the northern section of my riding, but it has been very acute in the southern portion of the federal constituency of Labelle. With the construction of the railway referred1 to, and the trans-Canada highway going through the provincial county of Papineau, we would be in a position very materially to assist the unemployed who, tired of begging and of finding themselves under the dire necessity of looking to the state for their living, would find a noble pride in providing for their families by the sweat of their brow.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) of the loyalty and' sincere desire of the electors of Labelle to cooperate. In return I trust that he will let us have access to the treasury, not with a view to making a wholesale distribution of direct relief, which is most depressing, but in order to make ample and generous allotment of the moneys that are paid to the state by way of taxation. Such a gesture, by the magic of the work done by our Canadians, would produce an active and profitable asset.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a pleasure for me to address the house in English for the first time, as I wish to prove to the extremists as well as the slackers that the prosperity of Canada, if dependent upon economic factors, imponderables and mysteries, lies mainly in the true union and efficient cooperation of the two great races which, having equal rights, live and constitute Canadian life, and which create and defend the ideals of their homeland.
On motion of Mr. Heaps the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.56 p.m.
Monday, March 8, 1937