1937-03-08

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 55, to amend the Department of National Revenue Act.

He said: In all departments of government when employees are superannuated because of age, they are given a certain period of leave of absence. In the Department of National Revenue their pensions start at the beginning of that period but in other departments of government the pension starts at the end of that period. There is a difference in treatment between the employees of the Department of National Revenue and those of other departments, and the purpose of this bill is to provide that the officers of the Department of National Revenue shall receive the same treatment in this respect as the employees of other departments.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: It will be remembered
that a custom grew up whereby those who on retirement were given six months' leave with pay might begin at once to receive their pension. The six months' salary was paid when the leave began, less the amount of pension for that period, thus enabling pension to begin immediately on leave being granted.


Mr. ILSLEY:: That is the practice in other departments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be done in this department?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not done in this department. In this department the officer retiring does not get the difference between salary and pension; he gets his pension for the same period for which he gets his salary.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 56, respecting the appointment of auditors for National Railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 49, to incorporate Federal Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 50, to incorporate Wellington Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 51, to incorporate Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Edwards.

Questions
Bill No. 52, to incorporate Sterling Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Parent (Quebec West and South).
Bill No. 53, to incorporate Toronto General Insurance Company.-Mr. Plaxton.
Bill No. 54, to incorporate the Sons of Scotland Benevolent Association-Mr. Reid.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	Who conducted the census enumeration in the village of Tyvan, in 1935?
2.	What amount of money was paid for same, and to whom?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	There was no census enumeration in
1935.	The census enumeration in 1936 for the village of Tyvan was taken by Miss Marion Lowe.
2.	87.50 to Miss Marion Lowe.


CENSUS ENUMERATORS
Mr. NEEDHAM:: 1.	How many enumerators were employed in taking the census during 1936?
2.	How many of these were returned men?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	3,446.
2.	47 out of 56 commissioners reported 452.


PAYMENTS TO SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Did the Honourable J. G. Gardiner and the Honourable T. A. Crerar promise an added two million dollars to Saskatchewan, as reported in the Globe and Mail of February 26?
2.	If so, will this amount be paid before receiving the report of the proposed royal commission to investigate taxation and provincial finance?
3.	Will provision be made for these increases during the present session?
4.	Will similar treatment be given Ontario?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No,
2,	3, and 4. Answered by number 1.


BOISSEVAIN, MAN., POST OFFICE
Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: 1.	In what year was the post office site at Boissevain, Manitoba, purchased?
2.	What was the purchase price?
3.	Were the buildings on the same rented, and, if so, what was the total amount of rent received?
4.	When were the buildings sold?
5.	What price was received for same?
6.	When was the present post office erected?
7.	What was the total cost of same?
8.	What was the estimated cost by the department?
9.	What tenders were received, and what were their respective amounts?
10.	To whom was the contract awarded, and for what amount?
11.	Who was appointed clerk of works?
12.	How much did he receive for same?
13.	Who supplied the hardware?
14.	Who did the brick work?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	1914.
2.	$4,750.00.
3.	4 and 5. Yes. Total amount of rental received $254.00. Building was condemned by the town authorities as unsafe and in 1920 was sold by public advertisement for $1 and removed by the purchaser. In 1928 the site was rented at $60 per annum to Fred Brook for the purpose of erecting thereon a temporary building which was removed by lessee when required for government purposes. Total amount of rental received for site $345.
6.	Contract awarded December 21, 1934.
7.	$22,367.43 (exclusive of cost of site).
8.	$15,250.00 (estimated cost of building only).
9.	Dring Bros., Boissevain, $18,992.30; E. T. Johnson, Boissevain, $19,185; M. E. Breault, Deloraine, $19,242.50; J. J. Morrow, Melita, $19,600. As amount of lowest tender was in excess of the department's estimate, the lowest tenderer was asked if he would accept $17,500 to carry out the work according to plans and specifications. He accepted this amount.
10.	(a) Dring Bros, (b) $17,500.
11.	M. E. Breault.
12.	$125 per month or a total of $778.23.
13.	No information.
14.	John Morrow was subcontractor for brick work.


BEEF CATTLE EXPORTS AND QUOTAS
Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	How many beef cattle over one year of age and under one year of age were exported to: (a) United States; (b) United Kingdom?
2.	What is the quota to each of these countries?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Exports of cattle, n.o.p. in the fiscal year ended March 31:
One year old and less-To United States, 24,870 head.
One year old and less-To United Kingdom,
nil.
Over one year old-To United States, 100,304 head.
Over one year old-To United Kingdom, 2,811 head.
2.	The trade agreement between Canada and the United States effective January 1, 1936, contains the following reductions in duty on
Questions

cattle with a proviso that the reduced rates are not to apply on imports into the United
Description
Cattle weighing less than 175 lbs. each.. ..
Cattle weighing 700 lbs. or more each and
not specially provided for	
Cows weighing 700 lbs. or more each and imported specially for dairy purposes..
No quota, has been established for import
States in excess of the quantities specified, when imported from any source:
Rate of duty	Total quota
Reduced from 21 cents per lb.
to 1J cents per lb	 51,933 head
Reduced from 3 cents per lb.
to 2 cents per lb	 155,799 head
Reduced from 3 cents per lb.
to 1J cents per lb	 20,000 head
of Canadian cattle into the United Kingdom.


EXPORTS OF HOGS AND HOG PRODUCTS
Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	How many live hogs were shipped last year to: (a) United States; (b) United Kingdom, from January 1, 1936, to December 31, 1936?
2.	What quantity of pork products was exported in 1935-1936 to:	(a) United States;
(b) United Kingdom?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1. Exports of live hogs to United States and United Kingdom in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1936, were as follows:-
	United	United
	States	Kingdom
	Number	Number
Swine for improvement		
of stock	... 	5Swine, n.o.p	. .. 75	-2.	Fiscal	Year 1936Exports to-	United	UnitedStates	KingdomCwt.	Cwt.Pork, fresh, chilled	or	frozen	.. 57,177	5,943Bacon, and hams..	.. 6,889	1,186,509Pork, dry salted..	.. 577	2,128Pork, pickled, in barrels	275Lard	.. 15	181,109


FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENTS-MANITOBA
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McDonald (Souris):
1.	What was: (a) the total debt; (b) the total assets of the first l.OO'O farmers in Manitoba whose cases were disposed of under the provisions of the Farmers Creditors' Arrangement Act?
2.	What was the average debt in the cases referred to above for: (a) agreement for sale; (b) mortgage; (c) taxes; (d) relief and seed liens; (e) implement liens; (f) to banks; (g) chattel mortgages; (h) to merchants; (i) miscellaneous?
3.	How many proposals of farmers in the province of Manitoba under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act were referred to the board of review?
4.	How many such cases have been disposed of by the board of review?

5.	What is the most recent statistical information available pertaining to the amount of the debt of farmers in Manitoba whose cases have been disposed of by the board of review:
(a)	secured debt; (b) unsecured debt?
6.	What reductions were made by the board of review in the debts last above referred to?
7.	What has been the annual interest reduction effected by the board of review in its decisions pertaining to these cases?
8.	What is the average debt of the farmers of Manitoba who have applied to benefit under the above act?
Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	(a) $6,707,482; (b) $4,340,059.
2.	(a) agreement for sale, $1,535; (b) mortgage, $3,500; (c) taxes, $219; (d) relief and seed liens, $23; (e) implement liens, $221; (f) to banks, $222; (g) chattel mortgages, $234; (h) to merchants, $113; (i) miscellaneous, $640.
3.	To January 31, 1937, 1,728.
4.	1.453.
5.	To January 31, 1937, (a) $7,713,606.18;
(b)	$1,297,546.06.
6.	To January 31, 1937, (a) $2,884234.17; (b) $1,002,504.76.
7.	To January 31, 1937, $304,537.76.
8.	$7,171.97.


KELOWNA, B.C., PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	How many tenders were received for the erection of a public building at Kelowna, British Columbia?
2.	What were the names and addresses of those who tendered, and the amounts of their tenders ?
3.	Were any tenders received after the date set for opening the tenders? If so, what were the names and addresses, and the amounts?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1, 2 and 3.-The following three tenders were received within the time specified, viz.: 12 o'clock noon, February 22, 1937; R. E. Paget, Vancouver, $41,925; Dore & Ryan, Kelowna, $44,450; Bennett & White Construction Company, Ltd., Vancouver, $44,542. Two more tenders were received after the time specified, viz.: 2.04 p.m. of the same day from the following: A. C. Bennett, Kelowna, $42,446; Patterson & Black, Kelowna, $52,391.

Questions as Orders for Returns


COMMUNIST PARTY IN CANADA
Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: Is the government taking steps at the present time to prevent the communist party in carrying on its propaganda work in Canada?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: The government is taking all steps within its jurisdiction to maintain peace and order in Canada.


TARIFF BOARD-ANIMAL OILS AND FATS
Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	Has the federal government or the Minister of Finance received the Teport from the tariff board on application No. 99, animal oil and fat producers of Canada?
2.	If so, when was it received?
3.	If not, when will it be received?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No information.


OTTAWA DISTRICT WEIGHTS AND MEASURES INSPECTORS
Mr. HYNDMAN:: _ 1. Who is inspector of weights and measures for the district of Ottawa?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	How many senior inspectors are there in the said district?
4.	What is the nationality of each of them, and when were they severally appointed?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Camille A. Dio-n, district inspector.
2.	June 4, 1924.
3.	One.
4.	Canadian. Answered by No. 2.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the total cost of the Employment and Social Insurance Commission since its inception to date?
2.	Who were or are the commissioners?
3.	When was each one appointed, and how long did he or she serve in such capacity?
4.	How much did each one receive from the state during that period?
5.	What did each one do in return, in such capacity during that period?
6.	Was the said commission abolished?
7.	If so, when and why?
8.	If not, why?


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SECURITIES
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Did the governor of the province of Canada in 1852 appoint nine directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in consideration of the guarantee of the province being afforded to the bonds of the company?
2.	Was an agreement made in 1856 between the government of Canada and the said company for the issue of 20 year preferential bonds in London, England, and were the proceeds of the said bonds deposited with the agents of the province in London and released to the company for the purpose of building the Victoria bridge and other railway works specified by the government of Canada?
3.	Did the province of Canada in 1861 default on her guarantee of the bonds of the said company?
4.	Was a compromise settled in 1862 between the province, the bondholders and the company under which the imperial government provided a subsidy, the bondholders granted a ten years' moratorium and litigation avoided?
5.	Did the preferential bondholders in 1873 accept in exchange for their bonds perpetual preference stocks so as to enable the company to finance the International Bridge Company incorporated by the laws of the state of New York and to construct the Niagara bridge?
6.	Were the terms of the arrangement between the said preferential bondholders and the company made in England, and did they receive the authorization of this house as set out in the Grand Trunk Arrangements Act, 1873?
7.	Did the government on January 19, 1923, declare these perpetual preference stocks to be the property of the Minister of Finance? If so, was this not a breach of the terms of the compromise of 1862 and the arrangement of 1873, and was there any payment of an equitable consideration?
8.	Will the government consult the imperial government before surrendering the perpetual preference stocks to the Canadian National company?



VALUE OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES

Mr. POULIOT:: What is: (a) the practical usefulness, and (b) the economic value in dollars and cents of each one of the scientific discoveries mentioned in sessional paper 183, tabled on February 25, 1937?


Mr. ROGERS:: The second part of this
question does not admit of an answer in precise terms. I therefore ask that this part of the question be dropped, and, as to the first part, that it stand as an order for return.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT

Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What committees have been set up under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act?
2.	How many persons employed on or by such committees received reimbursement from the government during the year 1936?
3.	What was: (a) the rate of salary paid to each; (b) the amount of salary paid'to each; (e) the amount of travelling and living expenses paid to each, during the year 1936?
4.	What was the total amount of money spent on, for or by this commission since its appointment?
5.	What was the date of its appointment?
6.	Has any report been filed with the government regarding the work being done under this act?
7.	Is such a report obtainable, and, if so, where?
Motions for Papers



DEFERRED MAINTENANCE WORK ON RAILWAYS

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many man-days were worked on the deferred maintenance work: (a) on the Canadian National railways; (b) on the Canadian Pacific railway, under the agreement between the Canadian government and the said railways?
2.	What was the amount deducted from wages per man per day for board: (a) by the Canadian National railways; (b) by the Canadian Pacific railway?
3.	What was the amount deducted from wages
per man per day or other period, week or month, for bedding:	(a) by the Canadian
National railways; (b) by the Canadian Pacific railway?
4.	What was the amount deducted from wages
per man per day or other period, week or month, for:	(1) medical aid; (2) workmen's
compensation:	(a) by the Canadian National
railways; (b) by the Canadian Pacific railway?


Mr. HOWE:: Return tabled herewith.
BERTHIER-MASKINONGE, QtJE., PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. PERRON:: 1.	What works were executed in the county of Berthier-Maskinonge by the federal government, or to which the federal government contributed in part, during the years from 1931 to 1935 inclusive?
2.	What were the amounts expended on each of said works?
3.	What are the names of the workmen employed on said works, the number of hours each one worked, and what salary was paid to each?
4.	Who were the individuals who supplied the materials for said works; what were the quantities, and the prices paid?



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: 1.	What branches of the inside service of the Department of National Revenue are under:
(a)	the commissioner of customs; (b) the commissioner of excise; (c) the commissioner of income tax?
2.	Who are the chiefs of the following
branches:	(a) accommodation and equipment;
(b)	accounts; (c) correspondence; (d) law; (e) national revenue review; (f) records; (g) refunds; (h) staff and estimates; (i) statistical; (j) supplies; (k) appraisers?
3.	When was each of the above officials appointed to the service? .
4.	On what date was each one appointed to his present post?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Return tabled herewith.



INCOME TAX PAID BY ALBERTA FARMERS

Mr. ROWE (Athabaska):: 1.	What was the number of Alberta farmers who paid dominion income tax in the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936?
2.	What was the total amount of dominion income tax paid by the above farmers?
3.	What was the total amount of dominion income tax paid by all residents of Alberta during the same period?
4.	What was the total number of dominion income tax payers in Alberta during the years mentioned?
Mr. ILSLE'Y: Return tabled herewith.
IMr. Douglas.]



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. YOUNG (for Mr. Ryan):: For a copy of all memoranda, telegrams, correspondence, charges, evidence and other documents in the possession of the Department of Agriculture, relating to the dismissal of the following: Fred W. Warnock, Wm. Allen McDonald, Joseph Daigle, Clyde W. McCloskey, William D. McLeod, Donald S. Palmer, Guy Welch and Paul W. Caldwell, fruit and vegetable inspectors, all of New Brunswick;
Also a statement showing the dates of appointment and dismissal and reasons assigned for dismissal in each case, along with all information received by the department which resulted in such dismissals and the name or names of the person or persons who assumed responsibility for such information.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: For a copy of all memoranda, telegrams, correspondence, charges, evidence and other documents in the possession of the Department of Agriculture, relating to the dismissal of the following: Chester R. Edwards, Harry Bonnell, John Coyle, Leslie Trainor, Clifton C. Ince, Harold Bagnall, Russell F. Nicholson, junior fruit and vegetable inspectors, and Chester E. Shaw, senior fruit and vegetable inspector, all of Prince Edward Island;
Also a statement showing the dates of appointment and dismissal and reasons assigned for dismissal in each case, along with all information received by the department which resulted in such dismissals and the name or names of the person or persons who assumed responsibility for such information.



JONES AVENUE, TORONTO, GRADE SEPARATION

Mr. TOLMIE (for Mr. Church):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents, relating to grade separation at Jones avenue in the city of Toronto, including a copy of any correspondence or offers from the mayor and corporation of Toronto in this connection.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board of railway commissioners report that it is practically impossible to copy all the documents, plans and blueprints that are on the file in connection with this application. They say, however, that they will be glad to furnish the hon. member with any documents he cares for, particularly if he goes to their office and looks over the files.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. member in whose name the motion stands is absent, might it not be well, in view of the explanation made by the minister, that the motion stand until he is present?
Motion stands.

The Budget-Mr. Heaps



LITTLE METIS, QUE., LIGHT KEEPER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MaeINNIS:
For a copy of all papers, letters, affidavits, evidence and other documents, including a copy of the report of the commission of investigation, concerning the dismissal of the former lightkeeper, Mr. J. Antonio Landry, at Little Metis, Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Customs Act to provide for certain conditions in estimating the value for duty of goods imported into Canada, also for the ratification and confirmation of certain values for duties heretofore fixed, and further to provide for drawbacks in respect of consumable materials and for drawbacks in the case of certain exported goods.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to set aside lands in the province of New Brunswick as a national park and to withdraw from the national park and revest in the province of Nova Scotia a portion of the lands set aside by the Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island National Parks Act, 1936.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Public Works on behalf of His Majesty to enter into an agreement to pay to the corporation of the city of Ottawa the sum of $100,000 for the year ending July 1, 1937.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the hon. the acting Prime Minister (Mr. Lapointe) whether the members of the house will shortly be supplied with copies of the judgments of the Privy Council regarding social legislation, which have now been printed?
Ernest Lapointe: Instructions have been given to publish in pamphlet form the judgments of the Supreme Court and of the Privy Council concerning the legislation referred to. I shall make inquiries as to whether this work has been completed, and orders will be issued for the immediate distribution of the pamphlet to the members of the house.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 5, 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.
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North) :: Mr. Speaker, if the house were logical in its deliberations I think the amendment that has been moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) should receive unanimous support. I make that dbservation because in previous years members of the Liberal party, when in opposition, supported motions of this kind. L might go back to March of the year 1930 when a similar motion was moved in this chamber, and every Conservative member voted in favour of the Liberal government taking action to deal with the problem of unemployment. Then in 1931, after the Conservative party had been in power for a little over a year, a motion was presented on going into supply asking the government to
15SS
The Budget-Mr. Heaps

take definite and immediate action to cope with the problem of unemployment, and every Liberal member of the house supported it. If therefore on this occasion I asked Liberal members to vote for the amendment I would be asking them to do just what they did in previous years. Even as late as 1935, to which reference has been made already, the Liberal party supported an amendment of this kind.
I think it will be recognized on all sides, and in fact I believe it was admitted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in his address on Tuesday last, that up to the present time the government have not been able to take effective action to deal with the unemployment problem in Canada. I think, further, it is generally recognized that there is no question, other than perhaps the question of peace or war, that is of such vital importance to the people of this country as the question of unemployment. It was unemployment and the economic conditions prevailing in the country in 1930 that brought about the change of government that occurred at that time. I also believe it was the unemployment situation and the economic condition of the country in 1935 that brought about the change of government that occurred in that year. Therefore if any government, whether it be Liberal or Conservative, does not deal in am effective way with the unemployment problem its chances of being returned to power at a subsequent election are very slight indeed. So it is evident that if this government hopes to be returned to office at another election it must deal effectively with this pressing problem.
For the moment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with some of the remedies that have been suggested and applied by parliament during the past six or seven years. In 1930, as most hon. members will recall, unemployment was to be cured by increasing tariffs and by preventing the dumping of goods into this country. By the process of an increase in tariff on all goods entering Canada, and anti-dumping duties, we were to solve the problem of unemployment. As the years went by, however, the failure of that theory became more and more apparent, until in 1934 it was more or less abandoned and the government of the day began to introduce social legislation, which has since been declared ultra vires by the highest court of the empire. In other words it may be said that those who at one time believed the problem of unemployment might be solved by increasing the tariffs of Canada realize to-day perhaps more than ever before that the desired result cannot be achieved in that way. The present government believes it can deal with the unemployment situation in the opposite way. The Con-

servative party when in power expected to solve the unemployment problem by increasing tariffs; the party now in power expects to solve the problem by decreasing tariffs. In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, just as the increases in our tariffs were ineffective in dealing with the question of unemployment, so any reductions in our tariffs will also be ineffective.
The policy of the present government, according to the statements that have been made, is to solve the unemployment problem by increasing our trade with the other nations of the world. I do not think there is one member of this house, regardless of what political party he may support, who is not in favour of increasing our trade with other countries. I do feel, however, that so far as increased trade with the other nations is concerned, the tariff structure of a country to-day, is not as important as it may have been years ago. There are so many other factors affecting the problem, that while it may be desirable for a number of reasons to have lower tariffs both in Canada and in other countries, we have reached a stage in our economic development where the tariff structure is a less important factor than it has been in previous years.
I should like to call attention to some of the election literature issued by the Liberal party during the last campaign. I do not think it is unfair to say that the policy of the Liberal party, as expressed in some of the publications issued from the headquarters in Ottawa, was to the effect that by making treaties with other nations of the world and by reducing our own tariffs we should extend our trade so that other nations might obtain the goods we produce. If this policy fails, as I believe ultimately it must, then I wonder what the policy of the government is going to be. So far they have not indicated what their policy is to be with respect to the unemployment situation. It is admitted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) that there are
400,000	men and women out of employment. There are over 1,000,000 persons in receipt of public relief, and yet not one definite word have we had from the government as to what its real policy will be.
I know they will come to us and say, "We have appointed a commission to deal with the unemployment problem." But despite the fact that the government has been in power since October, 1935, and despite the appointment of a commission, the results up to this time have not been satisfactory. The commission has done nothing which could not have been done had it not been in existence. A home improvement plan was recommended in 1935; there is nothing new in the farm

The Budget-Mr. Heaps
placement scheme, to deal with the single men. When the Minister of Labour spoke on Tuesday last he dwelt at length with what the government had done to deal with the single unemployed. After the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) I believe no hon. member will again refer to what the government has done in coping with the problem of unemployed single men.
People in Canada expect something more than a policy of inaction such as the government has followed. It would seem that, Micawber-like, the government is hoping that ultimately something may turn up. But nothing is likely to turn up unless the party in power is prepared to take definite and effective action. On many occasions hon. members have been asked what concrete suggestions they have to offer. My suggestion would be that the government look to the sister dominions. Look at what New Zealand has done since the new government took office a little more than a year ago. May I read from a communication sent to a party in Winnipeg, and later published in a Winnipeg paper, in regard to some of the experiments which were tried in New Zealand and proved to be effective. I wonder if our government will be good enough to follow the example set by this sister dominion. This is what, in part, was written:
Our labour government is in recess, after a most strenuous session in which it has put more bills through than any other government before, viz: taken over the transport of the country; passed the forty-hour-week bill, with forty-four hours for shops; taken over the Reserve bank which controls the finances of the country; taken over the control of butter and cheese (the farmer now gets a fixed price for same and is better off); . . .
May I here interpose that no farmer in Canada would object to the same thing being done right here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are no provinces
there.


Abraham Albert Heaps: "Oh, my child, you cannot eat from that cupboard; we must wait until people somewhere else are satisfied. When they have all they want I might let you have a few crumbs from our own cupboard." Obviously that state of affairs in any household would be ridiculous. Immediately the child would say to its mother, "Why can I not have some of the things in the cupboard? They belong to us; we have produced them; why can we not eat them?" But the mother would say, "No, my child, wait until the people a few streets away are satisfied, and then you may have anything that is left in the cupboard." The same reasoning would apply to the situation in Canada. Our people .beg of us, "We want the goods we have produced; we want foodstuffs, clothing and shelter." But we say to them, "No, you cannot have those goods 'until we have satisfied the demand in China"-or in Japan, Germany, France or some other part of the world. If for a number of reasons the people in those other parts of the world are not able to obtain or to purchase the goods we have to! offer, then our own people must go without them. Is there any hon. member who will say that that is the logical thing to do? Certainly not. That is why I say, when we speak about satisfying foreign markets and creating a foreign demand, that the first thing we ought to do is to satisfy the demand for goods in the Dominion of Canada.
I pointed out that in New Zealand they have attempted to do something to cope with this problem, and I sincerely hope that some of the things which have been adopted there will be adopted here. The government cannot shield itself indefinitely behind the British North America Act. If there is a will to d!o something for the people of Canada, I think the way can be found to overcome this obstacle which is inherent in our constitution. If, as has' been stated, it is the declared policy of the government to wait until the provinces do something, then I am afraid this parliament is in a state of absolute despair. If we have to wait until all the nine provinces of Canada agree upon a definite and fixed policy, we may have to wait many a long day before this parliament will be able to do something in a concrete way to deal with the pressing problems which now confront us.
It has been stated by the Liberal party that the policy of expanding markets has been one of the means of easing this problem. That party also takes credit for the fact that during the past twelve or eighteen months there has been a decided increase in our export trade,

which they claim is diue to the treaties made with other countries. I cannot subscribe to that theory. Rightly or wrongly, I am of the opinion that if we had made but little change in our tariff structure-in passing I may say that I am always in favour of lower tariffs-there would still have been an increase in the trade of this country with other nations of the world. The worst year that we had from the standpoint of imports and exports was 1932, but from that time onward there has been a steady improvement in the amount of goods exported from this country, and also an improvement in the amount of goods imported. I am always loth to quote figures, but on this occasion perhaps it would not be out of place. I should like to give some figures recently published by the bureau of statistics.
The first figures I shall give refer to trade with the United Kingdom. I find that in 1932 our exports to Great Britain amounted to $178,171,000 in round figures. In 1935 they had increased to $306,897,000, and for the calendar year 1936 they had jumped to $399,-
830,000.	I do not think anyone can claim that the tariff structure as between the two countries was the dominating factor in that tremendous increase in trade. As was pointed out the other day by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), much of this increase was the result of the tremendous demand in Great Britain for supplies and materials for armament purposes.
We find practically the same increase in trade with other countries where there have been no new trade agreements entered into during the past five years. Both New Zealand and Australia show practically the same results. When the government took credit for the boosting of trade between the United States and this country through the medium of the trade treaty, I do not think their argument was sound. The United States have spent tens of billions of dollars in an effort to improve economic conditions, and part of that increased business was bound to come to this dominion. When we consider the amount of money spent by the United States on their home improvement plan it is quite easy to understand why there has been such a huge increase in the trade between the province of British Columbia and that country. The trade treaty signed a year ago was only a negligible factor in the increase of trade between Canada and the United States.
I have pointed out, and I still maintain, that increases in the tariff will not solve our problem. Neither will decreases. If this government, or any party which may be in power,

The Budget-Mr. Heaps
expects to improve the economic condition of this country or grapple seriously with the problem of unemployment, it will have to go far deeper into our economic structure than merely tinkering with the tariff. Our whole system of production to-day is based on the profit motive. The minute a firm is not making a profit, production begins to slow down or ceases entirely. We in our group contend that the profit motive must give way to a higher one. The production of commodities must ibe carried on for the purpose of satisfying the legitimate demands of the people of this dominion.
The factors of production and consumption must be closely correlated. If we increase our production, as we have in years gone by, by leaps and bounds, and our consumption does not keep pace, then just as surely as night follows day we are bound to create an unemployment problem or aggravate one which may already exist. The spread between production and consumption is an indication and guide to our unemployment situation. The larger the spread there is between wages and production or consumption, the greater will be our unemployment problem. Unless our purchasing power or consumptive opportunities are correlated in some way to the question of production, then our unemployment problem will continue and remain with us for many a long day to come. It is only by increasing our consumptive opportunities, by increasing wages, if you wish to put it that way, and by decreasing the spread between wages and production, that we can tackle this unemployment problem in a definite way.
It has been stated on more than one occasion in this house by the Minister of Labour that the government has in mind a long-term policy of dealing with this problem of unemployment. How long shall we have to wait before being shown that policy? Are we to be shown it just on the eve of an election? We must bear in mind that when this session has been completed, and it is expected it will be over before very long, practically half the life of this parliament will have elapsed, that is if we are to have an election at the end of four years. I believe before the end of the second session of this parliament the people should be told what the definite policy of this government is to cope with the unemployment problem. So far they have not done anything really different from what was done by the government in office between 1930 and 1935, but they have dressed it up in a different way. Instead of relief being handled by the government it is now being handled by a commission, which, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) points out, does not even report to this house. That body was going to coordinate things, to make matters easier as between the dominion government and the governments of the provinces. I do not think anybody in this country takes the commission very seriously. It may act in some measure as a buffer between the federal government and the provinces and municipalities, or it may be a convenient way of "passing the buck," but so far it has not proved effective to cope with the problem of unemployment.
I once described commissions as a convenient way of shelving inconvenient problems; I believe the Prime Minister used similar language a few weeks ago with reference to committees and conferences. The problem of unemployment should be constantly before this chamber; we should not leave it to be dealt with by a body which is not directly responsible to this house.
I am anxious that some time during the debate we shall find out what is the real policy of the government. It was not explained to us the other evening when the Minister of Labour replied to the leader of the opposition. All the minister did was to attempt a defence of the actions of his department in dealing with the single unemployed. Not a ray of hope did he give to our vast army of unemployed scattered all over the dominion. At the present time, when almost half the term of this parliament has expired, all that we can show to the people is a commission, a home improvement plan which they suggested and which is nothing new, a farm placement scheme, and a sort of bureau of statistics which they established on their own account. In my opinion we have in this country a most efficient bureau of statistics and it was unnecessary for the commission to create any new bureau for its own purposes. That seems to be the sum total of the commission's accomplishments since the time it was appointed. It may truly be said that the commission has laboured but has not produced even a mouse.
The Minister of Labour showed great anxiety to bring forward election promises which were made by other political parties. As a rule I do not care to raise these matters, because they speak for themselves. But I recall that huge placards were posted all over my constituency-and other bon. members no doubt had the same experience-stating in big letters, "Vote for King and action." Besides these placards there were hundreds of little stickers, at the top of which appeared the anneal, "Vote Liberal and get action."
The Budget-Mr. Heaps


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, I am waiting
and the unemployed of this country are waiting for action. What we have had up to now is a period of inaction. It is time that inaction ceased and that we got down to real and definite action to deal with unemployment. I noticed these words in small type in the middle of this little sticker, "Please remove nine days before election day." Evidently it would not do to keep it there too long.
There was a by-election in Toronto in 1933. I remember that when I went down to speak in the constituency this paper I hold in my hand was given to me. Look at the large headlines; they can be seen, I believe, across the aisle. They say, "King banishes fear for workers;" and a huge headline:
Social insurance in Canada to end fear for working class is presaged by the Liberal party leader.
These appeared in a paper published on September 22, 1934. I am still waiting, Mr Speaker, for action, action that will banish fear from the minds of hundreds of thousands who are out of work in the dominion.
What were the specific promises made by the Liberal party? There were many. The first one that comes to my attention is that when they would get into power they would reduce or abolish the sales tax. That was reduced or abolished, was it not? Their method of reducing the tax was to increase it from six per cent to eight per cent, an addition of about thirty-three per cent. Then there was a definite promise that the government would bring in an unemployment insurance bill. Let us see what was said. This is the Prime Minister speaking, I think, over the radio, and reported in a publication of Saturday, August 3. He said:
Unemployment of first concern.
The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It would deal with the present emergency conditions, through a representative national commission.
And then he goes on to say:
As permanent measures-
And I want the "hear, bear" of the hon. member to come again after this:
-the Liberal party is pledged to introduce policies which will serve to provide employment by reviving industry and trade; and to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance.
One does not hear any " hear, hear " now from the Liberal side. Instead of that promise being carried out, what have we got? The first thing the Liberal party did when they

got into power was themselves to refer this matter to the privy council, and they got the decision they expected and probably the decision they wanted. In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous responsibility upon the Liberal party. When pledges are made to the electors they should not be regarded in the lighthearted manner in which they are evidently regarded by some hon. members.


Mr. BRADETTE:: We are just as serious as you are.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Now, Mr. Speaker, let us glance at another little publication, one of those handbills which the Liberals distributed by hundreds of thousands:
Tory policies create unemployment. Vote Liberal.
What was the inference? That if one voted for the Liberals their policies would end unemployment in the dominion. Is it in accordance with principles of honest politics that although nearly half the term of this parliament has gone by, and although certain definite policies were promised to the electors, not even an attempt is being made to carry out those promises? I do not think anyone can contend that such political practices are right. One Liberal, however, was not without vision; he evidently had some idea of what was coming-I refer to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), who, when he was in opposition, made the following cryptic statement:
The majority of the Liberals in the next house is going to be so large that it will be difficult to keep them to their promises. But I promise you that the British Columbia Liberal contingent will live up to its promises.
I should like to see the British Columbia contingent live up to its promises and convince the rest of the Liberal party to go and do likewise. Throughout the country in the last election one of the mottoes of the Liberal party was "work and wages." I am waiting to see the unemployed get the work, and the wages as well, but so far the Liberal party has not provided it. It may not be pleasant for me to bring home to hon. gentlemen opposite some of the promises on which they were elected at the last election. I have before me a little leaflet advising the electorate to " Vote Liberal for work with wages, security and progress." But the people have not the work, nor have they adequate wages, security, and progress. The unemployed cannot be expected to be satisfied with beautiful phrases, which are meaningless when analyzed, as a program of the government. They want something definite, something that will give them

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
a ray of hope. A commission is not in itself sufficient. To-day the policy of the government is simply to hand out a dole to hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and it is not even creating useful public works. As I have contended before in this house, the provision of public works is in itself no solution of the unemployment problem; it is a palliative which ultimately does not palliate. It merely adds to the national debt and makes it more difficult as time goes on to find further capital expenditures for public relief works.
The Minister of Labour was a professor, and he is a close student of economics. He knows far better than I do that no amount of public works which merely adds to the debt burden of the country can in itself be a solution of the unemployment problem; and when we have to-day, as the only means of coping with unemployment, the home improvement plan, it is only another form of capital expenditure in the attempt to solve the unemployment problem. This capital expenditure is not made, however, by the federal government; it is made by the individual, who is creating a debt for himself which it will take one, two or three years to wipe out. In other words, the poorer classes in Canada are being asked to mortgage their own future earnings in order that they may be able to provide work for themselves and others for the purpose of meeting the unemployment situation. My hope is that the government will take hold of the unemployment problem in a real, effective and fundamental way and see whether they cannot do something to inspire some confidence and hope in the vast number of men and women who are out of work at the present time.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: My first word is' one of congratulation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on the manner in which the budget address was presented this year. He seems to have covered the situation thoroughly, and he delivered the budget in a manner which I am sure every member of the house will commend.
No matter what policies the government put into effect, every one knows that it will take some little time before the full benefit of those policies can be recognized foy the people. You cannot undo overnight what has been happening over a period of years; you cannot get the full benefit of any policies within a few days after they are put into effect. The immediate question seems to be, what is to be done about unemployment. We all know that it is a serious question, and hon. members, no matter to what party they belong,
are all concerned over the seriousness of it. Everyone in Canada who has anything to do with public affairs is more or less concerned. It will be necessary to have temporary measures of relief for some time to come.
I commend the government for the manner in which they have been administering relief during the sixteen months they have been in office. Late last fall the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) took occasion to visit the constituency I have the honour to represent, and there he had an opportunity to meet the representatives of the councils of eight or nine rural municipalities. He wanted to hear first-hand, suggestions they might have to offer for improvement in the distribution of relief or the better handling of the relief policy, and also any complaints they had to voice. I had an opportunity to sit in at that meeting. These eight or nine municipalities, represented mostly by reeves and secretary treasurers, all had the same word of commendation for the government. They had no difficulties in the municipalities except in one respect; blankets that we supposed to be delivered, as I understood, by the Canadian Red Cross Society, had not yet reached these municipalities. The minister agreed to look into that question, and when a short time later I saw some of these representatives of the municipalities I learned that their troubles on that score had been removed. While the minister was there we should have liked to have had the opportunity of showing him one of the temporary works that might be undertaken to end unemployment in that particular district. For a number of years the people of southwestern Saskatchewan have been agitating for a bridge across the South Saskatchewan river at a place called Saskatchewan Landing. We recognize, of course, that it is a provincial matter, but in the past the federal government has assisted in the construction of bridges across the Saskatchewan river, and we have been hoping that it will at this time continue that work and build a bridge where it is so badly needed.
On February 12 of this year a delegation waited upon the provincial government in Regina. It consisted of the representatives of an association known as the Southwestern Saskatchewan Bridge Association, representatives from the Swift Current board of trade, the council of the city of Swift Current, reeves and councillors of rural municipalities, mayors and councillors of urban municipalities, farm organizations and others. They pressed1 upon the government at Regina the urgent necessity of a bridge at the point in question. At that time they presented all the facts to the provincial government. They were somewhat
The Budget-Mr. Bothwell

encouraged, and were told) that representations would be made to Ottawa. This bridge at Saskatchewan Landing is needed) for various reasons. There is a tremendous amount of traffic there. In fact some 63,320 units cross at Saskatchewan Landing, and they have to cross on a ferry which during the past two or three years has not been working satisfactorily owing to the low water in the river. At certain times of the year the ferry is closed and in order to get to the other side of the river you have to cross in a cage slung from a cable. Vehicles of all descriptions, during the weeks when the ferry is closed, have to drive from one hundred to t.wo hundred miles out of their way to reach the bridge at Elbow.
The areas which would1 be tributary to and served 'by the bridge comprise parts of the richest farming and ranching area of the province, which despite the period of drought has proven its capability to produce enormous agricultural wealth, and is occupied by residents who in normal times produce the best grades of wheat in the world. The area includes approximately eight million acres of rich farm and1 ranch lands. I hardly need call attention to the difficulty of keeping up communication between the south and the north. This bridge is located on No. 4, highway, which extends from the United States border through to Battleford and Prince Albert and the National park, to the northeast. It is a direct connection with a national park south of the United States line, over the Dominion-Ytel'lowstone highway. No. 4 highway intersects more east and west highways in Saskatchewan than any other north and south highway. It intersects highways Nos. 32 , 40. 43 , 44, 51, 7, 13, 14 and 31, No. 5 to Lloydminster and Edmonton, and No. 26 west to St. WaLburg. The Montana state highway commission have determined on the location of a bridge in their area to be constructed across the Missouri river, and, if we had a bridge at Saskatchewan Landing we would, have then one of the best tourist roads from the United States to the national parks in the northern part of Saskatchewan. I mention this in order that it may be brought to the attention of hon. members as well as of the Minister of Labour, who foy this time I am sure is pretty well fed up with listening to representations from the member for Swift Current and others living in the district which would be served and benefited by that road.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not at all.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I am not able to say that any particular saving would result from its construction; the only saving would, be the elimination of the cost of the ferry.

But we should have much better traffic facilities for tourists from, the south, and this country has profited much from tourist traffic in recent years and is endeavouring to encourage it.
One of the objections to the building of this bridge has been that too large a part of the cost would go into- material and engineering and not direct relief. Well the material used has to come from its raw state at some stage and gives employment all along the line, even though it is not giving employment in the province in which the bridge is constructed. Of course it will give a considerable amount of employment there; it certainly is needed^ and it will give employment in other parts of Canada where steel, cement and other materials of the kind are produced. In addition I can say that the cost of the bridge will be materially lower than that of some other bridges which have been constructed, because of the fact that gravel and other materials are in close proximity.
An estimate has been made of the cost. The plans of the bridge have been prepared, and I understand that the provincial authorities are making representations to the dominion government for assistance in building it. I urge upon the minister and the government that an appropriation be made for this purpose at this session. The bridge is a sound undertaking; the cost is low, and the convenience to the public would be immeasurable.
I now come to another matter which it is somewhat foreign to my disposition to speak about; nevertheless I feel I should refer to it. The Minister of Finance in presenting his budget was able to give the people of this country a considerable amount of encouragement by reciting the progress which has been made and suggesting what may be expected in the future. I spoke a few minutes ago about the municipalities surrounding the area and the city which I happen to represent, and how well the people were satisfied with what is being done. I therefore dislike the sort of propaganda that is being put out through that district in order to foster discontent among the people. I refer to an article written by an hon. member of this house and published in a paper called The Advocate, in its issue of February 4. Because of the misrepresentations it contains it reflects upon every hon. member of the house and I feel that it should be brought to the attention of hon. members as well as of the country at large. I quote a portion of it:
For nearly three weeks we have bombarded the government benches with questions and

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
accusations regarding the betrayal of the wheat board, the problems of the drought area, and the need for a peace program. Throughout the entire time not one Saskatchewan Liberal has opened his mouth although often invited to do so.
To-day there arose the matter of "gerrymandering" the constituencies for the next election. Immediately all the strong, silent men from Saskatchewan found their tongues. One after another they are rising and quibbling about the boundaries of their constituencies. Tempers flare and accusations fly back and forth.
Feeding, clothing, and caring for our people is of relatively little importance. Saving one's seat is of paramount importance. So this is parliament? Pardon me, I thought it was a kindergarten.
The heading of this is "Parliament from the Back Benches," by T. C. Douglas, M.P. That, Mr. Speaker, may be good literature but it does not state facts. I took occasion to check up Hansard after reading it, and I found that two members only from Saskatchewan spoke on this question when a motion was before the house in connection with redistribution. The matter was referred to the special committee on the elections and franchise acts, and only two members of the house from Saskatchewan who had reason to complain about the last redistribution took occasion to speak on it. But this article told the world:
Immediately all the strong, silent men from Saskatchewan found their tongues. One after another they are rising and quibbling .	. .
Feeding, clothing and caring for our people is of relatively little importance. Saving one's seat is of paramount importance.
I leave it to the house to judge as to the sincerity of the observation. I should like to read another paragraph from the same newspaper, The Advocate, of February 25, 1937. Speaking of the appropriation for defence purposes it says:
What makes it even more lamentable is when other members come to you afterwards and tell you that they feel the same way as you do but of course you understand it would not do for them to say anything.


Ernest Lapointe: Who wrote this?	.


Charles Edward Bothwell: This is " Parliament from the Back Benches," by T. C. Douglas, M.P.; I assume that is the hon. member for Weybum. Then he goes on:
The outstanding feature of the week was a very excellent speech by Hon. J. G. Gardiner, on the rehabilitation of the drought area. It is doubtful if any man in the House of Commons is better informed than the Minister of Agriculture on the history and economic background of Saskatchewan. Mr. Gardiner was at home discussing this matter, and delivered a most impressive case for western agriculture. However, he somewhat spoiled it the next day by seeking to make political capital out of the work he had done while premier in Saskatchewan, and began to produce documents discrediting the former provincial and federal governments.
And listen to this:
The result was that the day was devoted only to the "knock down and drag them out fight" between him and R. B. Bennett. Mr. Gardiner declared that he was used to discussion in a provincial legislature where apparently it was sometimes permitted to get away with almost anything.
Then later on:
Whereupon the Conservative leader laid him across the table and spanked him soundly, while Mr. Dunning looked on with a rather embarrassed expression on his face.
Well, sir, with reference particularly to the first article, the only advice I am going to give the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas), after drawing the matter to the attention of the house and the country, is that he should acquaint himself with the ninth commandment.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Would the hon. member mind telling us what was said about the wheat board and the wheat question?


Charles Edward Bothwell: My hon. friend can make his own speech. You see, he takes credit for being able to talk by the hour here; he says, "We bombarded the government for hours," but he might also tell the country that when the hon. member for Weyburn starts to talk there seems to be a sudden exodus in the direction of the corridors. If the speeches delivered by the hon. member in this house contain such misrepresentations as appear in his articles in The Advocate I can understand why that exodus occurs.
The other day the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) took exception to a question I asked of the hon. member for Qu'-Appelle (Mr. Perley). I thought he was very fair; he said:
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...
I received several resolutions apparently of that type, all couched in pretty much the same terms. I attended only one of those meetings, and at it such a resolution was presented in typewritten form. I was there before the meeting was called to order. No resolutions committee was appointed; the audience was not asked to present any resolutions, and the only one that was brought before the meeting was the typewritten resolution. I am not going to labour the question; all the resolutions I received were not in exactly the same terms, but they followed the same form so closely that
The Budget-Mr. Bothwell

I agree with the hon. member for Macleod that a great many of these resolutions emanated from some source, and the farmers were asked to pass them and send them on.
The other day the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) twitted some hon. members of the house on their claim to fame based on the fact that they voted against the empire agreements in 1932. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to plead guilty, if that is the correct term, to that offence, if it was an offence, of voting against the empire agreements at that time, and I am prepared to justify my action at any time. Under similar circumstances I would do the same thing over again. At that time we had the opportunity to compare the empire agreements with the Dunning budget of 1930, and there were so many differences that it was pretty hard for the people then sitting to the left of the Speaker to support the empire agreements. Personally I am convinced that the system of bargaining adopted in 1932 was not in the best interests of either Canada or Great Britain, and I believe the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in 1930 was greatly to be preferred.
I should like to compare the agreements of 1932 and the budget of 1930 for a few moments, before I discuss the new agreements. Under the Dunning budget there were 414 reductions in duty out of some 514 changes. Under the conference agreements there were 132 reductions out of 223 changes; fifty-five per cent in the latter case and eighty per cent in the former case. Under the Dunning budget the reductions were so generous as to render certain a substantial increase in imports. Under the conference agreements the reductions were so slight as to leave the rates almost prohibitive. Under the Dunning budget the reductions were made principally on goods in general use by practically all consumers. Under the conference agreements the reductions were principally on goods imported by manufacturers for further processing or on raw material, and it is quite arguable that those reductions would not be passed on to the consumer. Under the Dunning budget reductions on goods imported for direct sale to consumers were largely on the necessities of life and the implements of production. Under the conference agreements the reductions on goods imported for direct sale to consumers were largely on non-essentials, such as automobiles, sporting goods, perfumery, expensive linens, kid gloves, omnibuses, typewriters, and so on. Under the Dunning budget all reductions were based on the low Liberal tariff schedules of 1929. Under the

conference agreements the reductions were based upon the 1930 tariff increases plus the 1931 increases, both of which were very substantial. Under the Dunning budget excise taxes of Great Britain were not to be included when arriving at the cost for duty purposes. Under the conference agreements all costs including excise duties and exchange differentials were included in the cost for duty purposes. Under the Dunning budget the increases in duty number 100, out of a total of 514 changes, while under the conference agreement the increases in duty numbered 139 out of a total of 223. Under the Dunning budget the increases rarely applied to goods imported for direct sale to actual consumers. Under the conference agreement the increases chiefly applied to goods imported for direct sale to consumers. The Dunning budget deductions, according to Mr. Dunning's own words, were made "in the spirit in which we desire to meet all nations." The spirit of the conference agreement was clearly revealed by the right hon. the leader of the opposition, who said on October 12, 1932:
These agreements mark the first step forward in a definite scheme of closer empire economic association. They are based upon the principle enunciated by the Conservative party before the last election, and steadfastly supported by it from that time to the present.
That policy was further illustrated by observations appearing at page 900 of Hansard for 1932. The Dunning budget duty reductions were a generous gesture of good will to Great Britain, made in full assurance that they would meet with an equally generous response in the matter of increased purchases by her from Canada, and were unaccompanied by even the mildest rebuff to foreign nations. The conference agreements arrangements were the result of hard and fast bargaining, absolutely devoid of generosity or generous sentiment, accompanied by positive declarations of anti-foreign trade sentiment and distinctly anti-foreign tariff manipulations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whose statement is that?


Charles Edward Bothwell: My statement. The Dunning budget tariff changes left Canada free to make similar or even greater reductions in duties on goods imported from foreign countries. The conference agreements bound Canada not to reduce existing duties on goods imported from foreign countries (a) on any of the 159 articles in the free list and (b) on 213 items and classes enumerated in schedule E of the agreement, if such action would reduce the margin of preference.
The Dunning budget proposals did not involve the idea of empire self sufficiency, or involve the exclusion of foreign nations. They

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
did not invite reprisals. On. the other hand the conference agreements were predicated upon the idea of empire economic selfsufficiency. Under the Dunning budget proposals, duties might be adjusted from time to time as experience required; they were not for any fixed term. Under the conference schedule the prescribed duties are fixed for five years certain.
Under the Dunning budget proposals the promotion of trade and the interests of the producer and consumer were the chief considerations. Under the conference agreements the manufacturer and the industrialist were clearly the chief consideration, with but little thought for the producer or consumer.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What about the worker?


Charles Edward Bothwell: I now come to the agreement just negotiated with Great Britain, and appearing in the budget address of the Minister of Finance. I am not able to quote figures with authority, but from a study which has been made I believe my figures are approximately correct. Under the new agreement of 1937 approximately $300,000,000 worth of goods, based on the 1936 figures, are guaranteed continued free entry into the United Kingdom. Second, the margins between customs duties imposed by Great Britain on Canadian products and on products of other countries are definitely bound on articles of Canadian export, to an extent approximating $200,000,000 per annum.
People speak about concessions Canada has had to make. I do not believe they are concessions; it seems to me they are benefits. We are in a position to buy goods cheaper, and that should be a benefit to us rather than a concession granted to anybody else. On 179 items the British preferential tariff is reduced. Altogether 425 items are affected. On the remaining 246 items Canada has undertaken that the British preferential tariff shall not be increased during the lifetime of the agreement. Fixed margins are established on only 91 items, as against 215 in the trade agreement of 1932. On 21 of the 91 fixed margin items the measure of margin has been reduced. Sixty-nine textile items are involved in the new agreement, on 32 of which the preferential tariff has been lowered. Where specific duties occurred they have been reduced, and in others eliminated altogether. If cartels in the United Kingdom operate to the detriment of the Canadian consumer the preferential tariff on such cartel controlled articles may be suspended or modified. If after inquiry, it is established that Canadian manufacturers are found to be dumping goods 31111-99
into the British market, the Canadian government will remove the dumping restrictions against the same class of goods imported into Canada. Under the agreement we retain our ham and bacon quotas, and also maintain our position with respect to the export of Canadian cattle.
When we compare the new agreement with that of 1932 I submit there can be no question about the fact that our representatives brought back an agreement from Great Britain which will be of great value, and to a tremendous extent will benefit the Canadian consumer. I was deeply interested in an article appearing in the Financial Post, a copy of which I received on Saturday. It is a publication which has not always been favourable to this government, by any means.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Look at drawbacks,, if there is any doubt about that.


Charles Edward Bothwell: They have set out four outstanding features of the new agreement with Great Britain, and there are one or two paragraphs in that connection I should like to read:
It is a great experiment: Attempting to maintain reciprocity with the United States, preferential trade with Great Britain and trade treaties with other countries, all alongside of each other. If Canada can make a success of the effort it will have shown the world the way to breaking down the barriers of extreme economic nationalism.
The treaty was by no means a simple thing to negotiate and its successful conclusion is a tribute to the patience and earnestness of Mr. Dunning. Mr. Runciman, Mr. Chamberlain and other cabinet ministers and governmental officials on both sides.
Throughout the article they draw attention to the fact that the new agreement will have the effect of benefiting the housewives in particular and the consuming public in general.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the budget speech may I first set out my general impressions of it, and secondly point out a major deficiency in it. Thirdly, may I indicate why the deficiency is there, how it could be remedied, and some reasons why I believe my remedy for it is sound.
For several reasons the minister's speech, in my opinion, deserves commendation. It manifested thoroughness, a literary standard of noticeably high quality,	optimism-much
needed at the present time-and enthusiasm, which is always to be appreciated in a speech of that kind. It encouraged and embodied lower duties, freer trade, wise protection, and the British preference. In my judgment, all these are sound for Canada.



The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
There was one thing with respect to trade which was omitted from the speech, greatly I think to its disadvantage. I think the time has come when we must look to a national board so to plan and manage our trade as to make sure some time beforehand that we shall not have adverse trade balances. Such a board was not provided.
In my opinion the speech deserves censure in that it states that the government is to depend entirely upon two sources for the money required, namely, taxation and borrowing. There are many people throughout the world inclined to condemn nationally created money, but they are going to find just as sure as they live that sooner or later they must subscribe to the principle of nationally created and issued money. The question is: Shall we build the bridge and cross it before we are thrust into the ditch?
Nationally issued money should have been used for many items. It should have been issued debt free and interest free, and it could have been so issued. There are many who are inclined to look with a certain amount of scorn upon this idea every time it is brought forward. For their benefit I should like to read a short quotation from a book by G. D. H. Cole, university leader in economics at Oxford, fellow of the University College at Oxford, vice president of the workers' educational association, vice chairman of the new Fabian research bureau, member of the economic advisory council. To make light of the opinion of such a man is a different thing from making light of the opinion of some upstart from Alberta.
These are his words:
Such a policy of government spending on public works is indeed the only way of making a larger supply of bank money effective in a situation in which private entrepreneurs find it more remunerative to leave productive resources unused. But, if this is to be the outcome^ why on earth should the government submit to pay interest for the privilege of borrowing resources which it has conferred the privilege of creating? Surely the right course is fox the government itself to create the money, paying no interest for its use, but limiting the amount created to the amount that the banks would be allowed to create in accordance with the principles of banking policy laid down earlier in this chapter.
The title of the book from which the above extract is taken is Principles of Economic Planning, and the extract is to be found at pages 113 and 114. This book was published in 1935, so we can be sure that the writer is familiar with conditions as they are to-day, not as they were twenty years ago, when many of the economic principles upon which we seem to be basing our procedure were laid down, principles which since that time have been found wanting.

There is a passage in the budget speech, to be found on page 1215 of Hansard, to which I should like to refer. It commences with the words "that the velocity of circulation" and continues to the words "advantageously produce." This passage merits special attention for it is here that the minister sets forth the economic theories upon which the budget is based. I should like to read short excerpts from this passage, and comment upon them as I go along. The first one is:
This indicates, Mr. Speaker, that the velocity of circulation of cheque-book money is speeding up with the rising tempo of business activity and the increase in public confidence.
I want to state definitely that the chequebook money referred to here is not the kind of money to which I was referring some time ago, nor is it the kind of money to which we of this group will be referring in the future. The passage continues:
This is the factor so frequently forgotten by advocates of monetary panaceas.
Note the scorn. Anything we propose is a panacea, not a suggestion. I believe the time has come in the history of this country when all parties should be prepared to go into a "huddle," to use an athletic expression, on our problems. If the united opinion of all can find a solution of our troubles, it will be greatly to our credit. Instead of that, any new suggestion is scouted as a panacea. I shall deal more particularly with panaceas in a moment or two. I quote:
The volume of money work done is the product of the amount of money multiplied by its velocity of circulation. An arbitrary increase in the amount of money by the fiat of a government is likely to defeat its object by a proportionate or more than proportionate decrease in the velocity factor.
It is just as likely to increase the velocity; that should also be noted. So much for that. Here is another excerpt:
If the increase in the volume of money continues beyond a certain but unpredictable point, public confidence is lost altogether and a flight from money occurs.
I submit that that point is unpredictable. How does the minister know that we are near the unpredictable point? How do the authorities who are managing the financial affairs of this dominion know that we are near that unpredictable point? I say that by no means are we near that unpredictable point. It has been said that if the increase in the volume of money continues, we will have a loss of public confidence; but may I say that if the decrease in the volume of money continues, we shall have a loss of

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
public confidence. In this case there will be a flight, not from money, but from goods, which would be just as disastrous. I quote again:
There will come a time, however, and it may come more quickly than many of us expect, when precisely the opposite policy will have to be followed, if the best interests of the country are to be served.
"Opposite" there meaning decreasing the amount of money. When that time comes we will crush even more the poor. What for? In order that we may be able to catch the few men who wish to speculate. Has the time not come when we should adopt some measure for controlling these speculators, rather than continuing to use vague and indefinite methods by which everyone in the country is ruined in order that the speculators may be caught? Again I quote:
But monetary policy should not be regarded as a panacea.
I submit that no social erediter regards monetary reform as a panacea. What right have opponents of social credit to dub it a "panacea"? The word panacea is used only by our opponents. Monetary reform has been desirable before now, but I submit that it is now essential if we are to deal in any effective manner with our problems of debt, of unemployment, of social service and of defence. This monetary question reminds me of the question of irrigation. When you have a wide semi-arid area of land on which people can no longer live, you begin to wonder whether you cannot find water to go on that land. Those who would advocate irrigation know full well that weeds will grow much more abundantly than before when irrigation is provided; that likewise there are dangers of flooding and water-logging and drowning crops, increasing the difficulty of the work and running up the overhead; the need for a new crop, such as sugar beets, to come in, and the alkali problem besides. But the point is this; they know very well they cannot live in the area unless they get the water. We are rapidly approaching the time, indeed we have reached it, when no longer in this Canada of ours can people live unless the money is available. It is not a question of calling the cure a panacea. Who calls the water used in an irrigation project a panacea? It is merely a sine qua non, to use the Latin expression, "without which nothing" you cannot live unless you get it. Here is another passage from the minister's speech.
It can at best only create conditions favourable to sound development. In a constructive program it should merely take its place as part of a much larger whole.
31111-99}
That statement is absolutely correct. No one from this group has ever contended anything else. But money is lacking among the people. Conditions are now unfavourable to this sound development. Just for an example, let a man go out and, become a farmer and try to get a line of credit without which he cannot possibly produce; he simply cannot get the line of credit. And that situation is multiplied ten thousand throughout this country. In another passage the minister says:
Fundamentally our need is an increase in our aggregate national income.
We all grant that. But how are you going to get it? Where in this budget speech has any indication been given as to how that thing is to be done? May I draw to the attention of the house something I have cited once before, a statement by Robert H. Hemphill, a prominent authority of the United States, to the effect that for every three dollars of income which the people of a country are going to have, there must be one dollar in circulation-not in the banks nor in the hands of wealthy men, but in circulation. It does not say that we are to have one dollar's worth of goods. Certainly we must have the goods, but goods without the tickets are not enough. We have money now, it is true; much of it, but it is in the hands of a few people from whom we find it impossible to get it away. What chance have the half million unemployed, their children and dependents, of getting any of that, money? Is it not, Mr. Speaker, as though you had plenty of blood, in your body but were unable to get it circulating in your hands and feet? What good, is the blood if it is not circulating?
Another passage from the minister's speech:
[DOT]-an increase in material wealth, not a different yardstick by which to measure it. Real purchasing power consists in goods and services produced, not in the number of monetary tickets which are used to facilitate the exchange of these goods and services.
This statement is a major error, as I am going to show as I go on with my speech. Meanwhile, will anybody prove that the tickets are not the thing that count? Will anyone tell me why it was that we had so disastrous a fall in the value of all manner of goods and property in 1929? If it was not that the tickets had been withdrawn, what was it? We still had the goods, but we called those goods in 1929 over-production, although no one had thought of calling them over-production before. Why the change? Values in the United, States fell two hundred billions of dollars. Why did that occur if

The Budget-'Mr. Blackmore
tickets made no difference? Was it because of lack, of goods? It was because of lack of tickets-these very things that are so scornfully disregarded.
What then makes purchasing power? We grant that an increase in material wealth comes first. We now have this wealth in abundance, and what abundance we have not [DOT] now we can easily get.
May I draw to the attention of the house a speech delivered by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) on March 3 as an indication of our possibilities with regard to goods. Why not have the tickets now if we can so easily get the goods-and we have them? The last passage to which I am going to refer is this one:
An increase in our national wealth and income can best be secured by facilitating the production of the many things which Canada is best fitted to produce and by exchanging these products on as large a scale as possible for products which Canada cannot advantageously produce.
I am going to challenge first of all the use of the word "best"; it needs to be qualified considerably. The general statement of the passage is good, but how this thing is to be brought about is the question. It is very much like the promises to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) referred, which the Liberals so freely and abundantly made. They were going to do all these things, but they knew not how. What is the use of telling what ought to be if you have no suggestion as to how the thing can be brought about? If the loss of tickets caused, all this trouble, why should we not now, by a discreet renewal of these tickets, remove the trouble we have had?
Turning from a consideration of the minister's speech let me go on to the reason why these difficulties have arisen as mentioned in the speech. It must be re-stated over and over again to hon. members that we have passed from one state of civilization to another; that we are trying to make a system which was satisfactory in the old situation fit the conditions of the new; and it certainly cannot be done. The minister defined purchasing power in a way which led to a great absurdity in his speech. He said that goods and services are purchasing power. Will hon. members pardon me while I examine that proposition for a few minutes. If goods and services are purchasing power, why is not the merchandise in a store purchasing power? Why do we have fire sales and clearance sales to raise money if the goods themselves are purchasing power? How about the cattle and swine and machinery and wheat that we had in such superabundance in 1932? If they were purchasing power, why were we not well off?

Again, if goods are purchasing power why a re we concerned about having dump duties to prevent the other fellow from giving us his goods, his purchasing power? Again, if goods are purchasing power, why are we so franctically eager to export our goods, beef and wheat and the like, which we so much need?
The final test whether goods and services are purchasing power is this. Will the government of this country part with one of its bonds for goods and services-coal, for example, or wheat or beef or wool? Of course it will not; the recognition of which fact is recognition of the fact that the definition which the minister has given of purchasing power is false.
Now, goods should be purchasing power; but they are not; they are merely potential purchasing power. The Liberals realize that; else why the anxiety for foreign markets? Selling bacon to Britain simply brings us British purchasing power-that is why we sell it there. It brings us their purchasing power, what we call money-their credit or foreign exchange; and with that thing, whatever we call it, we can buy machinery or anything else that we need. Therefore purchasing power is not goods and services; it is the thing for which we exchange goods and services. Some will say, " Well, you can trade bacon for clothes.1' Quite so. But according to the minister's definition clothes in Canada are purchasing power. But so is bacon. Then if we trade bacon for clothes we are merely trading purchasing power for purchasing power, a thing about as wise as trading one dollar bill for another dollar bill. Does that make anything like sense?
Worse still, we all know-members on the Conservative side particularly know very well, and so do the Liberals-that if clothes in Canada are purchasing power and you bring in too many British clothes your clothes in Canada are no longer purchasing power. That is a very serious matter. The members of this house can all clearly see the morass of difficulties into which that definition of purchasing power leads when you follow such a will-o'-the-wisp, for a definition of that sort is a will-o'-the-wisp and nothing else. Take some of our own contentious points that will arise in this house from time to time. We have sugar which we produce in Canada; it ought to be purchasing power, but it is not unless we can sell it. We want to sell it in Canada and therefore we try to exclude outside sugar, and thus we get into difficulties with the maritimes; for they, I understand, have potatoes and salt fish which should be purchasing power, but which are not unless they

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
can sell them. And they want to sell them exactly to the place that wants to sell sugar to us. Again we have manifest evidence that this definition is all wrong.
What has caused this error and consequent absurdity? I should like to speak very slowly and very earnestly to the members of the house on this subject, because right here we find the cause of our whole misconception. The budget speech is (based upon the theories and conceptions of the old economics. The guiding principle of the old economics, or the economics of scarcity, was this-mark the words-" Supply creates its own demand." These are not my words; they are the words of an eminent authority. " Supply creates its own demand." Let me read the words of one of the great teachers, John Stuart Mill, and see how nearly the minister's definition conforms to Mill's statement:
What constitutes the means of payment for commodities is simply commodities.
Good enough, but it leads to all the absurdities I have pointed out. Further:
Could we suddenly double the productive powers of the country, we should double the commodities in every market; but we should, by the same stroke, double the purchasing power. Everybody would bring a double demand as well as supply; everybody would be able to buy twice as much, because everybody would have twice as much to offer in exchange.
That was sound enough until we got into the era of overproduction; but everybody recognizes now that it is no longer sound. It is a little sounder than the minister's definition, but I will not take time to go into that now.
Here is a comment by John Maynard Keynes on that statement-and Keynes is recognized as an authority worth listening to. He says:
If this be true, then there is no obstacle to full employment.
Everybody sees the absurdity of that. Keynes leaves it at that, with impressive silence. At another point he says:
Professional economists after Maltahus were apparently unmoved by the lack of correspondence between the results of their theory and the facts of observation-a discrepancy which the ordinary man has not failed to observe, with the result of his growing unwillingness to accord the economists that measure of respect which he accords to other groups of scientists whose theoretical results are confirmed by observation when applied to facts.
That is exactly the trouble with us to-day. We simply cannot understand existing conditions because our conceptions were framed on the theories of the old economics; and as long as we continue to keep those old theories we shall be unable to explain the facts of the existing situation, and we shall never find a
solution. The definition is utterly unsound to-day because we are in an age of abundance, an age of technological unemployment, an age of high specialization. A hundred years ago a man made a pair of shoes with his own hands and could exchange it for a tin kettle if he wished. To-day if he were working in a factory and putting on heels on shoes, how could he exchange the act of putting heels on shoes for a kettle? That is a question that reveals in another aspect the absurdity of the whole situation which has developed from the ideas of the old economics.
We must have a new concept, for the old theories have become unsound because, as I say, we are to-day living in an age of plenty. Everyone knows that. As a simple illustration may I refer to page 42 of Howard Scott's Introduction to Technocracy. He there informs us that we have learned now to create a machine which has nine million times the working power that one human being has, and he says that 8,766,000 of these units have been developed since 1900. Must it not be manifest to any hon. member who thinks about the situation that there has been a great transformation which is absolutely epochmaking and which demands treatment that is revolutionary? The machine has displaced more and more men and will continue to do so in spite of everything we can do, as the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deach-man) pointed out so well the other night. We are living now in a time when we must acknowledge the new economics; otherwise we shall go on to our doom. We can laugh and sneer about it all we like, but we shall simply be marking time and deceiving the people while civilization crashes into ruin, and then we shall have the melancholy satisfaction of remembering that the danger was pointed out in time for us to have saved the situation if only we had been open-minded enough to see the new economics instead of lingering behind in the old. The new economics can be put in these words: Demand creates its own supply. Just the reverse of the old definition. For example, if you have money in your pocket, is there anywhere in Canada where you cannot get almost anything you want? The goods are here in abundance; what is needed is effective demand. What is effective demand? Effective demand is nothing more or less than those tickets which the minister so scornfully swept away, that is "monetary ti-ckes used to facilitate the exchange of goods and services."
Now what are the principles of these new economics? They are mainly three: (1) that the state shall create and issue the tickets, in the form either of pocketbook money or

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore
cheque book money (2) that the state shall distribute this money, not leaving it to the banks, or to people or industry to borrow it; it must distribute the money itself, for public works, for defence, for social services such as pensions to ex-service men, to the aged:, to mothers, to the blind, and to unemployables, for the endowment of universities and schools, or by other means tending to bring about adequate use of our resources both material and human. To this end1 it may be necessary even to resort to dividends, that idea at which so many people are laughing uproariously. But why not dividends, first to supplement the low wages which men are receiving in industry, where they are often so painfully underpaid that they are suffering and driven to strikes? Or why not dividends for those for whom we can no longer find employment?
Then (3) There must be control of prices and prevention of inflation, by means of a device or mechanism called the just price. I have not time to talk about this in any detail, but those who see in the new economics a danger of inflation must be informed that there is a device in the social credit proposals which prevents inflation directly and scientifically, which device is called the just price and the compensated price. Much of this, of course, will have to be accomplished by cooperation with the provinces, but if this government can force certain provinces to accept a loan council in order to get money it ought not to be very difficult to use the monetary power to force them to do pretty nearly anything.
What grounds have we for believing that the new economics is sound? First, it harmonizes with facts as they are. Secondly, it would result in greater production of goods and in the extension of markets at home and abroad. Third, it could be managed so as to prevent inflation; and fourth, we have competent and responsible authorities who favour the acceptance of its principles. Among these are Professor G. D. H. Cole, and also Professor R. F. Irvine, for twenty-five years professor of economics in the university of Sydney, Australia, who makes the positive declaration that social credit is not only sound but is the only way to keep western civilization from being wrecked utterly.
Since the creation, issue and control of money, both pocket book and cheque book money, especially the latter, in an age of plenty such as is ours, possessing an abundance of goods and services, able to produce more abundantly, will turn these goods and services into actual purchasing power; and since

suoh creation, issue and control will bring about immediately much more goods, both producers' and consumers', which goods, according to the minister's own definition, are purchasing power; and since the best evidence tends plentifully to show that the age of scarcity has given place to an age of abundance ; and since an economic system of scarcity is obviously likely to be disastrous to an age of plenty; and since there are throughout Canada ghastly evidences that our present economic system has produced and is producing disastrous results; and since a great and growing body of informed opinion, supported by concurrence of an increasing number of highly respectable authorities, is convinced that creation and issue of government money in a country of plenty such as Canada, can be controlled so that it will not cause inflation or other destructive results, and offers the only possible Way out of an otherwise apparently hopeless situation, I once more respectfully urge the government to take immediate steps towards the introduction into Canada at an early date of the principles of the new economics, commonly called social credit, exercising the state's constitutional right and duty to create and regulate national money. The government of Canada will thus use the only effective means of dealing with the unemployment problem.
Even without exercising that right the government in 1936-37 could in some measure have alleviated unemployment if it had dealt otherwise with the marketing of Canadian wheat. The evidence indicates strongly that the government's policy deprived the prairie farmers of many millions of dollars in this year of most urgent need. And every dollar lost to the farmer deprived him of a dollar's worth of necessities, deprived Canadian industries of a dollar's worth of sales, deprived the Canadian government itself of revenue from tariff and sales tax, added to the burdens of the provinces and municipalities, and rendered the debt situation more intense.
Therefore, as a representative of a great farming constituency and a great farming province I feel it my duty to move an amendment to the amendment, as follows:
And that this house also regrets the action of the government in passing order in council P.C. 2202, which in effect deprived western farmers of the privilege of selling wheat to the wheat board unless the price of wheat dropped below 90 cents per bushel for wheat graded as No. 1 northern at Fort William.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this subamendment
is out of order. The rules, I think, would have permitted the hon. gentleman to move

The Budget-Mr. Spence
it as an amendment to the motion to go into supply, after the amendment had been dealt with. In other words, in its terms, it is not a subamendment but a substantive amendment, and as such has no relevancy to the amendment, and under the rules can only be dealt with in the manner I have indicated. A subamendment must have some relevancy to the amendment itself; the very word "subamendment" means that it is an amendment to the amendment itself, which this is not. As a substantive amendment to the motion it would be in order if moved by any hon. member who has not yet spoken, after the amendment itself had been disposed of. I do not cite the authorities at the moment, but that is my impression which I submit for consideration, as I presume in the absence of the Speaker a ruling will not be given immediately.


Ernest Lapointe: I was
going to suggest that you, sir, should take the matter into consideration while the debate is going on. I am myself under the same impression as my right hon. friend.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I shall take the matter into consideration.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: I do not intend, to follow the speaker who has preceded me (Mr. Blackmore) because I know very little about finance except financing with real money, and that I have had a good deal of difficulty in getting at times.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


David Spence: But I can assure the hen. gentleman that if he inquires in the man-times to-day about the price of potatoes he will be assured that potatoes are purchasing power, because they bring a nice penny.
First, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on his splendid presentation of the budget. It is not often that I do that, but he has made an admirable presentation. I was disappointed, however, that I and my colleagues who are associated in the business world obtained no relief from certain nuisance taxes that have bothered us for several years; that there was no reduction in the sales tax, and that the minister did not find it possible to eliminate the sugar tax entirely, which I think would have pleased everybody in the country. I was glad to see the minister in the house this afternoon, and to learn that he had recovered from his illness. I hope he will find it possible to be in the house constantly from now on, because I like the twinkle in his eye when things are going his way, and sometimes the scowl on his face when things are going the other way.
I do not intend to take up the time of the house in ipresenting a great many figures, but I should like to make some general observations particularly with regard to what took place in this country from 1921 on, after the Liberal party came into power. I think it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) who said that any government could eliminate unemployment if it went the right way about it. That is not my view; I do not think any government can end unemployment without the cooperation of the rest of the world. I do not think the present government can be expected to end unemployment, which they did so much to create from 1921 to 1930 by meddling with business and tariffs. I contend that that administration fell down on the job, and caused unemployment at a time when the country was or should have been prosperous. There is no doubt in my mind that our lack of prosperity was due in large part to governmental interference with business and tariffs.
At that time the United States caused most of our difficulties, and no attempt was made by the Liberal party to formulate a policy for Canadians. They seemed to be afraid of offending our neighbours to the south. My own view as that if we had looked after ourselves they would have admired us more. The Fordney-McCumber tariff, which was introduced in the United States in 1921, 1922 or 1923-I do not remember the year but I remember what happened-practically shut out all farm produce that previously had been imported into the United States. I remember it so well because at that time I was exporting a great many cars of mixed vegetables, turnips and so on. That tariff imposed duties so high that it was impossible to ship anything to the United States. As a rule there are no customs houses in the interior of that country, and we who were shipping turnips and other vegetables had to buy the commodity, pay the duty and sometimes pay the freight as well. That was too great a risk to take in shipping vegetables down through Virginia and that section of the United States. Incidentally there is one example in the United States that might be followed by this country. We have too many customs houses in the interior of Canada; I think a great many of them could be closed. We had to clear everything through Black Rock or Niagara Falls, and no
The Budget-Mr. Spence

one in the business could afford to take the chance, because at that time the duty was higher than the price of the commodity we were shipping.
Then in 1930 the Hawley-Smoot tariff worked a great hardship on the dairying interests of Canada, who were entirely shut out of the American market. No effort was made by the party then in power to work out a policy for Canadians. Before the Conservative party came into office in 1930 Canada had lost her world markets; there were a great many unemployed in the country; the balance of trade was against us, and we landed in an awful mess. The party now in power had continued to interfere with tariffs and the business world until the investing public became discouraged. We have failed to restore the confidence of the investing public, and until we do that I do not see any hope of curing unemployment.
Hon. members will remember when we first reduced the tariff on farm implements around 1924 or 1925. At that time the Massey-Harris people were located in the end of my riding. They increased the size of their plant in Batavia, New York, and did all the work possible there. Then they shipped their goods to ithe northwest from Batavia instead of from Toronto. In those days the Massey-Harris Company employed people by the thousand where now they employ them by the hundred. I remember when the streets surrounding the Massey-Harris plant were black with people coming out at five o'clock in the evening, but that is not the case today, and I have no doubt that some of the negotiations carried on by the administration then in power were responsible for a good deal of that employment. To-day in Canada thousands of people have plenty of money to invest, but they are encouraged to invest it only in government bonds, which to my mind simply ties up money and keeps it away from business and industry. That is so simply because the people feel that government bonds are the only safe investment. Even to-day, though the interest on bonds is very low, investors consider them much safer than other investments. I have had some experience in the business world and in industry, Mr. Speaker, and I know of nothing that will do more to create employment than encouraging the investor to put his money into industry. Then the government should leave industry alone-stop interfering with it.
The closing of the relief camps, which the government tried to make us believe would be to the advantage of the young men in the camps brought no improvement at all. The

men who were taken out of those camps and put to work put others out of employment, as I think was said by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) the other day. The government simply put one class of people out of employment and gave work to others. As I understand it, some camps are open to-day. They may not be under the regulations of the federal government or under the Department of National Defence as they were formerly, but this government must remain responsible for their upkeep. Those camps served a useful purpose, and may I say they were started by a man with a big heart, Hon. Donald Sutherland, for the purpose of giving these young men something to do, good beds to sleep on, good food to eat and plenty of clothing. If it had been possible to keep out the agitators all would have been well, but those agitators were encouraged by speeches made in this house. Otherwise there never would have been any difficulty and the government would not have had to interfere at all.
There is another thing for which I suppose I can hardly blame the Liberal party entirely, but as a rule they always employ the wrong men to carry on investigations. I am sorry to say that sometimes, but not very often, we have done the same thing. For instance, when it was suggested to build up a business in the West Indies, an hon. member of the house who knew nothing about goods produced in Jamaica or any part of the West Indies, was appointed to go there. He came back with a wonderful report, talking about picking beautiful, juicy oranges off the trees, and about the grapefruit of the West Indies, which even to-day are not considered of any great value when compared with the product of Texas or Florida. His glowing report succeeded in convincing the then government that in the West Indies we would find a great market for our products. I believe he stated that we would send them large quantities of flour and lumber. As a result a steamboat service, which has cost this country hundreds of thousands of dollars, was established. That was a foolish thing for the government to do.
Mr. Black, who at that time was senior member for Halifax, was interested in the steamboat business, because he had boats running to the West Indies and other ports. On that occasion he advised strenuously and vigorously against the service, but despite his efforts the government carried on and established a steamboat route which has lost lots

The Budget-Mr. Spence
of money. No young country can stand maladministration of that kind. The merchant marine of that day was losing plenty of money, without our establishing any such service.
Investigations of one kind and another have been carried on, all of which have proved failures. The present invesigation into the textile business is political, so far as I can see, and a regular pork barrel. Counsel for the commission, Mr. McRuer, has spoken for three weeks, stopping only to sleep and eat; God knows how much he is getting per day.


Mr. MacNICOL:: He is getting too much, whatever it is.


David Spence: Whatever he is getting, the country will be out just that much, because nothing will come of it, so far as I know. No doubt the cotton industry has made some money; if they have made too much, then the combines and mergers legislation should be used, instead of appointing lawyers and judges and spending barrels of money to make an investigation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


David Spence: There is no use laughing. The Combines Investigation Act is there for that and for no other purpose, namely to investigate monopolies or mergers of any kind. Why the investigation could not have been carried on by the department administering the act, I do not know.
No doubt the woollen industry has made no money, and it is a shame to couple it with cotton. I am satisfied people operating woollen factories would have been better off if they had invested their money in government bonds, because if they had done so, at least they would not have had to worry about it. I would suggest that instead of appointing commissions these matters should be handled by the tariff board.
We hear a great deal about free trade. Some people seem to think that free trade is the remedy for the unemployment situation. While I do not say that high tariffs will solve the unemployment, I do say that free trade certainly will not
May I draw the attention of the government to a situation which I regard as unfair. When witnesses are giving evidence against people under investigation by a commission a great deal of publicity is given to their statements, but the rebuttal evidence is hidden and nobody hears about it. I say that is unfair to the people in the industry. One statement should be printed alongside the other, so that we would have a full report and would be able to see just who has been lying-because someone is usually doing that.
The National Employment Commission was another unfortunate move on the part of this government, one which is costing the country a large amount of money. When the measure setting up the commission was before the house I fought it vigorously, on the ground that we were creating another big spending department, like the civil service commission. All the commission has done has been to repeat the work of obtaining statistics which were already in the office of the Department of Labour. Personally I would rather trust the minister, with the knowledge his department had, than trust a commission. If the minister lacked the knowledge, he would be in a position to get it.
As a House of Commons we should accept the responsibility of running the country-


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


David Spence: - -instead of appointing commissions behind which we may hide. I think even some hon. members opposite would agree with that statement. Since 1921 the policy of appointing commissions has been followed, and as members elected by the people we have been shirking our responsibility. I for one am prepared to take my share. True we may make mistakes, but we would not make any more than are made by commissions which have no responsibility to the electors.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Only a bill of expense.


David Spence: Yes, as the hon. member says, only a bill of expense.
We have negotiated a new trade treaty with the United Kingdom and, I am glad to say, it is a very good one-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


David Spence: -but not as good as the one negotiated by my right hon. leader in 1932. Remember that, too. I know something about business. While I may not be able to talk as some of my friends do, yet I can sit around a table and1 take my part with most of them.


Jean-François Pouliot: You are doing very well.


David Spence: However, it was not a bad agreement for a Liberal government to make. It does materially affect some items and I am hopeful that the result will not be too bad, although I have some dloubts. I must say, however, that I am glad the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) did not carry out his threat to cancel the empire agreement made in 1932. He and his followers shouted from the hill tops that the empire agreements were detrimental to Canada and had to be cancelled. Did he cancel them? No; just propaganda, and more bunk from the platform.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mostly bunk.
The Budget-Mr. Spence


David Spence: After the fall session of 1930 my .right hon. leader attended' a conference in the old country. While it may not have been considered a great success, he had the wisdom to invite the conference to adjourn and meet in Canada in 1932. That is something which Sir Wilfrid Laurier in his time and the present Prime Minister in his tried to accomplish, but they both failed; and I say that my right hon. leader should be congratulated upon being able to do something no other leader in Canada had been able to do, and when history is written the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett will be known in this Canada of ours and in Great Britain for the service he rendered the empire by his action on that occasion as the greatest statesman Canada has ever known.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank God you are not an historian.


David Spence: 
Alexander MacGillivray Young: How do you know that?


David Spence: Never mind how. Some of your manipulators beat ours out. You got control and you were able to keep in power. We came back in 1925 with 116 members and you had only 96, and you had no right to be in power. It was only with the help of members who professed to be progressive that you remained in power. Afterwards you accused us of putting one of them on the tariff board. You said he was a Conservative, but if he was a Conservative, why did he not support the Tories at that time?


An hon. MEMBER:: He did.


An hon. MEMBER:: And hie got paid for it.


David Spence: I would not say that he or anyone else got paid. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) lost out and another seat had to be found for him. After much difficulty, one was finally found away out in Saskatchewan.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member has become an historian.


David Spence: I do not want to ridicule anyone, but I must tell the truth. The Liberal party has always claimed to be so much better than the Tory party, but yet there was all this manipulation and intrigue. We are known as the wicked party, but I do not think we are quite as bad as our friends the Liberals.
I am going to say one kind word to my hon. friends to my left. They are always ready to advocate impossibilities. They are always ready to blame bad times on the government in power. I claim that no government can bring about prosperity, but we should have an economic administration which we are not getting to-day, to help bring back prosperity.
I come now to the vegetable oil situation, to which some hon. members have referred already, and. about which I believe I know something. It has been discussed by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), who knows the business well and thinks of his fellow men. It was also discussed by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson), who is a successful farmer and knows what he is talking about. I hope the government will heed their advice and protect Canada's dairy industry, which is one of her chief interests. If they do not it is my belief that with vegetable oils coming in as rapidly as they have done during the past three years, dairying will be practically ruined in another two years. The subject has been before the tariff board, and we have been expecting its decision for some time. I hope the government will try to influence the tariff board, if they need any influence.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh no.


David Spence: You would not do it? For anything else, you would.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


David Spence: Like ducks! Believe me, it is not the first time the minister's parity has tried to influence them.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope not.


David Spence: Canadian dairymen cannot compete with the cheap labour in hot climates where vegetable oils are produced. The United States protected itself by putting on a duty on vegetable oil, as well as by an impost of three or 3J cents a pound on animal fats coming from other countries, particularly Canada. I hate the word retaliate, but that represents what I should like to do. It would accord with the countervailing duties that were brought forward in 1930, and which pleased so well some hon. members on the other side.
While Canada is a great country for mines and minerals and forests and water power, it has also great opportunities for hunting and fishing which attract tourists, and I suggest to the government-


Mr. HANSON:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I sat in this house for five years when the Liberals were in opposition, and whenever we tried to read our speeches we were always called to order.


David Spence: A wide field is always allowed to those who speak in this debate. I am just offering a suggestion to the government.
The Budget-Mr. Spence


Olof Hanson: Let me put my point of order, please.


David Spence: All right, I shall be glad to sit down.


Olof Hanson: It seems that this session anyone can get up and read a speech. I do not think it is fair.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not think that the hon. member is actually reading his speech. He may be consulting his notes. I cannot see him actually reading his speech.


David Spence: I have not noticed the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) making a speech, either by reading it or in any other way. If I were feeling as well as I should like to feel, I might not find it necessary to read any part of my remarks.


Olof Hanson: Let the hon. member read it. It does not amount to anything, anyhow. I think that I have contributed just as much to this house as he has.


David Spence: If the hon. member wants to make a speech, let him get up after I have finished. When I was interrupted I was referring to the importance of catering to the tourist trade. In some way it should be made clear to those who cater to this trade that the government desires them to treat their guests with the greatest courtesy. Nothing will bring the tourist back faster than pleasant memories of his treatment at summer resorts. I am sorry to say there are some places where the people endeavour to take all the gold they can out of the tourists. At the present time we spend through the Canadian National about $200,000 a year to induce vacationists to come to this country. Perhaps if we treated these tourists in the way I have suggested, all or much of this $200,000 might be saved. It is just a suggestion; I am never opposed to spending money to make money, and I do not object to the appropriation of $200,000.
A great deal has been said in this house about our foreign markets. No doubt at times they are a real necessity, but it should not be forgotten that export trade may be cut down or cut off at any time through competition from other countries. So, I say, we must have more people. Some hon. members will not agree with this point of view, but I have given it a great deal of study, and in my opinion we need more people to consume our products, thus furnishing a stable market. My personal views are that we should admit into Canada all the British and Scandinavian immigrants who will come in under their own steam. One 
will make work for the other. Labour leaders may not agree with me, but I cannot agree with them all the time. In this vast area we have lots of room for more people.


Mr. MacNEIL:: What about the hundreds of thousands who are unemployed and on relief?


David Spence: We will make work for them by bringing in another million people. It looks selfish not to fill the vacant spaces which we have in this country. Some other nation may have its eye on these opportunities. I name no names, but such things might happen in these days when so many international difficulties arise. I should like the government to consider allowing British and Scandinavian immigrants to come into the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: " Under their own steam."


David Spence: If they do not adopt this policy now, they will have to do so later. It would take forty million people to do justice to this country. Eleven millions cannot carry the burden any longer-and that, or probably a little less, is our population to-day. An increased population would solve our transportation problems and benefit the country in a variety of ways. I know that on this subject I differ from some of my friends, but perhaps I have a vision of the future which some others do not share. I hold that this country will not regain prosperity until our population is much greater than ten millions. Sir John A. Macdonald and his associates thought that they had achieved a wonderful success when they brought about confederation, but lately it has been more difficult than ever before to hold confederation together. Canada is a vast country where different interests must be served. What suits the extreme east does not suit the extreme west, and what is acceptable to both extremes does not suit the centre. As far as I can see, there is no hope that a zone tariff could be arranged to regulate commodities and be fair to all parts of the country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


David Spence: When the house rose at
six o'clock I was about to say that we have a number of monopolies and mergers that are detrimental to the country and that most of them were started in the period from 1921 to 1930, during the Liberal party's time.

The Budget-Point of Order


Ernest Lapointe: Ob, you are a partisan.


David Spence: More were started in that
time than in any other period in the history of Canada, at any rate as far as I can remember. For example, -take Canadian Industries Limited, which controls fifty per cent of the factories in the country. When anyone thinks that he is buying from an individual factory to-day and discovers that in all probability he is buying from Canadian Industries Limited, he is disappointed. We find that Canadian Industries Limited is controlled by the du Pont people of New York. I would suggest to the government that this sort of thing should be curbed so as to allow the small industries, and business houses, to get a chance, and have the profits remain in Canada. As things are they are leaving Canada to-day, the money being made by American concerns. Soon the United States will have the country iby purchase, and what will Canadians say then, when this North American continent may be all one country?
In my opinion, the government made a mistake when they changed the wheat board. Mr. McFarland and his associates did good work, for Mr. McFarland proved that he was a good manipulator. He had an advisory board of eight, four representing the railways and industrial concerns, the other four being farmers. No doubt the farmers should have some say in regard to the disposition of wheat. However, that has all been explained by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) and I will not go over it again. Now we have Mr. Murray at the head of the board, with Mr. Mclvor-they cannot do without him because he provides some of the brains for the board -and A. M. Shaw, a man so full of education that his brains probably cannot contain any practical ideas; and on top of that we have an advisory committee composed of four ministers of the crown. Who can say that this is not a political wheat board? I am not condemning the ministers because they are all capable of serving on any board, but it seems hardly fair to the farmer, who I think has been sold out.
The rehabilitation bill was brought into the house a few days ago, and in that regard I may say that we in the east are willing to make some sacrifices in order to rehabilitate western Canada. But it makes it difficult for us to assist them when three or four members from that locality will get up and abuse the east for criticism of the west, suggesting that we have no consideration for the people in that part of Canada. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in my own riding I have
been criticized repeatedly on account of the money spent in the west. I submit, therefore, that it would be better if we did not have such speeches from hon. members. When the vote is going their way, it is not necessary to let the whole world know what we are doing in this house. I am willing to do whatever I can in my own small way to help to hold confederation together. Winston Churchill once said that the curse of the world has been the aggressive socialist movement, which is the enemy of ordered liberal progress in any country, and so I say, Mr. Speaker-and I am going to cut my remarks very short-that we- should get together, become acquainted, be good friends with one another, and cooperate as far as we can and encourage cooperation with other countries; because no nation can live to itself and be successful.
Those are my views and I thank the house for the patient and attentive hearing I have had. I appreciate the fact that I have not done justice to the speech I intended to make, but that is because I have not been feeling as well as I should like to, and perhaps I should never have started at all.


Walter Edward Foster: Before any hon. member speaks I must draw the attention of the house to the fact that before six o'clock an amendment to the amendment was proposed by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), and thereupon a point of order was raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I am ready to hear any other hon. member who wishes to speak to the point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the dinner hour I looked up the Rules and Forms and I find that rule [DOT]422, page 131, says:
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto. The exceptions to this rule are amendments on the question of going into supply or ways and means.
That is the broad general statement of the situation, but the question of relevancy has always been held to be one of importance in dealing with a matter of this kind, and where an entirely new matter is added by the use of the word "also," it falls within the general rule. I mentioned that the rule apparently contemplated the possibility of amendments being moved after the amendments before the chamber had been disposed of. Rule 423 says:
When a motion, an amendment and an amendment to the amendment have been proposed, the speaker will first take the sense of the house on the last by saying: "Is it the

The Budget-Speaker's Ruling
pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment to the amendment?" After this has been disposed of, another may be moved as soon as the Speaker has proposed the question: "Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment (or the amendment as amended) to the main motion?" After this has been disposed of, the Speaker will propose: "Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion (or the motion as amended) ?" Then a member may move another amendment. Any number of amend-nents may be proposed in this way.
On going into supply there is of course a limitation to this procedure by the practice of parliament. The rule was laid down, by Mr. Speaker Lemieux, I believe, that only what amounts to an amendment to the amendment might be moved. This, of course, is a motion to go into ways and means, which presumably stands upon the same footing. As one of the authorities, I believe, puts it, by the law and custom of the constitution we have established. that principle. Standing order 49 says:
Only one amendment and one subamendment may be made to a motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply or ways and means.
We are therefore subject to the limitation which is contained in that rule, and the general principle that any number of amendments can be moved, which I mentioned before recess, would be an erroneous statement of the situation. There can be only one amendment and one amendment to the amendment when it is a motion to go into supply or ways and means; but if it is a motion for second reading, or any other resolution, when the house has disposed of the first subamendment and then the amendment, it is competent for any member who has not yet spoken to move any amendment that would be relevant, according to the rules as I understand them and as laid down in May, at any rate.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of order, reference to standing order or rule 49 is appropriate. But may I call attention to the fact that there is no rule 423. There is a paragraph 423 in Mr. Beauchesne's book, but there is no rule 423, and I suggest to the leader of the opposition that he refer to that number as a paragraph and not as a rule. It would be more appropriate.


Ernest Lapointe: I have looked into the matter, and I believe that the point of order is well taken. There must be some relation between an amendment and a subamendment; there must be some relevancy of the one to the other. In this instance the subamendment raises a new and quite different subject matter. Members of the house might be willing to vote for 
the amendment, but if you added this subamendment, which is another matter altogether, they might be opposed to the subamendment and would have no opportunity to express their views. The same applies to those who might be in favour of the subamendment, but not of the amendment. The subamendment must be relevant to the amendment, as amending the amendment. This subamendment does not amend the amendment; it simply *adds to it a different matter altogether.


Walter Edward Foster: During the recess I had occasion to consult the notes of Hansard and I find that the point raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) had been well taken. I might refer the house to standing order 49 and to paragraph 394 of Beauchesne's Rules and Forms:
A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or adding other words.
If we look at the amendment it does noit propose to follow that procedure at all, but dt is entirely a new motion. Paragraph 395 says:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I do not find that if this proposed amendment were allowed, it would make the amendment it is proposed to amend consistent with itself. Then further, in An Introduction to Procedure of the House of Commons, by G. F. M. Campion, we find on page 150 under the heading Amendments to Amendments the following:
An amendment to an amendment stands in the same relation to an amendment as an amendment itself does to a motion.
This is not in the form of an amendment to the main motion or in the form of an amendment 'to the amendment. If it be considered in relation to the motion it cannot be a subamendment, but it must be an amendment, and there is nothing on the face of it to show that it is intended to amend the amendment. Moreover, as the leader of the opposition ('Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) have stated, it does not deal with the same subject matter as the amendment. It is in my opinion foreign to the amendment submitted by the leader of the opposition, and I therefore have to declare it out of order.

The Budget-Mr. Fleming


Mr. H. R. FLEMING (Humboldt):: In rising to take part in this debate I do so with considerable trepidation; the subject is of such vast importance and can be approached from so many angles that it is difficult to decide which features to discuss. First, however, may I heartily congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) upon the splendid budget which he brought down, which will remain a memorable document among the public records of this country. No one will deny that the budget presented to this house was a bold budget, and that was expected from so courageous and aggressive a gentleman as the Minister of Finance. Those characteristics he exemplified when as Minister of Railways and Canals he changed the terminus of the Hudson Bay railway from Port Nelson to Fort Churchill. Western Canada will ever be grateful to him for that change and thank him for the tactful manner in which he pushed that railway project to a conclusion. When he presented his budget he showed those same qualities of courage and progressiveness, and again Canada should be grateful to him.
I intend to vote against the amendment and for the motion. In so doing I am confident that I express the opinion of the great majority of the people I have the honour to represent in this parliament. I favour the present budget because it is in accordance with Liberal policy, which has achieved such great successes throughout the length and breadth of Canada in recent years. I accept the budget because it is a Canadian budget, made in Canada to meet Canadian needs and the situation as it really exists in Canada at the present time. By degrees we are becoming more accustomed, to conditions to which we have been brought by the depression. Instead of blaming this one and that one at home we are beginning to realize that we belong to a world order and that our ups and downs are the result, not altogether of our own wise actions and our costly errors, but of the conditions that obtain elsewhere. To quote from the budget speech as reported at page 1211 of Hansard:
Viewing the situation broadly, however, in the light of the progress of the past year and the major underlying forces at work, I believe I can fairly say that since 1929 no New Year has dawned with brighter promise for Canada. I shall be greatly disappointed if. by this time next year, Canada had not moved substantially further along the road of economic recovery.
Those of us who a few years ago were so optimistic about the return of good times during an overnight sleep are now prepared to wait with the rest until the world has made a few more revolutions in its orbit. There is
no going ahead alone. If we raise more wheat than the world can buy we must store it or destroy it or use it for feed. If we build more railways than are necessary to carry our freight and passengers the rails will rust through disuse, and if they are national railways the nation must pay the price. If our factories turn out more goods than they can sell, they must close their doors and dismiss their employees. It will require the utmost wisdom to determine what the nation should do to maintain its place in the world of trade, and just as much wisdom to determine what producers in farm and factory should do to preserve the national equilibrium.
Here are some of the suggestions which have been made. A suggestion, of course, is not a solution; in nearly every case there are counter suggestions. Among the suggestions are these: produce less grain; raise more stock; produce more grain and keep the railways busy; produce less in the factories; give shorter hours to men; put the tariff up higher; lower the tariff to any country that will trade with us; stop immigration; fill up the prairies; bring more people into the country; spend; save; make war on Russia; copy Russia; get back to the simple life; break up machines and revert to hand labour; close the universities; cultivate trade within the empire; complete the lake route and get another means of transportation even though there is nothing to transport. And, above all, find fault with everyone who is trying to do something, and finally, if you are of good Canadian or British stock revile the foreign-bom. But we must always remember that epithets have no place in logic and will not help towards a solution.
Is there a solution? Must we admit that the human mentality is not capable of combating the forces at present striving to bring chaos into the world? I for one cannot resign myself to that view. I sincerely believe that there is a solution, and a clear-cut one. The solution as I see it is practicable even though it may not be immediate. As the stagnation of trade is a result of world conditions, the remedy is to be sought by bringing about better world conditions, a more friendly attitude and closer trade relations. If nations are bound to act as schoolboys with chips on their shoulders there will continue to be misunderstanding, aloofness and possibly war. But if the law of life, which makes each think of others as of self, is observed, it will not be long until there is concord and enduring peace. If along with good will there is a determined endeavour to break down barriers to trade and tariffs of exclusion, then each country will proceed to
The Budget-Mr. Fleming

give to the world what nature intended it to give, and will exchange its production freely for something which it needs but cannot advantageously produce or manufacture. Free trade and protection are not policies about which nations should wrangle, they are policies that must be faced and settled by the world at large, and their debating point is not in this capital city of Canada but at Geneva.
As to which policy should be followed, there is for me only one policy, the policy which this government has followed and which previous Liberal governments have followed in the past-the policy of the freest international exchange of commodities possible under existing conditions; the absence of artificial interference with international exchange, and the territorial division of industry with its resulting advantages. Its essence is perfect impartiality in the fiscal treatment of home and foreign products. It involves the removal of all artificial restrictions on, or encouragements to, particular industries. In free trade there are no differential duties, no bounties; taxation is for revenue only, and not for protection. It would appear, then, from consideration of the benefits to be derived from international trade that, from the cosmopolitan standpoint, that is, looking to the interests of the world as a whole, permanent protection is theoretically unsound. Temporary protection, however, might be justified in theory, on the ground, that it would enable some industry to secure a footing in a country where it was likely to thrive to the general benefit, or would prevent the transfer of an industry through temporary causes from a country otherwise specially suited to it. To render such temporary protection expedient in practice however, would involve on the part of men a degree of insight and foresight with which they are not generally credited. Hence I conclude that from the cosmopolitan standpoint free trade as a rule is, even in theory, and always in practice expedient.
From the national standpoint, however, the argument for free trade and against protection is more complicated. The parties to any act of exchange are in general not nations but individuals, and though both parties gain in utility from the exchange it does not follow that there is a gain to both the nations to which they respectively belong. There is no necessary harmony between the interest of the individual and that of the nation. This possible conflict of interests has been ignored by some dogmatic free traders but has been recognized by all leading English exponents of free trade principles from Adam Smith down to our day.

The most general economic argument in favour of free trade from the national standpoint is that protection, while it may benefit a particular home industry by attracting more capital into it, is yet injurious to the nation as a whole. Its primary object is to raise the price to the consumer who, therefore, is exploited in the interests of a small class of producers. Its effect is a less economic distribution of the nation's productive powers. The same labour and capital which would produce the protected article would find employment under a free regime in producing something else wherewith to buy directly or indirectly more of that article.
All trade is barter; exports pay for imports. The latter are really the reward for which the former are the necessary sacrifice; and we ought, therefore, to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market. But while this argument in favour of free trade is in the main sound, it is easy to point to exceptional cases in which from the national standpoint a departure from free trade principles might be theoretically justifiable. For instance, (1) the validity of the " infant industry " argument for protection might be admitted in special cases; (2) on the ground of national independence, that defence is of much more importance than opulence, certain restrictions in trade may be advocated; (3) retaliation, but this act should be one of great deliberation. The crucial point is, are they likely to be successful in forcing the foreign nation to modify its hostile tariff or to abolish its export bounty, as the case may be?
Even in view of the above exceptions, it is well to remember that it is often a mistake to suppose, when some particular case has been discovered for which it is possible to find a theoretical justification for protection, that a departure from the broad principle of free trade, or taxation for revenue only is therefore desirable. The classical English argument against admitting exceptions to that principle is based not so much on the theoretical excellence of free trade as on the inherent weakness of governmental action; that is, on the practical difficulties in any conceivable system of protection and the abuses with which it is invariably associated. Protective duties, though few and small at first, tend to grow and spread, once the principle is admitted, until the outcome is a general high tariff-such a state of affairs as existed in Canada from 1930 to 1936 and in Great Britain prior to the reforms of Hutchinson, Peel and Gladstone.
It is well at this point to deal with the doctrine that restraint should be put on all articles imported from countries with which

The Budget-Mr. Fleming
the particular balance of trade is unfavourable. Whereas the protectionist policy has its origin in private interest and the spread of monopoly, these extraordinary restraints arise from national prejudice and animosity. Thus, for example, if free trade with France did lead to an unfavourable balance with France, it might yet render the true balance with the world more favourable in general to England. There is no certain criterion obtainable of the real balance between the home country and any other particular country.
The mercantilists supposed that in foreign trade what one country gained another lost, and that if the balance were even in value neither of them gained or lost. They looked on the question of the advantages of foreign trade as one of profit and supposed that this profit from the national point of view is measured by the amount of treasure received. In answer to this I will point out the real advantages of foreign trade:
1.	The real advantage is not merely profit and still less a balance of money, but a gain in productive power and utility. We may look at it more from the point of view of the producer than the consumer.
2.	(a) The country in the foreign trade of which there is the greatest proportion of native exports and the least of foreign reexports will be the chief gainer because there will be more employment for home labour and capital; (b) trade with a nearer country is more advantageous than with a remote one; (c) the richer neighbouring nations are the better. We gain not by making our neighbours poorer, but richer. They are thus better customers. One nation's loss is not another's gain, but, in general, a loss also.
It is becoming almost universally accepted that absolute free trade is practically impossible ; of necessity, then, it follows that the next best policy is that of reciprocity. Reciprocity is a question of mutual concessions in the matter of tariffs. It is the middle course between free trade and protection. In this case one country will agree to lower its duties on imports from another, or on some of them, provided that the second country in return will agree to lower its duties on its imports from the first country. There have been many objections hurled against the present government for its attitude on reciprocity treaties. The best argument against this attack is contained in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. Speaking of the trade agreement with the United States, at page 1240 of Hansard, he said:
_ I am sure it will be a matter of special interest to the house to observe the growth in our trade with the United States, as we
now have a full year's experience under the operation of the agreement which established new schedules of rates on January 1, 1936. During the year our total trade with the United States, including commercial gold, amounted to $787,000,000 as compared with $683,000,000 for 1935, an increase of $104,000,000, or 15 per cent. If we exclude commercial gold entirely from the figures for the two years under comparison we find that the trade increase in 1936 was just over 22 per cent. Calculated on this same basis, exports to the United States were greater by 26 per cent, while imports from the United States were higher by 18 per cent. It will be noted that these percentage increases are appreciably above the corresponding increases in our trade with all countries. The increase in trade with our nearest neighbour is ample evidence of the benefits which follow a policy of seeking wider markets through trade agreements.
It would be impossible to claim that all of this price increase can be attributed to the trade pact between Canada and the United States, yet it certainly must have been one factor in improving the general price scale. The fact that the general world price level has risen must be considered as well. I can see only one reason for this advance, namely, the return to a freer passage of goods between the countries of the world. After about six years of the most nationalistic policies the world has ever experienced, most of the nations are returning to the policy of reciprocal treaties. That some are still adhering to the nationalistic policy of self-independence does not alter the fact that there is more freedom of trade now than existed last year or since 1928-29.
Since 1932-33, the low years of the depression, the world experienced a slow movement in the abolition of trade barriers, with the result 'that prices have increased, production has gone up in volume and the purchasing power of the people has risen. That the depression is vanishing is, or at least should be clear to all. The process, however, is slow, due mainly to the nationalistic tendencies of a few countries. There is nevertheless great hope that 'before long these nationalistic countries will realize the error of their ways. France underwent that change recently when her new government took office. Whether other nationalistic countries and one-man controlled countries can do the same without a major conflict is almost impossible to predict. Only when all the nations see clearly that to be prosperous is to be at peace can there be any real assurance of international stability and freedom of trade.
There are perhaps various ways in which world peace can be obtained, but I feel that the best -and surest way is by mutual concessions in trade relations, a more "give"

The Budget-Mr. Fleming

than the present "take" feeling. This is pointed out very well in the budget speech at page 1215 of Hansard:
. . . by exchanging these products on as large a scale as possible for products which Canada cannot advantageously produce. To these objectives the government has been energetically devoting itself by opening up and expanding foreign markets for our basic products, by stimulating employment in productive lines, and by endeavouring to eliminate uncertainty and fear which paralyze initiative and retard industrial enterprise. The success of these efforts is indicated in part at least-for I do not wish to claim for the government all the credit for the recovery which we have enjoyed.
We may, I believe, feel sure that if no major conflict arises in Europe or in the far east the nations will one by one follow that program, if for no other reason than that of self-preservation. No nation can be selfdependent or follow that policy for any length of time without grave danger to itself. Various nations in the past have felt the curse of this policy. More will feel it in the future if they continue their present nationalistic course.
It is, then, most essential that Canada should be prepared to cooperate in the common work of political appeasement and economic cooperation, and if this work is to succeed it needs the collaboration of all. If that collaboration is forthcoming there cannot be any doubt in the mind of 'anyone that we can create a better, saner and more prosperous world. We must learn the ways of economic cooperation so that the standards of life can be raised. We must never forget that our objective in Canada must be the prosperity of all. This point was brought out most strongly in the words of Anthony Eden when, speaking of Great Britain, he said:
We are willing to help toward a further advance along the line of increased economic opportunity, but this should be in our view on one condition. Economic collaboration and political appeasement must go hand in hand. If economic and financial accommodation merely result in more armaments and more political disturbance the cause of peace will be hindered rather than helped. On the other hand, new and freer economic and financial collaboration based upon solid, well conceived political undertakings will be powerful aid towards the establishment of unity of purpose in Europe. Ultimately and fundamentally the object of all honest political endeavour in whatever country must be a raising of the standard of life. We know well enough from the resources of science to-day that can be done, if it is undertaken in an atmosphere of peace and mutual confidence.
Consideration of the raising of the standard of life brings us to another exceedingly important point. It is freely admitted that we are entering the period of recovery. I feel

it my duty to congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the warning he gave the Canadian people when he said, as reported at page 1217 of Hansard:
It may seem ironical for me to sound a warning about a problem of prosperity whilst we are still harassed by the problems of depression. Evidence is accumulating however, of the prevalence of a state of mind which justifies a -warning signal. If we may judge by the activity in brokerage offices, the rapid rise in stock-market prices, and the ratio of stock prices, particularly in some sections of the market, to nearby earnings and dividend prospects, we are forced to recognize a revival of that get-rich-quick spirit which proved so disastrous in the pre-depression years.
However, I would1 urge the government to do its utmost to prevent a disaster similar to the one we experienced in 1929. Between 1923 and 1929 on an unparalleled scale, banks united, especially in the United States, in financing speculation, in securities and real estate. Comparatively little of the huge expansion of bank credit was utilized in financing an expansion in the physical volume of industry and trade. The process involved the tying up of a larger and larger proportion of bank funds in assets of a non-liquid character. The investments of the banks and the collateral they accepted for loans consisted1 of securities and real estate, capitalizing at an unreasonable rate the high earnings of business concerns enjoying a temporary and unstable prosperity at the expense of other elements of the population and business world.
On the average, the farmers' purchasing power during the depression period was more than ten per cent less than it would have been if the 1909-14 parity of prices had prevailed. This was bad -enough, but to make matters worse taxes on farm property during this whole period remained on a level ranging from 246 per cent to 267 per cent of the pre-war level, and almost twice as high as the price of farm products, relative to the pre-war level. Naturally the farmers' power to buy and pay for products of industry was severely curtailed, even in the absence of heavy mortgage and interest payments hanging over from the period of wild speculation in farm land during the land boom of 1919 and 1920.
It was only a matter of time until such artificial prosperity must collapse, the bubble of speculation would be pricked, and the banks would be hard put to it to realize in full on their assets. Forced liquidation on an unheard of scale could easily have been predicted by any well trained banker or economist familiar with the facts and capable of reasoning without bias. Such predictions, in fact, were not lacking, but they were unpopular and

The Budget-Mr. Fleming
unheeded. In no responsible quarter was effective action taken while the time for action was ripe. In default of such action the country drifted into financial disaster.
When the inevitable period of deflation and depression came, in their sheer extent financial losses, economic disorganization and panicky fear of complete political, social and financial collapse, turned out to be the most disastrous in the history of the country, and for generations are likely to leave their imprint upon our government and business organizations. The prosperity of industry had been prolonged by the artificial props of the instalment plan, foreign loans and stock market profits. When these failed, the demand for industrial products fell. Sharp price cuts at this time might have brought readjustment in conditions of supply and demand, and an early end to the depression. But restriction of industrial output, with artificial maintenance of high prices, only made matters worse. Rapidly declining pay-rolls, the inevitable result of a policy of restriction, brought a further decline in demand not only for industrial products but farm products, and intensified the decline in the price of farm products-a condition which soon thoroughly demoralized agriculture and almost completely destroyed1 the buying power of the farmers.
The ruin of the farmers reacted upon the demand for factory products, leading the restrictionists to resort to still further restrictions, and so on month after month in a vicious declining spiral of deflation; in industry, deflation primarily in output and payrolls, and only secondly in prices; in agriculture, deflation in prices but not in production.
Statistics of industrial production and prices point strongly to the conclusion that the years of depression in industry were characterized, not by competitive cutting of prices among the producers in a given industry as a means of stimulating demand and maintaining output, but by competitive restriction of output among the industries for the purpose of maintaining prices. It was this policy of adjusting supply to demand, a policy substituted for the old-fashioned one of adjusting price to demand, that prolonged, deepened and is helping to continue the depression. There were, of course, other important contributing causes such as the slaughter of prices on the stock and bond markets, the deflation of bank credit, the demoralization in foreign trade and the financial crises in foreign countries.
There is one most important point which it is essential should be clear to all, and
that is that neither the factor of declining bank credits nor of money in circulation forced the deflation of business. The major causes of the decline in business were, first, the maldistribution of buying power arising from the lack of balance between the prices of finished, manufactured goods and the prices of raw materials and wages, and second, the lack of desire of those with buying power in the form of cash or bank credit to use it. Instead of money being scarce in Canada at the present time, it is in fact very plentiful. It would seem an adequate reply to the claim that we are suffering from a money shortage to point out that all money rates have fallen substantially. Well might the minister say in his budget address, as reported at page 1215 of Hansard:
Monetary policy has a role to play during depressions. That role is an important one; although I am bound to say that as a medicine for depressions monetary techniques are far more effective when applied before rather than after the event.
It is in the light of the above evidence of plentiful money, and of the facts brought out in my analysis of the existing conditions, that I beg the government to do all in its power to prevent any possible recurrence of the 1929 financial misfortune. It is clearly evident that speculation is again finding its path into the country's stock market, that the gap between wages and prices is increasing and that signs of inflation are becoming more and more evident. If we wish to prevent an artificial boom followed by a devastating financial and commercial collapse, we must take steps while the time is still ripe to control the recovery of this country before it gets out of bounds.
The income of the farmer is again lagging behind the advance in the price of finished manufactured goods. This must be stopped if the farmers are not to be oppressed until they are living below the subsistence level. It is essential that a fair share of the increased national income should be distributed among the present unemployed and those living below the subsistence level. In fact, until all are at least on the subsistence level, for sound economic and just social reasons there should be no increase in the wages or profits of those who are at present living above that level. If this country is ever to experience any degree of real prosperity we must have a more equal distribution of the national income. Those who are at present without a decent standard of living must be provided with one. A policy of continued public expenditure of relief funds will not bring this about. Only real increased production, to-
The Budget-Mr. Fleming

gether with a more equal and just distribution, ;can possibly enable the people to live above the subsistence level.
I believe the ultimate and fundamental object of all honest political endeavour in any country should be the raising of the standard of life. Let us follow this policy with the same diligent effort that we put forth for the betterment of our owni individual lives. Increased international trade will help, in fact it is essential, but it is not enough. There must not be a recurrence of what happened in 1929. The draft agenda for the world economic conference contains the following:
International action, however indispensable, cannot restore a normal economic situation unless the proper internal measures have been taken. Each individual country must be prepared to take the necessary steps to achieve internal equilibrium.
In conclusion I would suggest that we go blithely on the road to the full promise of our -nationhood, with Liberal principles the light to guide our way, and the happiness of our people our abiding purpose. Let us gamer from the variety of races within our borders the best that they have to give. If our prosperity must be protected, let us do it with wisdom. Let us not be inoculated by Tory Imperialism or militarism, but if the pathway of our destiny leads through a virile pacifism, Set us not stumble, but with dignity, charity :and honesty march triumphantly forward, a peaceful nation building contentment. May the [DOT]tribute of our children be:	They wrought
better than they knew.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Fleming) on his very able address. I wish also to congratulate the government upon having within their ranks a free trader who is prepared to support a protectionist budget. I trust the hon. member will pardon me for not following his remarks, for what I have to say this evening will be confined to the amendment. I hope that at some other time I may have the opportunity of speaking on the main motion.
The amendment deals with what I believe is recognized as being the most serious problem in Canada, that of unemployment and relief. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has admitted that this is the most serious problem with which the government has to deal. Let me quote the amendment:
This house regrets that the government has failed to take effective measures to deal with the problem of unemployment.
[Mr. Fleming.!
I wish to put emphasis on the word " effective." I admit that the government have taken some measures, but we must decide whether or not they are effective measures. Let us consider what those measures are. In his address the other day the minister recited several measures taken by the government since they came into office. The minister, first, spent some time discussing the relief camps which were set-up in this country at one time. I shall not go into the history of these camps as the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) covered it very thoroughly the other night. I shall not recall the conditions which existed at the time these camps came into being, other than to say that they were established to take care of the single unemployed men who were crowding into our cities, riding our trains and generally trekking throughout the country. They were never intended to be permanent, but during the time they were in existence they played an important part in relieving the problem of unemployment; they functioned as clearing houses, through which passed 31,502 men to useful employment. That achievement I think was worth while. As I say, it was never intended that these camps should continue, and upon the minister's instructions they were closed. A number of us coming from British Columbia recall as I do very clearly, the time they were closed. In my riding some 800 men were turned out on the road. They were men who had been faithful and had not been involved in any disturbance; they had worked well and were at home in those camps. They were turned out with their packs and drifted along the highways to the cities. The equipment from the different camps was gathered together, the shovels and other tools carefully oiled, sorted and packed into crates, the bedding washed and packed, and everything was stored in a central camp. The other day the minister told us, "To this time the camps have not been re-opened." I do not know how he can be ignorant of the fact that a number of them have been opened. The equipment, the property of the federal government, which was so carefully stored has been taken back to some of these camps and is now in use. In my riding there are about 300 men in the camps, and they are carrying on work similar to what they did before.
The minister mentioned the other day one measure, termed an arrangement with the railways. There were 9,224 men transferred from the camps to railway work, and according to information given by the department,

The Budget-Mr. Barber
7,773 men worked until the gangs were broken up; in other words, they completed six months' employment. The cost to the taxpayers of this country was over 32,600,000.
Another measure was the farm placement scheme. The minister tells us that throughout Canada 46,000 men were placed. My information, which is from Victoria and is I think authentic, is that 215 were placed in British Columbia.
Another measure was forestry work. We are told by the minister that 5,000 additional men have been employed, mainly in British Columbia, in forestry work. I think the minister must have included labour in the logging industry, which cannot be credited to any action on his part but to the empire trade agreements and, to some extent, the Canada-United States trade agreement. The latest information I have from Victoria is that 1,131 men are employed in forestry work in the province under the category of relief measures.
Another scheme was the home improvement plan. I believe it was unanimously supported in this house. It is good as far as it goes, but I doubt whether it will give much employment to men on relief. It seems to me that- a citizen who undertakes to repair his house, to put on a new verandah or redecorate the interior, is not likely to go down to the unemployment office or to relief headquarters to get a man; he wants the work well and properly done and he is going to get a mechanic to do it, someone he knows is a first-class workman. For that reason I do not think this measure will be a means of putting any considerable number of unemployed to work, and the expenditure of one and a half to two million dollars for this purpose is only a drop in the bucket.
These are some of the measures which the government has taken, directed to the solution of the problem of unemployment. Another measure, which I believe the minister considers most important is the setting up of the employment commission. Hon. members recall that, last session, the government induced parliament to pass an act setting up a commission to which the matter of unemployment was to be referred. Apparently it has gone the way of all bodies of this kind, in setting up an elaborate scheme. The commission consists of seven members. Of course they are not paid salaries. It would be an insult to offer salaries to persons who come forward and offer to serve their country. But a kindly government suggests that they should have a living allowance, and with the exception of the chairman they have accepted it. They are paid a living allowance of
twenty dollars a day, and in addition their travelling expenses. British Columbia was honoured in having the commission's lady member chosen from that province. It is interesting to note that she has drawn in living allowances and travelling expenses from May 15 to the end of January 35,590.93. Whatever other qualifications she may or may not possess, those of us who live in British Columbia know that she has one- she is a faithful follower of the Liberal party.
There is another commission member from the west who volunteered his services: a defeated Liberal candidate from Saskatchewan. He has drawn $4,559.05. The minister told, us the other day that the commissioners have been paid since May 15 in living allowances and travelling expenses $18,666. Its members are furnished with offices and telephone, secretaries and stenographers, all. of which goes to make up what he told us was cost of personnel: 316,888.
There is under the commission, the youth committee, which has cost $8,951. The members are not in receipt of salaries but are given a living allowance of fifteen dollars per day each. Going through the orders in council it was noticed that the chairman could not live on the fifteen dollars and was granted an additional five dollars. He happens to be a defeated Liberal candidate from British Columbia. There is also, a women's committee of five, each drawing fifteen dollars per day living allowance; the minister mentioned that the total cost to date was $2,916; they are studying the problem. Also a living allowance of $25 per day has been granted the director of public welfare for some temporary services. I do not understand why the government does not pay salaries, instead of insisting on calling these grants "living allowances." Nor is it clear why the amount of these allowances should vary, why it costs more for one person to live than another. That brings to mind a little article I saw in a Toronto paper the other day, contributed by a man named Oxford, He is referring to the grain inquiry, which is another creature of this government:
Mr. Justice Turgeon, commissioner for the gram inquiry, receives $35 a day as a living allowance. From inquiries made of some housewives around here, the opinion is that he should do fairly well on that, and get three good meals every day. It would even run to an egg-nog about 11 a.m. and still leave him with enough to buy a packet of cigarettes a day as a "living allowance" multiplied by five and a half -assuming that he knocks off when the whistle blows on Saturday-ought to get him in as the star boarder in any town, with a cup of tea brought up in the morning. . . .
The Budget-Mr. Barber

Just to show how discriminating and careful our judicial officers are when spending our money, they have it figured out that Hon. J. L. Ralston, K.C., counsel for the grain inquiry, is only worth $20 a day for his hay and oats. Seems a shame to scale him down $15 a day, but perhaps he's on a diet, or maybe he can't eat as much as Mr. Justice Turgeon. Quite obviously he can only have one egg for breakfast, and he gets no dessert for dinner. A man can't have everything on just $110 a week. You know yourself how far that goes when you are dragging the basket around on Saturday night and the wife is picking up three tins of soup for a quarter.
Of course, Mr. Ralston is being paid $200 a day for his services, with no lost time for rainy weather and no early closing on Wednesday. On the other hand, he doesn't get paid for overtime-just a straight $200 a day-take it or leave it, but you -wouldn't expect any part of that to go for the feed bill. Certainly not. Twenty dollars a day is what^ the government figure his pork and beans will cost, and he should keep within that limit, even if he has to do without tea and toast in the afternoon.
Speaking of cuts, here is the unkindest cut of all. J. E. Coyne, barrister, only gets a miserable $10 a day living expenses. How does he get by? Apparently he can only eat half as much as the Hon. Mr. Ralston. You can readily imagine Mr. Coyne walking round the block at lunch time, munching a bag of peanuts, and thinking of what a fine fish and chip supper he will have. What is worse and more of it, he only gets $50 a day for the job, and it may not last more than a few months.
The really bright spot in the line-up of the grain commission is that the secretary is not listed for any additional salary or living allowance. Presumably he is expected to stay with friends, or drop in on acquaintances at meal times and send -his washing home collect.
This government continues to spend money quite freely in providing "living allowances"- I am sure there are many people throughout Canada including the wives of farmers who would like a guaranteed living allowance of, say. 820.00 or $25.00 per month.
There is another organization, under the employment commission which was set up by the orders in council cited by my leader, and the Minister -of Labour (Mr. Rogers) told us the other night that this organization, a sort of duplication of the bureau of statistics, has cost over $40,000.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said it was not a duplication.


Harry James Barber: No, but we say it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And as a matter of fact it is.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Definitely it is not.


Harry James Barber: And according to the supplementary estimates it will cost $125,000 next year. That is plain. The minister charged my leader with creating an impression contrary to the facts when he recited the order in council. He said that some of these em-

ployees were seconded and others were temporary employees; nevertheless, if you go through the order in council, you will find that they were authorized fior employment in this organization, and the funds provided for the organization next year will pay for their services. As regards this organization set up under the commission the minister said -1 believe he interrupted the leader of the opposition when he made the statement-"that it is concerned with registration as provided in the statute." I was of the opinion that the registration had been completed, and my authority for that is a clause that appears in the speech from the throne, on January 14, 1937, at page 3 of Hansard:
A registration of unemployed persons on relief has been completed.
I do not understand, therefore, why this organization is to be continued if registration is completed. However, it is to be continued, because provision is made in the estimates for the purpose. The whole organization is an elaborate and most costly scheme. The supplementary estimates brought down a few days ago contain an item for the National Employment Commission of $150,000; an item for the National Employment Commission, registration, $125,000; and an item for the unemployment relief branch, $200,000; and the heading under which these items are enumerated indicates that they are for administration purposes, salaries, living allowances and travelling expenses. So that if this appropriation is for the maintenance of the organization it would seem that more orders in council yvill be passed providing for a larger staff. Let me summarize these measures that have been taken by the government.
First, railway work. The minister informs us that 9,224 men were taken from the relief camps and put to work; 46,000 under farm placement measure,-215 being in British Columbia; 5,000 in connection with forestry work, the statistics showing that 1,131 are engaged in this work in British Columbia.
As regards the home improvement plan, $1,500,000 or $2,000,000 has already been spent on this project, and that should give some employment. Then there is the other organization to which I have already referred. These are the measures that the government has undertaken, and as far as I can see they are not what I would call effective measures.
And what about the results in meeting this problem? Sometimes we can judge best by results. A good many figures were placed on Hansard the other day and I shall not repeat them all.	The number of unemployed in Canada in February 1935 was 552,000; October 1935, 435,000; in Janu-

The Budget-Mr. Barber
ary 1936, it was 556,000, and in December
1936,	502,000. In January 1937, the number was 500,000. In other words, we still have
500,000	unemployed throughout Canada, and if you will sum up all that the government has done in its various measures to cope with this great problem you will find that they will hardly make a dint in it. Then we have the number of those on relief. In February 1934 it was 1,491,059, and in February 1935, 1,433,891. In September 1936, it was 1,029,156, and in January 1937, 1,301,530. On the British Columbia relief rolls which figures were issued not long ago, from Victoria, the figure for December 1936 was 75,812, and in January
1937,	it was 79,973, with 213 under the farm replacement scheme, 1,131 in forestry development, and 1,008 in the public works relief camps. In view of the general improvement tnat has been made throughout the world these figures do not indicate that the government's measures have been very effective.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Are those the figures of the bureau of statistics?


Harry James Barber: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The bureau of statistics do not collect these figures at all and have never done so.


Harry James Barber: I believe they came from there.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They have unemployment figures but not relief figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They get them from Mr. Hereford.


Harry James Barber: The Minister of Finance in his usual able manner has drawn to our attention the increase in trade and pointed out the great increase in production, but surely there is something wrong. If trade and productions are increasing, more work must be in progress, yet the demand for public relief is not falling. Let me suggest to the minister and to the government that they direct their attention to the reduction in the burden of taxation in this country. The increased burden from year to year is doing more to prevent recovery than any other factor that I know of. Some hon. gentleman may say that the rate of taxation has not been increased. Well, the rate does not cut so much figure; it is the burden of taxation that counts. If you go over the speech of the minister in regard to taxation you find that that burden is increasing, it has increased this year over last, and the estimate for next year shows an increase over this.
First I should like to deal with customs tax. In years eone by we were reminded over
and over again that this is a tax, and told how unfair the tax was. That came from the low tariff people and some of the free traders who are associated with the Liberal party. Let us look at the customs tax. In the year 1933-34 the amount taken from the people by customs tax was 866,395,000. This year, 1936-37, it is put at 881,500,000, and the Minister of Finance says that next year he is going to take from the people of this country by way of customs tax 890,000,000-an increase from $66,000,000 to 890,000,000 in five years.
Someone may say:	That affects only certain people. Before I left British 'Columbia a farmer came to me with a document which shows that he had bought some beet pulp, a by-product of the sugar factory at Bellingham, Washington, a few miles from my district. This load of beet pulp cost him $18. When he came to the border they listed it as 3,000 pounds of beet pulp and molasses, cattle food with molasses, the value of the sacks was included in the price-it was packed in new sacks-and they fixed the valuation at 846.73. To make it even they called it $47, and the duty charged was 20 per cent. The duty amounted to $9.40; excise tax $1.69; brokerage $1.50; total charge $12.59 on $18 worth of stuff. That did not take place under a high tariff Tory government; that took place on November 23 last year. Yet the minister says he is going to take more and more from the people of Canada next year; he is going to increase the customs tax burden to $90,000,000.
Then the sales tax. In 1933-34 the burden of this tax amounted to $61,392,000; this year it is $115,500,000, and the estimate for next year is $131,000,000. The people of Canada, ten and a half millions, must dig up next year for the Minister of Finance some $15,000,000 more than this year in the way of sales tax- and everyone pays the sales tax.
The income tax rose from $61,399,000 in 1933-34 to an estimated $113,000,000 for 193738, which is about $10,000,000 more than the present year. Still the minister says the rate has not been raised. I am not here to defend the coupon clipper or the big moneyed men; they of course have their troubles. But the ordinary taxpayer, the men who pay income tax in the lower categories have a hard time. We have the income tax imposed by this government, the provincial income tax, municipal taxes, and all kinds of taxes. As a result a man to-day is so hampered by taxation that he is not in a position to expand his business or give increased employment.
The excise tax this year is $45,500,000, and the minister says that next year he must raise $47,500,000. the burden of this increase in
The Budget-Mr. Barber

excise taxes increased by $2,000,000 in one year. That 3 per cent excise tax which hon. gentlemen opposite when in opposition said was only an extra customs tariff still remains.
Then we have stamp and special taxes. In 1935-36 the burden of taxation under this item was $35,181,000; this year it is $38,100,000, and the minister says that for next year he is going to increase that burden to $42,000,000. This includes the sugar tax, and, oh, what we did hear in years gone by about the sugar tax! I could quote hon. members who were then on this side of the house; pages of Hansard could be filled with quotations from speeches made by them at that time condemning this tax. I recall one by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean), and I quote him because he is about the furthest east. On May 11, 1934, after profesting vigorously against this tax, he said, as reported in Hansard at page 2997:
I am glad the government reduced the tax by one per cent, but in the circumstances I think the tax should have been entirely wiped out. There are other ways of raising revenue without resorting to the taxation of articles of food which are necessities of life.
This government has been in power for almost a year and a half; this is their second nession, and still the sugar tax remains.
Now let us see about the total taxes. The total to be collected for the year 1937-38 is estimated at $425,500,000. That is the burden of taxation on the Canadian people; about $8,000,000 a week, close to $4 for every man, woman and child in Canada. That figure is an increase of $41,000,000 over the present year, and an increase of $121,000,000 over 1934-35. How can ten and a half million people continue to bear this burden? Taxation is strangling industry to-day; it is the bugbear of the Canadian people and the main factor in preventing the return of prosperity to this country.
In view of the measures put forth by the government for the solution of this great problem of unemployment in this country I am prepared to support the amendment.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the government to the just claims of my constituents of Laval-Two Mountains in connection with a matter of national importance which I have not ceased to agitate in this house ever since I became a member of parliament. The matter is that of the produce of market-gardens, the value of which, for the province of Quebec alone, reached $5,442,000 in 1935 and $6,221,000 in 1936. I note with satisfaction that, owing to the seasonal tariff, the

market-gardeners obtained for their produce last year much more remunerative prices than formerly. In fact, notwithstanding a lower production, the value of their products in 1936 exceeded that of 1935 by nearly $800,000 in Quebec province alone. I have therefore requested and shall again request the government to apply at the proper time this seasonal tariff which has been so beneficial to the producers. I may add that the statistics which I have just quoted have been graciously supplied to me by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), to whom I offer my thanks.
Field crops, cattle-raising and dairying are sources of wealth on which depends the prosperity of the country. By means of substantial grants, generous help and constant support, our governments owe it to themselves to develop these immense resources in the best interests of Canada. The present government had done a great deal for agriculture. It has negotiated with other countries trade agreements that have greatly benefited the farming community. Let us not stop there. Let us seek to popularize agricultural science. Our ideal should be the full development of the fertility with which providence has endowed our land.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the workmen of my constituency, I ask the government to proceed with certain undertakings of public interest. I have several times drawn the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) and of the management of the Canadian National Railways to the necessity of completing the construction of the Canadian National line from Calumet Point to Oka. The residents of the village of Oka have too long been isolated from the surrounding towns and parishes, particularly from Montreal, during the winter months. The beautiful country surrounding Oka and the lake of Two Mountains is one of the finest tourist resorts in my province. It is frequented each summer by many thousands of visitors. By adding about four miles to its line the Canadian National Railways will surely find there some of the revenue they so badly need.
Having referred to the interesting question of tourist travel, I should not pass over in silence the failure to build the projected section of the trans

Canada highway in my constituency. The necessity of this portion of the highway has been recognized. Plans and specifications for it were drawn a long time ago by engineers of the former Quebec government, in the district of Saint-Martin, Sainte-Dorothee and Saint-Eustache. Why was the execution of the work deferred or given up? I do not know. However, the

The Budget-Mr. Lacombe
building of that road would have resulted immediately in giving employment to hundreds of unemployed. That is why I insist upon the construction of that part of the trans-Canada highway in the constituency of Laval-Two Mountains, from the limits of St. Martin to Lachute. Tourists travelling on that road will wonder at the beautiful scenery, as well as the extent of the admirable work carried on by our truck gardeners and farmers, and the example to be drawn from it. Where-ever you cast your eyes in that peerless farming country you will see vast tracts of green vegetation, abounding crops, and dainty houses, a symbol of comfort acquired through perseverance and work.
May I also Call upon the government to dredge the Back river channel from the St. Vincent de Paul dam to lake of Two Mountains. These works are essential in the interest of the tourist trade which so largely adds to the prosperity of the country as a whole. There are other things that I shall ask for when we take up the public works estimates, for they are more of a local character.
Before I resume my seat, I cannot but speak of the want of confidence motion of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). It would be sufficient to emphasize the absurdity of this motion. The mover is the former head of the government; he charges the present administration with having failed in its duty by following a policy which cannot efficiently solve the unemployment problem. I deny the former prime minister the right to censure the commendable efforts of the present government in that direction. It has been in power barely fifteen months and already the number of people on relief has substantially decreased. At any rate, are those who are at present administering this country responsible for the baneful and ruinous policy of direct relief? It is no other than the present leader of the opposition who gave birth to this octopus? Did he not summon a special session of parliament for that very purpose? However, if I remember aright, his government was to end unemployment in a rather short time. Let us be fair. Since the beneficent results of its policy of economic recovery are already being felt let us at least pay the present government the tribute that it deserves. For my part, considering the commendable efforts of the present administration, I deem it my duty to oppose the motion of want of confidence of the right hon. leader of the opposition. I shall go further in asserting that many farmers in my constituency have more than once expressed their satisfaction at the betterment of the prices of farm products.
Nobody can deny that there is now greater activity in trade and business, more confidence and hope among our people.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot end these remarks without drawing the attention of the house and the government to the administration of the Canadian Farm Loan Act. There are unaccountable delays in the administration of this measure. According to representations that were made to me, the examination of the titles of farmers applying for a loan ought to be done much more rapidly. This examination, especially in the province of Quebec, sometimes becomes a complete maze. The attending notary and the officers of the commission cannot find their way out of it. The farmer frequently loses thereby not only his time but also his borrowing power. In my humble opinion, it is imperative that some one should be appointed as a go-between in each electoral division or court district. Such a man would have to be quite industrious. His work would consist in securing, with the least possible delay, all the necessary papers for the transaction. Some might object, on the ground that these appointments would involve a considerable cost. Let me answer at once that, taking into consideration the necessary efficiency of the act., this cost would be a mere trifle.
Now, what about the famous creditors and farmers arrangement act? During the last session I requested the repeal of this act, which is so greatly unfair to the farmer and the creditor. The privy council has just decided that this act is constitutional. It is no doubt a mere counterpart of the Bankruptcy act. The former government has no reason to be proud of having given birth to such a monster of injustice. Mr. Speaker, before that act destroys all self-reliance among our people, would it not be possible to replace it by a more elastic, broader and more expeditious farm loan act? If a day ever comes when the arrangement act is replaced by a farm loan act adapted to the needs of destitute farmers who would give the authorities the guarantee of their steadfastness and their work, besides the guarantee of their equipment and buildings, on that day we will have achieved much for the rehabilitation of agriculture in Canada.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I was unable to follow the previous speaker (Mr. Lacombe) in French, but I am sure his speech must have been good judging by the applause he received on taking his seat.
I hope I shall not be accused, as have some other hon. members, of speaking politi-
The Budget-Mr. Fair

cally. I have no political axe to grind, and for that reason I intend to speak as a practical farmer from the west. I say "practical" because I notice that quite a number who are listed as farmers turn out to be gentlemen farmers, who raise nothing but their hats.
One part of the budget pleased me particularly, and that was the government's compliance with the representations of a year ago for pensions for the blind. I am glad the government has seen fit to grant the pension, and I trust that in the near future the qualifying age for the blind may be placed far below forty, because hon. members in all sections of the house must realize that it keeps those of us with good eyesight busy to make a living, and for that reason we ought to remember the peculiar difficulties of those men and women who have not the blessing of eyesight.
My interest in the budget is particularly in matters relating to agriculture, as well as some other matters to which reference has been made. However, as other hon. members are better qualified to deal with some of the subjects brought out in the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), I shall confine my observations mainly to agriculture. May I say at the outset that it is our primary industry. Speaking of agriculture, the minister said:
Agricultural production suffered in 1936 through unfavourable weather during the growing season. Improved prices, however, resulted in a money return for field crops greater than in any year since 1930, and amounted to approximately $600,000,000, an increase of about 17 per cent over 1935.
With regard to wheat, the 1936 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 foT the western farmer.
While prices are better than they were, the wheat crop last year averaged only about eight bushels per acre, which I believe is about only half the usual average of the Canadian crop. It would seem therefore that for anything like a decent living the price we received for our grain last fall was not nearly sufficient-and when I say not nearly sufficient I mean that very thing.
Listening to the arguments in the house, if one did not know better he might be led to believe that the action of the government in putting the wheat board out of business was justifiable. As one who has suffered
I Mr. Fftir.l
from that action, may I say that I do not agree with it. Going back more than thirty years, farmers in western Canada were producing large quantities of grain, and just as they are to-day were being deprived of much of the profits justly belonging to them. A man named Partridge, of Sintaluta, in company with some others began to take steps to improve conditions, and made a considerable amount of progress. I believe the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) will remember those good old days. May I say I am sorry he has seen fit to take part in getting rid of the wheat board. I suggest that as a western man he should have known what western farmers are up against and should have done his share to keep the board in operation.
More than thirty years ago the farmers in the west began to fight their own battles. They did not do so because they wanted an excuse for fighting, but because they were not receiving their just rights, and they decided that the fellows under their own hats were their best friends. The Canada Grain Act was not then so much in the producers' favour as it is to-day, and we found some years ago that its provisions were not being observed. People were not getting the grading to which they were entitled; they were being short weighted, were being deprived of their turn in getting cars for loading, and several other things. I can remember occasions more than twenty years ago when taking loads of No. 1 wheat a distance of more than thirty miles I was told upon reaching the elevator just about dark by the gentleman who came alongside that he was very sorry but they had no more room for No. 1, but that they had room for No. 3, and he ended up by saying, "If you want to take that, all right; I can unload it." That trick was played time after time, but at last the farmers, who are not quite as easy as they are thought to be, woke up to the fact that they were being gypped. They did a little work and finally got some relief. The united grain growers and other provincial organizations got started, and then the war came along. In 1917 wheat prices were rising along with prices of other commodities. The war had been in full swing for some time but the farmers were not allowed to profiteer. On June 11, 1917, a wheat board was created and the price of wheat was set at $2.40 per bushel.
When the war was over and there seemed a chance that the price of wheat would come down, the government of that day decided that the board was no longer necessary. But the farmers, feeling that the board had been organized to keep prices from going up,

The Budget-Mr. Fair
thought that it might as well work the other way. In July, 1919, the Canadian wheat board was formed, and an initial price of $2.15 per bushel was set. Those who delivered wheat to the board were given participation certificates, which many farmers sold for a few cents, or even gave away. However, under the good management of the board an interim payment of 30 cents per bushel and a final payment of 18 cents a bushel was made, making the total price for the crop of that year $2.63 per bushel. That board went out of existence on August 16, 1920.
I can remember hauling a carload of wheat a distance of thirty miles that year. When I shipped it out of the elevator I took an advance payment of $1 per bushel. Shortly afterwards the price rose to $2.06 per bushel, but this was before my wheat had1 got to Winnipeg. There was some delay in my car getting through so I was not able to sell. The price then dropped to $1.56 per bushel, but I was eventually able to sell at $1.83 per bushel. If there had been a wheat board in existence I believe I would have been saved a lot of worry. I had not been in business very long at that time and I had lots of debts to pay, but I was willing to pay them. As the board was not operating, I had to take what I could get on the open market.
In the years preceding 1922 the wheat producers had been working hard to get a national wheat board. The agitation had grown so strong by 1922 that the dominion government decided to pass the necessary legislation. However, it was first necessary to have enabling legislation passed by the provinces. The necessary legislation was passed by Saskatchewan and Alberta, but Manitoba would not agree. I do not know whether that was because the grain exchange was located in that province and there were too many advocates preaching in its favour, but the result was that no wheat board was formed.
In 1923 the Alberta farmers led the way in forming a voluntary wheat pool. In 1924 Saskatchewan and Manitoba linked up. At first the provinces sold as separate organizations, but a short time afterwards they united and sold as one organization. This worked out very nicely until the crash of 1929. Some say that agriculture was the cause, but those of us who have looked around and studied things a little do not agree with that statement. Late in 1929 the price of wheat slumped badly, and the wheat pools got into difficulties. The federal government had to come to their assistance a little later on. In 1930 the price of wheat dropped to a very low level, and the result was that the wheels of industry began to slow up.
The government then decided that something would have to be done, and the result was the formation of a stabilization board by the then Conservative government. After this board was formed the Stamp commission was appointed to endeavour to find out what was the trouble. This commission pointed out in its report that speculators were necessary to the successful operation of the grain exchange. As there were no speculators at that time, the operations of the grain exchange were limited. The crash of 1929 had ruined a number of these speculators while others had learned their lesson and were out of the game for the time being.
At this time the western pools and other farmer organizations were pressing hard for the formation of a wheat board, but they were unable to get it. The government continued the stabilization operations under the chairmanship of Mr. McFarland. However, in 1935, the wheat board legislation was finally enacted. This board was headed by Mr. McFarland, and it started out to operate with a fixed price of 87i cents per bushel. When the price was first set it looked rather low to the western pool representatives who wanted a price set of 95 cents per bushel; the grain exchange representatives wanted the price set a little above 70 cents per bushel, and the result was a compromise at the 87-J-cent level.
If the wheat had been sold as it should have been, I believe everything would have been all right. Under the terms of the legislation, farmers who delivered grain were given participation certificates which entitled them to share in any profits which might be made later on. I remember holding some of these certificates for some time-in fact, I believe I have some yet-but it was finally realized that there would be nothing else coming in, that there was quite a loss on the operations. When I look back and remember the fight put up by the Liberal party when in opposition to that legislation, I was surprised to learn that the wheat board had turned back $8,000,000 of the money that had been advanced. As some of the farmers in the west said, they did very well in spite of themselves.
After the Liberal government came into power a change in the wheat policy was made, and also a change of wheat board. Some say a fire sale took place; perhaps that is right; perhaps not. However, Mr. Murray, the head of the present wheat board, giving evidence before the parliamentary committee last year, had this to say:
I mentioned yesterday in the opening statement which I read that we considered one of our principal duties was to dispose of the burdensome part of the surplus.
The Budget-Mr. Fair

Now, the price did not seem to have anything to do with that. The job was to get rid of the wheat, and when it comes to getting rid of the wheat we have to agree that the board made an excellent job of it. A little further on Mr. Murray said:
I think I used the phrase that it hung like a millstone around the necks of our farmers since 1928. _ I might mention that that is not my description. If I may be permitted I will say that that is the description given to that surplus by Mr. John I. McFarland on December 8, 1934, if my memory is correct.
Now, we could not afford to wait for one, two, three or four weeks or to wait until it was found out what the policy of the board was going to be. At least we did not think we could. We wanted to get some action. We called meetings of the exporters and millers. They are the only salesmen of Canadian wheat. The act tells us specifically that "ii ,^ave Sot to use them. It means to use all branches of the trade without discrimination. So we called meetings and we told them the_ new board was there; that we wanted their cooperation and we wanted them to get busy and sell all the wheat and flour for export that they could possibly sell. We asked for suggestions as to what we might do to help them accomplish that. We told them we did not expect them to do business for nothing.
We agree with that; we have no quarrel whatever with the view that they should be paid for their services. But there is one circumstance there which seems strange. The farmers grew the wheat, and the grain exchange were asked for suggestions how to sell it. I do not know whether that strikes anyone else as odd, but it does me, because such transactions are quite expensive. Again:
One of the suggestions they made to us was that we agree to sell them their hedges against export sales made between the close of the market one day and the opening of the market the next day at not more than one-quarter of a cent over the previous day's close.
That thereby a long step was made in the selling out of the farmers' interests cannot, I believe, be successfully contradicted. Mr. Murray further says:
We made that agreement with them, or gave them an undertaking, whichever you like to call it, with one proviso. We explained to them that we were not handling our own money and our own funds.
At that committee meeting I asked Mr. Murray:
Is that the first time that protection of that kind was extended to exporters?
The answer was:
t No, sir, but it is the first time it was done right out in the open.
A little further on he says:
We, wanting them to have that wheat freely, gave them that assurance. We did not anticipate it would continue for an indefinite time. 
We wanted to get them started. It was discontinued on December 20, for this reason; the market in the pit itself was being killed.
If one analyzes that statement a little something worth while may be gained. Mr. Murray goes on:
People having done an export business, instead of coming into the pit in the morning to buy their wheat, would come direct to us. It was an easier way to do it.
I contend that it was also a cheaper way. This, however, is what has happened; we find that very good progress is indicated by showing a deficit in wheat board operations. I believe a great effort was made to destroy the wheat board and its usefulness. Instead of leaving the man there who had been doing good work, work which so far as I know was satisfactory to the west, the government put in a new man who has fought the wheat board, wheat pools, and farmers' organizations as long as I can remember.


Mr. THORSON:: Mr. Murray was the inventor of the wheat board in western Canada.


Robert Fair: I know he was an inventor. I also know some other things that happened a little later on. While this committee was sitting, Mr. Murray gave out a statement. I do not know whether it was prepared by himself or by the board, but it was probably composed before he left Winnipeg. This is what he said:	,
Until recent years our surplus wheat was absorbed into world trade and no one knew, except in the most general way, just how or where it went. The little consideration we gave to this question ten years ago is not sufficient now.
World wheat trade which averaged 721,309,000 bushels for the ten years 1920 to 1929 was large enough to absorb the surplus from average crops in exporting countries.
This situation no longer exists, and if wheat is to retain the position it has occupied in the production of our national wealth, we must wake up to the importance of the problem. T might interject and say that from 1926 to 1930 inclusive, the value of wheat exported was 32 per cent of the total Canadian exports. From 1931 to 1935 inclusive, it was 25 per cent: that is, wheat and flour.
World trade in wheat last year, including
26,000,000 bushels imported by the United States, was only 520 million bushels. This year, including perhaps 50 million bushels which may be imported by the United States, it wiil probably not be more than 520 million bushels. Excluding the United States this means an average for the two years of less than 500 million bushels of wheat taken by importing countries.
We cannot count on the United States continuing as an importer and they may in a few months again become exporters. Europe may not be as successful as in recent years in growing large crops, but no sensible person

The Budget-Mr. Fair
would advocate in dealing with this problem that our main dependence should be on Providence continuing to help us through crop failures in other countries.
Then Mr. Murray comes to a very sensible part of his statement. He says:
Our problem for the future then is, briefly: normal crops on present acreage in exporting countries will give from 640 to 740 million bushels exportable surplus. The available market may be only 500 to 550 million bushels.
How can Canada continue to grow crops of 375 to 425 million bushels and fit into this picture without again piling up unwieldy and burdensome surpluses.
_ Can we. as a nation, tackle this problem intelligently? If we continue as we have for the past few years we will not do so.
I agree with that, and I believe that the only way to handle it is through a system of orderly marketing, which can be done only with a national board handling all the crop.
If I might refer for a moment to any of the years gone by, I might take at random 1925, just to show how the wheat goes on the market from our western farms. In September of 1925, 86,546,000 bushels was marketed; in October, 58,888,000; November, 85,134,000; December, 51,594,000; January, 24,074,000; February, 14,394,000; March, 10,215,000; April, 5,741.000; May, 3,580,000; June, 6,458,000; July, 4,200,000; August, 4,396,000. If hon. members will study these figures they will realize that in the first month the new crop was moving, 86,000,000 bushels were marketed, while in August of the next year only 4,396,000 bushels were marketed. From our experience of a number of years we know that as soon as all that wheat goes on the market, with nothing but an open market to trade on, the price immediately drops; and the wheat has to go on the market because, as I think is well known, the western farmers for a number of years have been in a pretty tough spot.
With all this wheat going on the market, and with depressed prices, somebody buys the hedges, and you will find that the price of wheat drops considerably and goes up again when the light marketings commence. That means that the farmer sells his wheat at a low price, and the speculator, who is allowed to operate uncontrolled, makes a profit out of the wheat. A very good example of that was given this fall when a large proportion of the wheat, seventy per cent of it, was sold at an average of 80 cents a bushel, and then we find that in the months that followed it was around the $1.30 mark. It is obvious that if the wheat board had been in existence there would not have been so many calls for help from the west. The west had been discriminated against in this and many other ways.
Perhaps it would be well for me to give the average price of No. 1 northern wheat at Fort William, and the average cost in Regina of an 8-foot binder for each of a number of years back:
Year	Cost of binder Price of wheat
1915	.. $165	$1 131916	.. 167	2 051917	.. 194	2 211918	.. 250	2 241919	.. 260	2 17192-0	.. 288	1 991921	.. 329	1 291922	.. 277	1 101923	.. 288	1 071924	.. 313	1 691925	.. 288	1 511926	.. 288	1 461927	.. 288	1 461928	.. 288	1 241929	.. 288	1 24
Now I am coming to the interesting part. In 1929 we had a crash and somebody said it was due to agriculture. We know that is not the case. Here are more comparative prices:
Year	Cost of binder Price of wheat
1930	
$283	SO	641931	
283	0	59-81932	
278	0	541933	
264	0	681934	
264	0	811935	
262	0	841936	
280	0	93
If you wall study these figures you will see that there is no comparison whatever between the price of wheat and the price of the machinery which the farmers in the west have to buy. I understand that it is likely there will be another rise in farm machinery prices, although I was told not long ago that one of the big machine companies in the past ten years had paid an average of 6-3 per cent to its shareholders. That is not so bad. I believe I also saw the statement that some $29,000,000 of profits had been reported for one of these machinery companies. There is also a suggestion that a large secret reserve of something like $40,000,000 exists in one of these companies. We do not find very much relief at the other end, however.
In case anyone from the west has any kick on this, I will read from the Saskatchewan Liberal of February 18, 1937, part of an address by the hon. T. C. Davis, K.C., Attorney General. This is from a radio address he delivered on February 9:
In our development, as I have said, we sought capital and secured it. Money was loaned and borrowed on the basis of our agricultural product ion. We all assumed the conditions prevailing at the time the money was borrowed would continue to prevail without much change throughout the period of repayment.
All went comparatively well until the depression hit us in 1929. With the crash in the
The Budget-Mr. Fair

fall of that year the world was engulfed in an economic catastrophe, the severity of which has never been equalled in the history of the world. Prices tumbled, markets ceased to exist and the world seemed headed for chaos. Wheat prices went lower than they had ever been in the last 400 years. This catastrophe alone would have been sufficient to shake this province from stem to stern, cutting as it did at the very fundamentals of our economic life, but this was not all. Hand-in-hand with this catastrophe walked, for seven years, every plague and disaster known to agriculture. We nave had drought, dust storms, grasshoppers, rust and every conceivable disaster and pest.
For seven consecutive years we have gone through this, year after year, with fifty thousand farm families utterly destitute and having to be fed and clothed. Over a hundred million dollars had to be found to maintain human life-enough money, if so used, to pave every road in Saskatchewan.
The results of the combination of depression and drought is told in the production figures of agriculture over the last ten years. Listen to these figures:
Estimated Value of Products Actually Sold Off the Farm in Saskatchewan, 1927-1936
1927		$272,405,000
1928		 273,566.000
1929		 179,675,000
1930		 101,803,000
1931		 66,206,000
1932		 72,179,000
1933		 70,828,500
1934		 81,406,000
1935		 95,112.000
1936		 112,000,000
These figures tell the story of the difficulties, not only of the people of Saskatchewan, but of the province itself. The decrease in the cash income of the farmers of this province from, roughly, $275,000,000 a year in 1927 and 1928 down to $70,000,000 in 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934, is a vital factor, evidencing the terrific strain upon the economic life of this province. There was a loss in cash revenue in those four years of over $800,000,000. The farmers' income has started to go up since 1933, but last year only reached $112,000,000, which is not nearly one-half of the amount realized in 1927 and 1928 when the majority of the debts were incurred.
Now if I were a good politician I should perhaps make good use of this. As I am not, I merely want to state that the average price of wheat from 1924 to 1929 inclusive was $1.43i. In those years the pools were operating. The average price of a binder then was $292. For the period 1930 to 1935 wheat averaged 69 cents a bushel, and an eight foot binder at Regina averaged $272. This affords a pretty good comparison.
In a survey of a number of Saskatchewan farm incomes, we find that the income in 1925 averaged $2,856 per farm. In 1931 it dropped to $493, and in 1935 it had come back to $708, or approximately 25 per cent of what it was in 1925. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hyndman) a few days ago told us he was

sick and tired of hearing about wheat, and he went home and looked in the dictionary to find there were oats, 'barley and other crops. In that connection I can only say that:
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
I remember those lines from the day I went to school, and I think they may be aptly applied to the hon. member and his remarks about agriculture.
Some hon. members from Quebec and Ontario, and others also, cannot imagine why we come here and kick about the treatment we are receiving. We are told that we must sell our wheat on the world market and take the world price for it. But we are buying machinery and other supplies in a protected market. Dealing in that protected market we find that in 1931 the net loss to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta on account of tariffs amounted to $54,925,352. The gain for Ontario in that year alone amounted to $51,989,761 and to Quebec $31,685,885. This means that we lost $54,925,352, and Ontario alone had a net gain of $51,989,761.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.


Robert Fair: I should like, if I might have a moment, to finish.


Frederick George Sanderson: Only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Robert Fair: These are some of the wheat
bonuses paid by other countries. These figures are one year behind; I did not expect to have to use them; I thought on account of so much being said about wheat last year that hon. members would have learned a little more about it. In Belgium in 1935 there was a bonus of $2.65 per acre on wheat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Robert Fair: On other grains $2 per acre.
The United States on December 31, 1935, had paid bonuses amounting to $255,624,669.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I am
sorry to interrupt but the hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Robert Fair: I shall be back a little later
and finish it, perhaps.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOiIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): The amendment we are discussing now is an invitation to speak about unemployment at large. In September, 1930, according to some information which has often been quoted, the total number of unemployed, including unemployables, was 117,930, or 1

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
per cent of the population of this country. Before the last general election I asked the former Superintendent General of Indian Affairs of the previous government what was the number of Indians who had been receiving relief for the four or five previous years. He told me at first that it would take some time to gather that information; later I received another letter from him to the effect that it would involve considerable time and work in each agency, and some days later he told me he would endeavour to get the information requested; and finally, I never got it from him. But I got it this year from the present Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). He stated on February 1, at page 419 of Hansard, that in 1930-31 there were 6,937 Indians on relief, with 9,088 dependents. I am sure that those Indians on relief and their dependents were included in the number of 117,930 unemployed quoted by the leader of the Tory party in 1930. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), who was then Minister of Trade and Commerce, is quoted in the Canada Year Book for 1931, published by authority of his department, as follows respecting unemployment:
In Canada, as in other parts of the world, there was a general slackening in industrial activity during 1930, resulting in a lower level of employment than in 1929, and also than in some months of 1928. With these exceptions, however, the general index was higher than in previous years of the record.
Such was the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the previous government. There was less unemployment in 1930 than in the years before.
In September, 1930, the leader of the Tory party, fresh from the general election, overestimated the number of unemployed, but after he had been a few months in office the report of the Department of Labour of March, 1931, underestimated the number. To use his own words, when the present Prime Minister spoke of 117,000 unemployed in this country in September, 1930,
The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) was doing this country an injury and a wrong, for there was no warrant for any such figure unless you included every babe in arms and every child from babyhood to the age of sixteen or seventeen as being among the unemployed.
The number 117,000 of unemployed, he then mentioned, included both unemployables and their dependents; so much so that on February 18, 1935, speaking on the unemployment insurance bill, he quoted figures which were a vindication of the policy followed by the Liberal government during the previous nine years. Why was that so? Because the figures he read showed only a small number
of unemployed under Liberal government, or about 1 per cent of the total population, and when the leader of the Tory party left office there were eleven times more.
There are three different classes of unemployed. First, there are those on relief; we know their number because we know the amount of money that is being paid to them. Second, there are those who work part time; as yet their number is unknown, and their case is very sad, Their incomes have been reduced very considerably. Many of them are too proud to accept relief. Others face this dilemma: either their meagre pay is deducted from their relief or their names are struck off the relief lists. Third, there are those who are supported by their own families, about whom we have no information as yet. At the last election the names of two hundred thousand young men were added to the lists, and we have no information as to how many of that number are unemployed.
In order to give an idea of what happened during the five years the previous government was in office, I desire to quote some extracts from the speeches from the throne and the prorogation speeches each year. They are on record as an expression of satisfaction put into the mouth of his excellency by the previous government. First I quote from the speech from the throne at the opening of the special session of 1930:
The necessity for dealing with exceptional economic conditions with the resultant unemployment has induced me to summon you at an earlier date than would otherwise be necessary. Measures will be submitted for your consideration, including amendments to the Customs Act and the customs tariff which it is anticipated will do much to meet the unusual conditions which now prevail.
Then, after 152 tariff items had been blindly increased and eleven items had been decreased, in order to meet the unusual conditions which then prevailed, we heard the prorogation speech, reading in part as follows:
I thank you for the prompt consideration which you have given to the measures submitted to you. and which are deemed necessary for the relief of unemployment in the dominion. It is my fervent hope and confident belief that these measures will prove effective in accomplishing the purposes for which they have been enacted.
Those were good wishes. Now I quote from the speech from the throne delivered at the opening of parliament in 1931:
I welcome you to your duties at a time when the nations of the world are passing through a period of great economic depression. Canada has not escaped it. But the Canadian people have met the trials of the moment with patience _ and fortitude, and are facing the future with the courage and faith which must
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

triumph over every adversity... The problems which stand between us and ultimate prosperity are manifold and great. To be effectually met, they must first be understood. Confusion between cause and effect will but delay their solution.
During that, year the number receiving direct relief was 741,000, or about seven times as great as the number mentioned! by the leader of the Tory party in 1930. The disbursements made by the dominion under the relief act of 1931 were $42,740,000, or three times the disbursements under the relief act from September, 1930, to March, 1931. The prorogation speech of 1931 included this passage :
Since you entered upon the duties of the session, the world wide depression in economic conditions has grown more acute, and the consequent state of unemployment and distress in many parts of the country has been intensified through the partial failure of the wheat crop of western Canada. To augment existing relief measures, the governor in council has been empowered to take the necessary action to provide the maximum of employment and to aid, by such means as may be deemed expedient, the recovery from the adverse conditions arising primarily from the crop failure.
The great powers of fiurope and America, following the generous and constructive action of the president of the United States of America, which Canada wholeheartedly endorses, are unitedly striving for the re-establishment of better world conditions.
Better start at home!
Towards this purpose we may now effectively contribute, by steadfastly bending ourselves to the task of freeing Canada from the consequences of this universal state of economic depression and of the particular misfortune which has befallen the west; so that this country may be ready to take its place in the forefront of the world's recovery.
The speech from the throne for 1932 at the opening of the session was delivered on February 4 of that year, and from it I quote the following:
You enter upon your duties at a time of continuing and universal economic disturbance and distress. World conditions are beyond the control of the Canadian people. But I rejoice that their resolute adherence to policies designed for the welfare of the nation has minimized the adverse influence of external economic forces... The provisions made at the last session of parliament for unemployment and farm relief are proving effective.
You are successfully meeting difficult domestic problems. Conditions are gradually improving. But prosperity in full measure must await the satisfactory adjustment of accounts between debtor and creditor nations of the world and the restoration of international monetary standards, from which the acute financial difficulties have compelled a temporary departure.
Now I quote from the prorogation speech, session of 1932:
My government's policy of unemployment and farm relief, consistently and vigorously pur-
[Mr. Pouliot. 1
sued, has already achieved an amelioration of conditions and forecasts steady and continued improvement in both agrarian and industrial communities.
The larger the number of unemployed the rosier became the speeches from the throne. Now I come to the speech from the throne at the opening of the session of 1932-33:
The problem of unemployment continues to receive the anxious attention of my ministers. Under the powers granted them at the last session of parliament, they have been able to develop further, in cooperation with the provinces and municipalities, a scheme of direct relief to be put into operation during the autumn and winter months to the extent required by prevailing conditions. Plans for the re-establishment of the unemployed in various parts of the country are in preparation and will become operative as soon as, in the opinion of my ministers, the public expenditure incident thereto will be productive of commensurate benefits.
In January of 1932 the number of individuals on relief was 714,000; in January of 1933, that number had increased to 1,306,000. That was great progress I During the session of 1932-33 the Ottawa trade agreements were enacted, and the prorogation speech that year contained these words:
The courage with which the Canadian people have endured the burdens imposed upon them in these troubled times is witness to their great faith in the future of this country.
They should have faith, indeed.
It is, however, realized that cooperation amongst the peoples of the world is essential to recovery from the unprecedented conditions which have for so long prevailed in all countries.
Now I quote from the speech from the throne at the opening of the session in 1934:
The representatives of the various provinces strongly approve of the arrangements made by my government to care for single, unemployed, homeless men in camps until such time as they could be absorbed in industry, by providing them with employment on undertakings for the national good; and of the provision made in 1932 for settlement of families on the land, which has been extended with satisfactory results. My government propose further to promote employment by expenditures on essential public works and undertakings throughout the dominion.
Did that mean that the previous works imposed by the leader of the Tory party on the provinces and municipalities, and carried on by the joint expenditure of federal, provincial and municipal governments, were unessential and even useless? But this is no time to look backward, says the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett).
The speech continues:
I congratulate you that such improved world conditions are reflected in Canada by expanding trade, improving revenues, increasing employment, and a more confident outlook upon the

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
future. Canada occupies a leading position amongst those countries where the evidence of a return to permanent prosperity is most convincing.
Then, from the prorogation speech in 1934:
The progressive improvement of general economic conditions in Canada which is presently much in evidence gives every indication of continuing in increasing measure.
Then, from the opening speech from the throne in 1935, the last year in which the previous government held office:
During the past year the grip of hard times has been broken. Conditions show marked improvement. Employment is increasing. Our trade is expanding. The national revenues are higher. These evidences of recovery attest the wisdom and efficacy of the measures you have taken. In these improved conditions, there may now successfully be carried forward those great tasks of reform upon which the well-being of this country depends.
And from the prorogation speech of that year:
The enactment of the measure relating to unemployment and social insurance will, through the establishment of a national labour exchange service, provide for dealing more effectively with the problem of seasonal and other unemployment, and will afford the means whereby Canadian workers can, with the assistance of the government, make provision for their own security.
That was the proposal, and the answer of the Canadian people to it was No, even before the Privy Council declared the measure was useless.
We must remember, sir, that in 1930 the leader of the Tory party stated there were
117,000	so-called unemployed. In March, 1935, the number on relief-and we have no figures about the unemployed part-time workers and the unemployed who were not on relief-was 1,258,421. Great progress! Twice a year, in the opening speech from the throne and in the prorogation speech, we were told that business was getting better and better, and yet the number of unemployed was increasing all the time.
To be fair let us compare the record of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) with the record of the government which held office before him. He said that when he assumed office he would end unemployment. When he took office the total number of unemployed, including unemployables, stood at 117,000; when he left office it stood at about 1,300,000.


Mr. STEWART:: No, that is the number on relief. In the one instance the hon. member is giving the number of unemployed, and in the other the number on relief.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps I made a slip.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The two figures would be entirely different. The correct figure is about half a million, instead of 1,300,000.


Mr. GOLDING:: It went up to 700,000 at one time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to make any slip. When the Conservative party took office it was admitted that the total number of unemployed-and I am sure the number included the unemployables, and Indians on relief and their dependents-stood at 117,000. It included the dependents of Indians.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, no-just the unemployed.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member did not get any more information than I did at the time. I have received information from the Department of Indian Affairs. We have the statement of an hon. gentleman who sits in front of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) which appeared in an official publication when that gentleman was a minister in the Bennett government that there was less unemployment, and more employment, in 1930 than in the years before. We have that evidence, and the hon. member knows it very well.
When hon. members opposite left office there were 1,258,421 on relief.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not unemployed-on relief.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, on relief.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How many were unemployed?


Jean-François Pouliot: A much larger number.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: Because this figure did not take into account those who worked part time, and the unemployed who were not on relief. The hon. member knows that very well.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No. The point I make is that the hon. member should give comparable figures and should not confuse the number of unemployed with the number on relief. I understand the number of unemployed was about 500,000, while the number on relief was over a million.


Jean-François Pouliot: The figures given by the hon. member are most unfair, because they are those of heads of families on relief-an entirely different thing. Let me tell him that he was a very good Minister of Public Works, and I am pleased to pay that tribute, but I must say that when he was a member of the government he paid no attention to social legislation. He left that to his leader, who was the big boss and did not brook intervention by any of his ministers. Therefore

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

members of the Liberal party knew more about these matters than did the ministers of the former government.
Mr. iSTEWART: May I ask the hon. member again to give the figure for 1935 which would correspond to 117,000 in 1930.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am telling the hon. member that it is impossible for me to give them because his boss, the former Prime Minister, always refused to give me information. I shall now instruct the member from Brockville; I have been trying to give a little information to his leader.
Now let us come to the municipalities. They have considered the question of unemployment from what angle? From the angle of finance. I am. in favour of investigating commissions, but managing commissions are sometimes dangerous. We have an employment commission. Let me tell the house that I do not believe much in that commission. It is a window-dressing commission, with the home improvement plan-and walking down Sparks street the other day I was much surprised to see a sign on which were the words "admission free" stuck in a bath room. That seemed strange, because few people appreciate such window dressing invitations when there are other windows showing fireplaces where the sign would be much more appropriate.
The question has been asked about the number of unemployed. On February 8 of this year I asked this question:
1.	What is actually the total number: (a) of heads of families; (b) of their dependents; (e) of individual cases of unemployed, all receiving relief at the present time?
2.	How many of the three above mentioned classes are employable?
3.	What is the total number of unemployed: (a) heads of families, and (b) unmarried boys and girls over twenty, not receiving relief at the present time?
4.	What is the number of: (a) employable, and (b) unemployable unemployed in each province at the present time, and what was the average of each of both those classes of unemployed during the calendar years 1935 and 1936?
To which the minister replied:
Mr. Rogers:	All available information was
included in the report of the National Employment Commission with respect to the registration of recipients of direct relief which was tabled in the house on the 5th day of February. As other data is abstracted from the registration returns it w-ill be made available.
I thank the minister for the copy of the return, but I must say it contains no information about the previous occupations of the unemployed. Therefore it is of no use at all. I cannot see its usefulness as it does not 6how what the unemployed can do, or how they

can be employed. This is a very important point and one that should not be overlooked.
At page 762 of Hansard there is set out the payments to the members of this National Employment Commission. These are as follows:
Name	Travelling expenses	Living allowance
A. B. Purvis			
A. N. McLean		. $1,141 07	$1,843
Alfred Marois		. 603 75	
Tom Moore		. 228 95	3,439
Mrs. M. Sutherland.	. 2,151 93	
W. A. Mackintosh. .	. 771 98	1.425E. J. Young	. 1,538 25	3,021
Mr. Young would be able to render much better service to the state on the tariff board, and he would be exceedingly well qualified for such a position. Mr. Tom Moore received only $228.95 for travelling expenses, no living allowance being paid. What a great sacrifice he made to serve the state. Apparently he served without salary. But he received $9,000 for doing nothing on the social insurance commission. He received nearly as much in salary as the four commissioners received in living allowances. They received a total of $9,728 while Mr. Moore received $9,000. I saw in the Ottawa citizen not long ago that he was no longer a member of the employment insurance commission, due to the ruling of the privy council, but was to be employed at a salary of $7,300 per year. He was to get $20 a day for 365 days. Apparently he is to work on Sundays. Our Lord created the universe in six days, but on the seventh He took a rest. Tom Moore is doing nothing for 365 days; therefore he does not need a weekly rest.
The creation of the employment commission was just as laudable an effort on the part of this government as were silly the increases made in the tariff by the previous government and its so-called social legislation which was knocked out recently by the privy council.
The speech of the Minister of Labour on the second reading of the employment commission bill on March 30 last year shows that he is fully qualified for his position. I would be quite willing to give him blanket authority to study this whole matter and report to the house. He is a reliable Minister of Labour and I am very sorry that in order to relieve unemployment all he has by way of assistance is a commission which is really more of an obstacle than a help.
Enough has been said already with regard to the abstract side of unemployment. I intend to refer to the individuals concerned. I have received a number of letters from unemployed people, which I should like to read if I had the time to do so. In his speech in support of his amendment, the

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
leader of the Tory party, otherwise known as the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett), made one suggestion. Was it constructive or was it not? Let us see. He said that the bureau of statistics was the place one would expect to go to for the purpose of getting information regarding the numbers of the unemployed. The last information gathered by the bureau of statistics in this connection was during the census of 1931. Therefore, the only information the bureau can supply in this regard would be that relating to 1931. The leader of the opposition did not even dare to quote that information when speaking on the unemployment and social insurance bill. If he does not know where to get the necessary information, it is not surprising that he never got it. After having been Prime Minister for five years he seems to know very little about this matter.
The proper source of this information is the municipalities. This government has authority to collect the necessary information from that source. All the government needs to do is to tell the provinces that they will get no more subsidies unless they provide the necessary information.
I should like to tell the house what in my humble opinion should be done. There should be a classification of the unemployed in each part of the country according to trades. We should have the number of unemployed in the building trades, unemployed factory workers, labourers, merchants, office help, professional workers, railway workers, technicians, iron and steel workers, longshoremen, miners, seamen, fishermen, domestics and sundry other occupations. It is very important to know the previous occupations of the unemployed! in order to know what can be done for them!.
I would suggest that this question of unemployment should be studied by a committee of this house. After having looked over the record I am surprised to find that during the last few years this question has not been considered by a committee of members of this house. I have before me a list of the different matters referred to the committee on industrial and international relations. In 1928 there was referred to it the question of insurance against unemployment and sickness, and the civil service councils, Bill No. 4; in 1929, grants of family allowances, and insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity; in 1930, Bill No. 39, respecting government contracts; in 1931, there was referred to it the resolution by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) regarding promotion of peace by instituting professorships and 31111-toij
scholarships in Canadian universities. In 1932 it had no sittings; in 1933, no sittings; in 1934, no sittings. In 1935 there was referred to it the resolution on oriental seamen on Canadian ships, and the resolution for pensions for the blind. In 1936 there was referred to it a report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and. the matter of employment of Canadian citizens on subsidized Canadian ships. In 1937 there have been no sittings as yet.
I should like to give particulars of the special committees of this house which have been set up to study various matters. In 1929 committees were set up to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1920, and the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. In 1930 committees were set up to study the Dominion Elections Act. 1920; pensions and returned soldiers' problems. The special committees set up in 1931 studied the Beauharnois power project, and Bill No. 4, the Copyright Act In 1932 special consideration was given to the Bankruptcy Act, Bill No. 41; the civil service and Civil Service Act; certain charges and allegations made by Hon. G. N. Gordon; radio broadcasting; unfair competition in trade and commerce;' and Bill No. 4, to amend the Patent Act. During the session of 1932-33 special committees considered Bill No. 78 concerning pensions, and Bill No. 2 to amend the Representation Act. In 1934, special consideration was given to the Civil Service Act; price spreads and mass buying; operation of the radio act, elections and franchise acts. In 1935, consideration was given to the British North America Act; Bill No. 98 concerning the grain board; and housing. In 1936, we had under consideration the election and franchise acts, 1934; pensions and returned soldiers' problems; the marketing of wheat and other grains; and the radio commission.
In 1937, there are committees considering the elections and franchise acts; criminal code (death penalty) bill; farm implements.
It is an omission on the part of all of us, every hon. member is blameworthy, because a reference on the unemployment problem can be submitted to a committee on the motion of any hon. member, seconded by another, and adopted. This session is nearly over, but I hope that next session a motion will be carried for a committee to study unemployment at large. I humbly proffer this suggestion. The membership jf this house comes from every part of the country and represents every walk of life, and it seems to me that we could give a hand and substantial help to the government by studying this whole matter ourselves, rather than by referring it to others.
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

We could formulate our suggestions without reference to party politics, as an assembly of members desiring to consider and come to definite conclusions on this vital problem in order to assist the government of the day.
Here was a suggestion that was made on April 30 to assist the government. A member of this house has done part of the work which is to be assigned to the National Employment Commisison. He is still ready to do that work for nothing-the classification of the unemployed according to their trades-if the government is willing, provided that he can pick up a staff to assist him in his work. It will save the government of the country $125,000. The offer is still good.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will the hon. member
answer this question: Who is the hon. member who made that offer?


Jean-François Pouliot: I cannot name him
because I fear to hurt his modesty.
We should also make an inventory of our natural resources, an investigation of packing, et cetera.
The trade policy of the government is excellent; and I am sure that if a committee of this house decided to study the whole matter from a non-partisan point of view, examining facts instead of theories, it would achieve very satisfactory results.
May I say in conclusion that as the trade policy of the government is very good there is no reason why its unemployment policy should not be of equal merit. In order to arrive at such a policy, however, we should get rid of any managing commission, and appoint an investigating committee from among ourselves to report back to the house in due course.
On motion of Mr. Rickard the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 10.56 p.m.
Tuesday, March 9, 1937