1937-03-10

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Vien.
[Stage Direction]
Questions


[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. C. St-PERE (Hoohelaga) presented the first report of the joint committee on the printing of parliament, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. MacNICOL:: 1.	Has the federal government consented to, or is it obligated to pay a portion of the costs of the surveys made or being made by the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission engineers from lake Nipigon north along the Little Jackfish river and the connecting chain of rivers and lakes to the height of land and north of the height of land by way of Mojikit lake, Mojikit river to the Ogoki river and east and west along the Ogoki river with a view to diverting the waters of the latter river from flowing north to flowing south via the said chain of lakes and rivers to lake Superior?
2.	If so, has the United States consented to the inflow of these waters into the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No.	.
2.	No.


Mr. MacNICOL:: 1.	Has the federal government given the Ontario government or the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission authority to divert water from the Long Lake-Kenogami-Albany river watershed of northern Ontario over the height of land to lake Superior of the St. Lawrence watershed?
2.	If so, has the United States government agreed to the said diversion of this water from the said Albany river watershed to the St. Lawrence watershed?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the said diversion works and is the federal government obligated to pay a portion of the costs?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No information is available with regard to the estimated cost of the diversion works and the federal government has not obligated itself to pay any portion of the costs.


SASKATCHEWAN 1936 CENSUS-APPOINTMENTS
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	How many wrote the civil service examinations in connection with the census in the province of Saskatchewan in 1936?

2.	How many passed the said examinations in the province of Saskatchewan?
3.	How many from the province of Saskatchewan received positions in the census branch?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	373.
2.	102.
3.	21 (275 appointments required).


CANADIAN RADIO BROADCASTING STATION AT RICHMOND, B. C.
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission obtain a site of approximately 19 acres for a radio station or other purposes in the municipality of Richmond, province of British Columbia?
2.	If so, when was such site purchased, and at what price?
3.	From whom was it purchased?
4.	To whom was the purchase price paid?
5.	Was any commission paid in respect of such purchase?
6.	If so, to whom?
7.	What building or buildings, if any, have been erected on this site?


Mr. HOWE:: The following information has been supplied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
1.	Yes. Purchased by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.
2.	July, 1936. Price: S3,642.55.
3.	W. M. Finlayson.
4.	A. H. Stephenson and Company.
5.	Not by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.
6.	No information.
7.	Main transmitter building, and antenna tuning house.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD-WAGES AT VANCOUVER, B.C.
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	What rate of pay is paid by the National Harbours Board to carloaders and shedmen at the Ballantyne and Lapointe piers in Vancouver harbour?
2.	Is an eight-hour day observed on the work of these carloaders and shedmen?
3.	If not, are they paid overtime, and at what rate, and for what days of the wreek?
4.	What were the former rates of pay for this work, and wdien was a change made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The National Harbours Board has supplied the following answers:
1.	Shedmen: Lapointe pier-Regularly employed, 54 cents per hour; Ballantyne pier- Regularly employed, 50 cents per hour.
In each case, minimum of 3 hours paid when called to work between 5 pm. and 8 a.m.; also on Sundays and statutory holidays.
Carloaders: Lapointe and Ballantyne piers- Under normal conditions, carloading work is

Questions
performed by shedmen as above. Carloaders casually employed, 50 cents per hour all the time, except Sundays and statutory holidays when 75 cents per hour.
2.	Whenever possible. If more than 8 hours worked on any day, then a lesser number worked on other days to maintain average of 8 hours per day.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Shedmen: Lapointe pier-There has been no change in rates paid to shedmen since pier was taken over from previous operator in 1931;
Ballantyne pier-Prior to May, 1936, shedmen were employed as casual workers and were paid 50 cents per hour straight time; and 75 cents per hour overtime.
Carloaders: Lapointe pier-Prior to June, 1935, casually employed and paid 60 cents per hour straight time; and 90 cents per hour overtime;
Ballantyne pier-Prior to May, 1936, casually employed and paid 60 cents per hour straight time; and 90 cents per hour overtime.


ST. VINCENT DE PAUL, QUE., BRIDGE
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Is the federal government contributing towards the cost of construction of the new bridge at Boulevard Pie IX, St-Vincent de Paul?
2.	If so, what proportion of the cost is the government contributing?
3.	What is or will be the cost of said bridge?
4.	At the request of which government is said bridge being constructed?
5.	Who is or are the contractor or contractors for said work?
6.	How many workmen and day-labourers are actually employed on the construction of this bridge?
7_. Where do these workmen or day labourers reside?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	50 per cent.
3.	The total estimated cost of the bridge referred to is $600,000.
4.	Government of the province of Quebec.
5.	Dufresne Construction Company of Montreal.
6.	The latest information available is for the week ending January 30, 1937, during which period there were 339 men employed.
7.	The provincial authorities advise that the labour employed on the project in question is being recruited from Montreal, L'Abord-a-plouffe, Montreal North, St. Vincent de Paul, St. Michel and St. Laurent.


PUBLIC WORKS IN QUEBEC PROVINCE
Mr. MULLINS:: How many public works have been carried out jointly by the federal government and the
government of the province of Quebec, since January 1, 1936, to date: (a) in the counties of Richmond-Wolfe; (b) in the other counties of the province of Quebec?


Mr. ROGERS:: Order in Council P.C. 359 dated February 22, 1937, which was tabled in the House of Commons on February 24, 1937, sets forth the works being carried out by the province of Quebec with financial assistance from the dominion under the provisions of the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936.


BANK OP CANADA-REGULATION OF CURRENCY AND CREDIT
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	Has parliament entrusted the Bank of Canada with the function of regulating currency and credit in the public interest?
2.	If the Bank of Canada exercises the function of regulating currency and credit in the public interest, what means does it employ?
3.	What are the credit control powers that parliament has conferred upon the Bank of Canada that it may use to check wild speculation in commodities, stocks, etc., if such action becomes desirable in the public interest?
4.	Who will decide the time when and the extent to which the powers mentioned in question 3 are to be applied?
Mr. DUNNING;	*
1.	Yes-see preamble to Bank of Canada Act.
2.	Primarily open market purchases or sales of securities designed directly to expand or contract the cash reserves of the chartered banks, and regulation of the discount rate designed to effect indirectly the same purposes.
3.	See section 21 and subsection 4 of section 13 of Bank of Canada Act. The central bank has no statutory powers to determine the specific purposes for which credit is used and effective control of the distribution of credit as between various categories of use depends on the active cooperation of chartered banks and other private lending institutions, the stock exchanges, stock brokers, and the public generally.
4. See sections 7 and 13 of the Bank of Canada Act and section 4 of the Bank of Canada Act Amendment Act.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	How much life insurance was in force in respect of residents of Canada in each of the years 1927 to 1936, inclusive?
2.	What was the total of premiums paid by such residents of Canada in each of the years 1927 to 1936, inclusive, in respect of such life insurance ?
Motions for Papers

3.	What was the total amount of such life
insurance which: (a) lapsed during each of said rears on account of non-payment of premiums; (b) was surrendered by such policyholders in jaeh of said years?	_
4.	What was the total amount paid in respect
jf such insurance in each of said years:	(a)
;o beneficiaries on the death of the insured; (b) to policyholders other than by way of loans on policies; (c) in loans to policyholders?


DOMINION VETERINARIES IN ALBERTA
Mr. QUELCH:: 1.	What is the number of dominion veter-inaries operating in the province of Alberta?
2.	What territory is covered by each?
3.	What is the scope of work of the dominion
veterinaries in the province of Alberta, and the cost of this service to the dominion government?	.
4.	How is this work eo-related to the provincial veterinary service, if at all?
4.	How many departments of the government of Canada are housed in the post office building at Cornwall, and what arrangements have these various departments made with the Post Office Department as to leasing, taxes, heat, light, etc.?
5.	When did the Department of National Revenue (then Customs) open an office in the post office building in Cornwall, and, in that year, what was the total customs revenue collected at the port of Cornwall?
6.	What was the total customs revenue collected at the port of Cornwall in 1936?
7.	In what year did a detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police open an office at Cornwall in the post office building, and, in such year, how many cases were handled by that detachment?
8.	How many were handled in 1936?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CHURCH:: 


Mr. BLANCHETTE:: 1.	What sums of money have been allotted by the federal government in 1936 on relief work projects in conjunction with the various provincial governments?
2.	What sum has been allotted by the federal government to each separate province for such projects?



TORONTO POST OFFICE

Mr. BAKER:: 1.	What was the total number of employees encaged on the sortation and mail at the Toronto terminal "A" post office in 1925, 1929,
and 1936?	..	,	,2.	How many were permanently employed, and under what classifications, including supervisory positions?	,	,3	How many were classed as temporary '4	How many were part-time employees?5	What were their daily periods, and what duties did these part-time employees perform'


Mr. BAKER:: What was the average daily load in pieces of mail during 1925, during 1929, and during 1936, including:	(a) mail posted m Toronto
and handled by sorting staffs, and (b) mail posted at outside points and received at Toronto for sorting and distribution?



PERMANENT LAW CLERKS, COUNSEL AND LEGAL ADVISERS

Mr. BOTHWELL:: What are the classifications and salary ranges of all law clerks, counsel and legal advisers on the permanent staffs of the several departments of the government?



CORNWALL, ONT., PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. CHEYRIER:: 1.	When was the post office building at Cornwall, in the county of Stormont, erected?
2.	In that year, how many patrons were
there, and what was the total revenue of the post office?	.
3.	How many patrons were there in 1936, and what was the revenue that year?

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.
He said: I read in Hansard of Monday the objection of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) to all the correspondence being produced1. I agree with him that it would be a heavy matter, as this has been described as the most dangerous crossing in Canada. I want only two copies of recent letters, one a copy of a letter from Mayor Robbins, proposing a new division of the cost of this work, and the reply of the government or the railway commission of a week ago to that letter. Subject to this amendment, I think the motion might pass. There is a vote of two and a half million dollars in the supplementary estimates for grade separation, although the letter received from Ottawa by the mayor a week ago, to which I have referred, says no funds have yet been voted this year.
I suggest that under the circumstances the motion might pass. Two other motions along similar lines were passed a month ago. If the minister has any objection I am willing to drop it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no objection, subject to the revision suggested.



ST. LAZARE, N.B., POSTMASTER

Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all reports, telegrams and correspondence, exchanged between the Post Office Department, the Postmaster General, the District Superintendent of Postal Service at Saint John, New Brunswick, and others, recom-

The Budget-Mr. Pottier
mending the dismissal of the former postmaster and the appointment of the present incumbent at Saint-Lazare, Kent county, New Brunswick.



ST, FABIEN, N.B., POSTMASTER

Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all reports, telegrams and correspondence exchanged between the Rost Office Department, the Postmaster General, the District Superintendent of Postal Service at Saint John, New Brunswick, and others, recommending the dismissal of the former postmaster and the appointment of the present incumbent at Saint-Fabien, Kent county, New Brunswick.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day :
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it will perhaps be within the memory of some hon. members that the Department of National Defence filed, an elaborate report on relief camps, up to 1935. When the government closed the camps I assume they made a further report of the manner in which they discharged, their duties. While I do not suggest that a copy of the document be prepared, possibly the minister would lay upon the table of the house for reference purposes the report thus made. It would bring our information down to date in connection with the administration of the camps by the Department of National Defence.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I should be glad indeed to look into the matter.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 9, 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.
Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, before moving the
adjournment of the debate last night I attempted to show that we have approximately
200,000	square miles of fishing ground available to the fishermen of the maritime provinces; in other words, that we have nearly three times as large an area in fishing grounds as we have under cultivation.
I wish briefly to review the early history of our fisheries, in so far as they have reference to the maritime provinces. We find that since
the discovery of America, fisheries have been a matter of vital importance in Canadian development. The first grant in connection with fisheries was made by the King of France to De Monts in the year 1603. Fishing, therefore, may well be regarded as one of the first industries prosecuted by Europeans in what is to-day the Dominion of Canada, and it has never ceased to yield a yearly harvest.
It is estimated that in the year 1550, or thereabouts, the combined fleets of all countries in the north Atlantic numbered about 1,500 vessels. The position of land adjoining the fishing banks was important only in so far as it provided a means of drying or curing fish products caught adjoining the said land. We go first to the island of Cape Breton and find the early village of Cheticamp. The territory was at that time under the control of the French. Next we come to the mainland of Nova Scotia, and note that at Liverpool in 1760 they had 16 fishing vessels. Port La Tour and the Pubnicos were important early fishing settlements. In 1713, for example, at Canso, with a population of about 1,000 persons, there were 100,000 quintals of fish caught. Proceeding to New Brunswick we find that in 1765 William Davidson established a salmon fishery on the Miramichi river. There were other fishing settlements at Grand Anse, Campo Bello, and Deer Islands. In Prince Edward Island they, too, had settlements connected with the early fishing industry.
I refer to that part of our history to-day because we in the maritime provinces hope there may be something in store for us in the future, because our industries are so well established and of such long duration.
The fisheries of the maritime provinces can be divided into three parts. We have what we know as the deep fisheries, the inshore fisheries and the inland fisheries. In my observations to-day I am going to deal with the production of what we describe as ground fish, caught by the first two methods-deep sea fishing and inshore fishing.
The principal kinds of ground fish caught are cod, haddock, halibut, and hake. The prosperity or depression of the fishermen has up to the present depended upon the extent of his catch of these types of fish. I am not unmindful of the fact that the lobster industry has in some districts developed into their principal industry. However, it is carried on only in certain seasons, and is limited as to quantity of production.
Other types of fishing-fishing for mackerel, sardines, salmon, smelts, alewives, sword fish, tuna, shell fish, scallops, oysters and clams are either carried on only during certain seasons or in certain areas. Taking the mari-
The Budget-Mr. Pottier

time province fisheries as a whole I am of opinion that they can be considered only as a complement of the main industry as above indicated. I do not wish to be understood as saying they are not important, because they mean a great deal to some districts, and in those districts their development must be attended to.
The remainder of my remarks will therefore be directed to a discussion of the general situation, in so far as the development of the ground fish, so-called, can be carried on. That is the direction in which parliament should apply itself particularly. I have before me indications of what has taken place in Canada in past five-year periods, in relation to cod. These figures, relating to catches and values of cod, are a fair indication of what has happened in connection with other species:
Weight
Year	(pounds) Landed value
1919	
260,677,000	$8,388,2431924	
188,831,600	4,260,8821929	
197,944,000	4,040,5621931	
146.362,600	2,044,3711936	
162,000,000	2,030,779
In 1936 the catch was 162,000,000 pounds, with a value of $2,030,000. In other words, in that one species alone, the value of the catch dropped from $8,388,000 to $2,030,000.
It is of interest to note that in the production of such fish the. maritime provinces have not held their own with world production. I find that the production of cod in those countries which produce this type of fish is on the increase. In 1919 the fishermen of Norway caught 359,004,000 pounds. In 1927 the catch had increased to 808,649,000 pounds. In 1932 the catch totalled 661,746,000 pounds. In the Faroe islands they caught
99.888.000	pounds in 1919, and 148,968,000 pounds in 1932. In Iceland they caught
168.885.000	pounds in 1919 and 457,778,000 pounds in 1932. I could go on to show how other countries with which we have to compete have been increasing their production, while ours has been going down. The figures I give are the best available.
In my opinion these figures indicate three things. First, that Canada has gone back; second, that we have not held our own in world production; and third, that we have not kept step with European countries. This unhappy and unfortunate situation must come to an end. These figures tell the story of the maritime fisherman; they explain why we find him bankrupt and why the industry in some areas has taken on the appearance of failure.
The status of a large number of fishermen in the maritimes has become desperate. For

example, in one district in my riding, which was once a prosperous and successful fishing district, the catch for 1935 followed this general trend. I want to see it improved. I should like to give some examples of the earnings of some of the fishing boats. I shall not give names, referring to them only by number. Boat number one, with a crew of 22 men, fished for fourteen weeks. It stocked $4,000, and the average share per man per week was $4. Boat number two, with a crew of 21 men, fished nine weeks. It stocked $2,272, and the average share per man per week was about $2. Boat number three, with a crew of 18 men, fished twenty-two weeks. It stocked $3,600, and the average share per man per week was about $1. Boat number four with a crew of 12 men, fished 13 weeks. It stocked $2,100 and the average share per man per week was $5.50. Boat number five, with a crew of six men, fished 13 weeks, and the average share per man per week was fifty cents.
As a further example of the public feeling in connection with this industry, I quote from the Halifax Herald:
The shore fishing industry in Nova Scotia is down to hard rocks of want. They are crushed by an industry out of control, a juggernaut headed toward doom. They need help and it must be forthcoming.
The special investigations carried on by this Nova Scotia newspaper show the seriousness of the situation. In the end the reports published should help a great deal to bring about a new standard in the industry.
I could go on and give a word picture of the conditions existing in a number of districts where the fishermen have been the unfortunate victims of the vicious circle I have mentioned above. These districts were successful and prosperous at confederation, but now the families living therein are undernourished, the children hungry, and they are forced to live with little hope for the future in houses with leaky roofs on rocky points of land. I do not want to exaggerate and have the house think that this is a picture of every district in the maritimes. Some districts have been more fortunate than others, particularly those where a fresh fish trade has been developed. I felt obliged to give this picture because I am convinced that these conditions are not generally known, and that is one of the reasons why they are allowed to continue to exist. I have in mind one particular case where two fishermen were drowned during a storm. This was one instance where human effort and endurance were unable to withstand the elements, the hardships and hazards of the industry.

The Budget-Mr. Pettier
I am convinced that the fisheries of the maritime provinces have been neglected, particularly when I look around and see what other countries producing the same type of fish are doing. I should like to refer to the assistance given by other countries with which we compete. This assistance can be divided into three categories, direct assistance, indirect assistance and emergency relief. I find that direct assistance in connection with fishing operations is given by Germany and Japan. Assistance in connection with exports is given by Denmark, France, the Irish Free State, Italy, Newfoundland and Norway. Assistance in the construction of vessels is given by Germany, Japan and Newfoundland. Assistance in the repair of vessels is given by Germany and Japan. Assistance through the establishment of freezing plants is given by Japan and Norway. Other direct assistance is given by Italy, Japan and Newfoundland.
Indirect assistance by way of government loans and guarantees is given by Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, the Irish Free State, Italy, The Netherlands, Newfoundland, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. Assistance by way of home market promotion is given by Denmark, France, Germany and Japan. Assistance by way of preferential transportation rates is given by Germany and Newfoundland. Tax or duty exemption is given by Italy, Japan, Mexico, Newfoundland, the United Kingdom and the United States. Other indirect assistance is given by Italy, Japan, Mexico, Newfoundland and Norway. Emergency relief is provided by Germany, Great Britain and the United States.
Let us see what Canada has done. We have the Fisherman's Loan Act which was passed in 1935, but I understand that up to the present time no loans have been made under this act. This country gives no assistance in connection with exports or in connection with the construction of vessels. We give no assistance in the repair of vessels nor have we any provision for emergency relief. I am not forgetting .the item voted for the development of deep sea fisheries, as well as the vote of S500,000 last year for general relief. Under that vote all that a fisherman in my constituency could get was a loan of S20 added to a similar amount given by the province of Nova Scotia. Even that small amount was the first he has been able to borrow in connection with his industry. I make no reference to the $160,000 granted under the Halifax award as I consider that to represent simply the interest on money that belongs to us. I cannot treat it as being assistance given by this government.
I should like to mention some other features which have had an effect upon the fishermen in the maritime provinces. We lost the best market we ever had when the Fordney-Mc-Cumber tariff was put into effect in the United States. Russia and Germany, which countries were formerly importers of fish, taking the surplus products of Holland, Great Britain, Norway and France, have now built up fishing fleets and have forced these other countries to find other markets. These countries have entered the West Indies and South American markets, as well as the markets of Spain and Portugal, displacing Canada. This has been possible through force of circumstances and by means of the assistance provided by their governments The immigration laws of the United States prevent our fishermen from signing on American fishing vessels, as was the custom in former years. This has meant that an increased number of fishermen have had to remain in Canada. Then the beam trawler has thrown a large number of fishermen out of employment, as by this method of fishing a smaller number of men are employed to catch the same amount of fish.
As a result of these and other causes what do we find regarding the export of these products	to other	countries? I	will refer
briefly to purchases by three countries to which the Atlantic coast exports cod and other fish:
1920-1921	1935
Cuba (cod, pollock,
hake,	cusk)	$1,431,704	$236,872Porto Rico (cod, haddock,	herring) ..	..	1,169,609	332,805Brazil	(cod, herring)	1,202,207	53,409
Taking it in another way, of the dried cod species alone we exported:
1920-1921	1935
Cuba	$1,383,628	$228,986Porto Rico	
946,009	271,328Brazil	
1,080,093	9,372
I submit that those figures go to show why the fisherman of the maritime provinces finds himself in the position in which he is. They relate to only a few of the importing countries, but they indicate the general trend.
Up to the present time the federal, policy under all governments has been one of regulation and control; in other words, a policy of restrictions and reservations. This has come about, presumably, because of the interpretation placed upon the words "sea coast and inland fisheries," as under the British North America Act those subjects were passed on to the federal government, and the result to the fisherman has been the same confusion and controversy that has occurred in respect of a number of other industries; he has suffered in no small degree since confederation
The Budget-Mr. Pottier

by reason of this question of jurisdiction. When however we examine the developments since confederation, we find that the federal government has realized that the responsibility for taking care of the industry rests with the dominion government. For a long time there was a great deal of uncertainty as to the proprietary rights in fisheries, whether they belonged to the dominion or the provinces. In the British Columbia Fisheries Case and in other cases, it was decided that the fisheries rights in tidal waters belonged to the people of Canada as a whole rather than the dominion or the provinces. For that reason the federal government stated, in effect:	We will attend
only to regulation. The provincial governments, on the other hand, claimed that they had nothing to do with the matter. The result was that the fisherman found himself between the two jurisdictions, with no one agency to look after his welfare or to promote the development of the industry.
In considering what has happened since confederation, I think the federal government has admitted that responsibility for the fisheries rests with it. We find that by an award under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, $4,500,000 was paid by the government of the United States for the right to take fish in the maritime provinces. The dominion government still retains that money; it is part of the consolidated revenue in the federal treasury.
A small item appears in the estimates each year for the development of the deep sea fisheries. Besides this, a commission was appointed by parliament to examine, in particular, into the maritime fisheries. If this government has no jurisdiction and no responsibility, why was the McLean commission appointed in 1927 to make a report to the federal government? I submit that when all is taken into consideration it must be realized that the dominion government have admitted responsibility; they have led the provinces to believe that they would assume the duty of developing 'the industry and enabling it to carry on. It may be of interest to note that in the last investigation, by the price spreads commission, the following reference was made to the maritime fisheries:
The investigation of the commission found a continuation of the conditions in 1927, though perhaps in a more accentuated form.
There is no doubt that in 1927 this industry was in jeopardy. It is not a question arising out of the depression; the very existence of the fishing industry is jeopardized. I submit therefore that this government must accept responsibility, that the development of the fisheries in the maritime provinces has become a matter of national emergency and national concern.

We of the maritimes had great hopes at the time of confederation. I think it was Joseph Howe who said that we were "leaving a country that had a past to join a country that had only a future." I am afraid that so far as the fishing industry is concerned, we have cause to feel that nothing has been gained. Canada uses only twenty-seven per cent of the production of the fisheries. We have to look to export trade for the balance, and I suggest that our national thought has been more to the development of our other primary products and industries.
The condition of this industry has been recognized, I believe, by all parties in this house. I quote from a speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) just previous to the last election, as reported by the Halifax Herald of October 4, 1935, while he was speaking at Bridgewater, in the constituency of the then minister of fisheries, Mr. Ernst:
Turning his attention to fisheries policies of the Conservative party, the Prime Minister declared an immediate survey of the entire industry was essential to spur the industry along a forward march of progress.
The remedies he suggested were:
"First: We must have better knowledge of the requirements of the people who buy our fish. . . .
Second:	trade commissioners should have
complete knowledge of the fisheries. . . .
Third: we must find out how most we can assist the fishermen. I confess I do not know. I tell you frankly. . . .
Fourth: we shall continue extensive advertising to make your fish better known."
So that the leader of the opposition, when he was Prime Minister, acknowledged and realized that the industry was in such peril that he recommended, an immediate survey, and he admitted he did not know what remedies should be applied to assist the individual fisherman.
Another indication of the condition of this industry is that the government of Nova Scotia on its own responsibility has been carrying on investigations. I suggest to hon. members that they read the Note on the Fisheries Industry issued by the Economic Council of the province of Nova Scotia in October and November 1936. I congratulate the premier of that province upon the interest he is showing in this matter.
There seems to be no question about the gravity of the situation. It is generally admitted by everyone who has any knowledge of the industry, including members of the various parties in this house, that the maritime fisherman is in a pitiful condition.
I realize that it would be unreasonable for me to ask for discrimination in his favour.

The Budget-Mr. Pottier
A country must be run by definite policies; otherwise everything will end in chaos. We cannot favour one against the other. I therefore propose briefly that we follow the policy adopted to take care of another primary producer in another part of Canada-the farmer of the west. I do not want any of my remarks to be interpreted as criticizing anything that has been done or is being done to help the western farmer. I refer to the details simply to indicate the policy that has been followed, and I ask that the same policy be applied in behalf of the fishermen of the maritime provinces.
Let us look at what has been happening in the last few years. We find that in 1934, chapter 36, there were amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act, an act passed some years ago to provide loans to farmers. I think it can be fairly said that in a large measure, at least, those amendments were introduced to take care of a condition that was developing in the Canadian west.
Going on to 1935, we find an act providing for a Canadian Wheat Board, chapter 53 of that year. The outstanding feature of that act was the power given to the government to buy and sell wheat. They were going a step further. They were going to buy the product in order to save the individual farmer, but that was not sufficient. In the same year they went still further, enacting a rehabilitation act for the benefit of the prairie provinces. What was the idea of that? It was to rehabilitate the individual farmer. We find that the government went yet another step and enacted the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, another measure to assist the farmer to carry on, helping him to the extent of enabling him to pay his bills in the amount that he could afford, the balance to be taken care of by compromise.
In connection with these policies with regard to wheat and rehabilitation, I would quote the remarks of the Prime Minister of that day (Mr. Bennett), to be found at page 3457 of Hansard of 1935. Referring to the necessity for the wheat board the right hon. gentleman gave the following explanation to parliament:
I think possibly I should say that once in this country we had a grain board brought about, of course, by the exigencies of the war. The situation at the present time, without going into the matter in detail, is that this country has not been able to market all its wheat...
The essential fact for us to recall is that the countries of Europe which during the war did not produce wheat found themselves dependent upon the countries which did increase their production, notably Canada, and that unfortunately for us for some strange reason, we did not realize that in 1925. 1926. 1927,
1928, 1929 and 1930 the countries of Europe had recovered their pre-war position-not only recovered it, but greatly strengthened it, and were supplying not only their own requirements but were also on an export basis.
Under these circumstances the position was a very simple one. The question was whether or not chaos should reign in respect to the largest industry we have, in point of value of exports, or whether something should be done to endeavour to save it from the chaotic condition prevailing. Something -was done.
In other words, the wheat board was brought into existence to save the individual wheat grower, and therefore to save the industry. For this purpose the government went into the market to buy and sell wheat. I submit that the policy adopted by the previous government was to help out the farmers of the west, because the industry had to be saved from the chaotic conditions then prevailing.
I pass next to the policy adopted by parliament when the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was passed. As indicated in Hansard of 1935 at page 2604, Hon. Mr. Weir, then Minister of Agriculture, on that occasion said:
Throughout the whole program it is our purpose to assist the farmers, and to demonstrate whether or not the people in these areas can continue to live there with only very little more moisture than they are now receiving. Our first aim is to do everything possible to make these people self-sustaining. Secondly, we must decide which areas are best suited for grain growing, which are best suited for ranching and the best way to handle those areas which are intermediate.
The basis of our work is a study of the people 'who have farmed in the district and who have made use of trees and dams and grasses and cultural methods, and then after an analysis and a summing up of what the experts so-called have felt were the most important factors in each ease, they will be able to place before a committee of farmers themselves in each province information that will be the basis on which all the work will be done.
The policy of helping the individual was being developed, and a further step in that direction was apparently the effort to restore confidence in the people and to help make them self-sustaining. The other day the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) 

I refer the house to Hansard, pages 779 and 780-when discussing an amendment to the rehabilitation bill recognized the policy laid* down by the previous government, and he went I submit a step still further. He hinted that the farmer might be moved from one district to another. An effort was to be made to find a proper home for him if necessary. I suggest that we have gone a long way in our endeavour to help this primary producer. First we have lent him money; secondly, we have erected' government institutions for the purchase and sale of his product; thirdly, we have passed the Farmers' Creditors
The Budget-Mr. Pottier

Arrangement Act to take care of his debts; fourthly, we have passed the rehabilitation act to rehabilitate ham; and in the last place we are getting ready to find a proper home for him to move into.
I am not saying for a moment that all this is wrong, nor do I envy the farmer for anything that has been done for him. All I am asking is that the fisherman in the general shuffle of policies should- be given a square deal.
I could go on to deal with other primary producers who have been helped by the policies of the government but time does not permit. I do not suggest that the farmer has been singled out for special treatment to the exclusion of the fisherman in particular. But let us see what has been done for the fisherman. In 1935 we passed a fisherman's loan act for the benefit of fishermen, but very few loans have been made under it, although many people in my constituency have asked me to assist and recommend them for loans. I suggest that the act should be amended to make loans possible not only on house mortgages but on the security of fishermen's equipment.
In the maritimes there are 41,000 fishermen representing a dependent- population of about 200,000, and I suggest to the government that a maritime provinces fisheries rehabilitation act be passed- for the maritime provinces to provide machinery and money so as to accomplish, at any rate in part, the following: 1. A survey of the industry; 2. provision for machinery for the proper equipment of the fishermen; 3. an improvement in conditions so as to give the individual fisherman a better return for his labour; 4. the provision of fishermen's emergency relief, when required; and 5, the bringing about of better conditions that will save the industry from the chaotic conditions that now prevail.
I have read several times the words of the Hon. George Brown spoken on one occasion at Quebec. He said:
It may be that some among us will yet live to see the day when as a result of this measure a great and powerful people may have grown up on these lands-when the boundless forests all around us shall have given way to smiling fields and thriving towns, and when one united government under the British flag shall extend from shore to shore.
I am convinced th-at unless something is done in the ways I have indicated we shall have no thriving towns and smiling fields on the shores of the maritime provinces, but
fMr. Pottier.]
instead villages gone and forgotten with cellars remaining only as gaping monuments of days gone by.


Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario):: 
Mr. DUNNING:: That is a big responsibility !


William Henry Moore: A hundred years ago Mal-thus said that no man had any right to support from any quarter except his parents. And in 1931 the then Prime Minister said in this house that no one should be allowed to perish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except himself.


William Henry Moore: Except himself. Well, that was some years ago, and I am glad to say the right hon. gentleman is still very lively. You have a change there, a change which has come over us. It is only a matter of degree, from state socialism to fascism, all the way to us, and probably we have been less affected than most countries. But now we have the responsibility of the state for our individual life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member was
asking a question I believe I would say that in dealing with the depression I think I said the government would not permit any man in the country to be without food, shelter, or clothing. My memory is that that was the sense of it, anyway.

The Budget-Mr. Moore


William Henry Moore: Yes, that was my memory
of it, and there was no objection. We who then sat on the other side of the house raised no objection. As I listened to-day to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) who just preceded me I could not help thinking of those statements, as he talked about the liabilities of the country and the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to the fishermen. We have come to a new era, which means among other things that debtor countries cannot afford to risk specialization.
After citing the figures of agricultural income for representative countries, the League Survey of 1934-35 concludes:
It is clear that the fall in agricultural income was least in those countries where farming is a sheltered industry producing mainly for the home market, greater in those countries which produced manufactured food products such as meat and dairy produce, and greatest on those, such as Canada and Hungary, which exported mainly grains and vegetable raw material.
I believe we should lay aside some of our preconceived theories. I believe we should think of the great lessons of the depression and of the need for a balanced economy. The leader of the opposition has just given us a statement of what he promised those who were down and out. Well, you have to draw upon the Minister of Finance, you have to draw upon the treasury, not only of the dominion but of the provinces. I am glad to say that balances look better these days- the last two or three days, at any rate. But there does come a time when the supply dries up. There does come a time when idleness eats into the hearts of men. Then you have a social problem, and there comes a time when the problem is no longer economic, when politicians must ask themselves how they are going to put these people to work.
Our tariffs set out our economic boundaries. We have to think very carefully as to the future relation of our foreign and domestic trade. I should like very much to have gone into some of the details-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


William Henry Moore: -but I do not want to take too much of the time of the house. Particularly should I like to speak about wheat. I have an idea-and I may be quite wrong- that the preference on wheat under the Ottawa agreements of 1932 was the bait for the pact. I think the then prime minister rather hinted at it, and I have the idea that this government has been attracted by the idea of a preference on wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sir Wilfrid was.


Charles Avery Dunning: By a free market for it.


William Henry Moore: You got a preference for it, but of what use is that preference? Am I to understand that it is of some use, or that it is of no use?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is arguable; a free market is certainly valuable.


William Henry Moore: Well, let me quote the argument of a celebrated economist. Possibly the leader of the opposition will remember the statement to which I am about to refer. I am quoting Doctor Benham, who made this statement at a conference in Milan just prior to the Ottawa conference of 1932:
Canada and Australia together export more wheat than Great Britain consumes. What does that mean? Supposing Great Britain said: We will put on a tariff of 100 per cent or 1,000 per cent, or we will prohibit all foreign wheat, it would not help the Canadians and Australians one little bit as long as they competed with one another, because Canada and Australia together produce more wheat than Great Britain consumes. In any case, some of the wheat would have to be sold outside, and if a Canadian producer can get a little more in England than he can get somewhere else, then he will send his wheat to England, and therefore the price of Canadian and Australian wheat in England would be kept down at the world level.
Then Doctor Benham winds up by saying:
For those tw-o reasons I see nothing important which will be done at Ottawa.
I am inclined to think nothing very important to our advantage was done in 1932, and I hold the same view to-d'ay.
Now I go further and say that I believe every government has mandates from the people. I think the present government had two or three of them, the first of which was to restore responsible government-what we believe was responsible government,-and in my opinion they have not done it. Mandate number two was to provide profitable jobs for Canadians. We all know whether they have or have not done that. Then there is a third mandate, one which confronts every government, and that which I believe is an important one, namely good relations within the empire and without. I wonder if an imperial economic pact is designed to bring good relations within the empire? I do not wish to say anything against the right hon. gentleman who was the prime minister in 1932, but when he was dealing with Mr. Baldwin it seems to me both of them had some cards up their sleeves that were not altogether disclosed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not familiar with cards; I do not understand them.
The Budget-Mr. Moore


William Henry Moore: Well, there are all kinds of cards. We know that the mother country is a wonderful thing, and I have every respect for it; but mother is a sharp trader.


Charles Avery Dunning: I agree with that, at any rate.


William Henry Moore: And the Minister of Finance agrees. When they came here with their experts, and filled the Chateau to overflowing, they came after having arranged to subsidize the production of wheat in Great Britain. Of course that was known to the then prime minister of Canada. That had two effects, and I want hon. members to think of them, because the condition still exists. The first effect was to increase the quantity of wheat. When the arrangement was put into operation Great Britain was producing only about fifteen per cent of its supply of wheat; the last records show that they now produce about twenty-five per cent. There is another effect. They take part of that subsidy from the Canadian wheat grower through an excise tax on flour. The proceeds of that tax are distributed to their own wheat growers. That is their business, but what about our business? I wonder what the Englishman would say if we put a tax on all textiles coming in from the United Kingdom and distributed it to our small mills or, if you prefer, to our homespun textile industry? I wonder if the Englishman would think we were guilty of sharp practice?	I wonder if he would think
that we were mitigating to some extent the reductions in tariff that were given? The old country provided-I think the prime minister of the day slipped up a bit-against any combination on our part that would destroy or hold back the sale of wheat in England at world prices. That is the argument Doctor Benham used.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) says he is not accustomed to cards, but he appears to 'have had one up his Sleeve. He said he would fix the world price by having a controlled price. I suppose that was all in the game. But Great Britain also had a card uip her sleeve. There is more than one way of providing a preference. The Minister of Finance will remember the treaty made with the Argentine in 1933, immediately after the other agreements went into effect. Under that treaty provision was made for a loan, which really was t'he equivalent of a preference, to assist in the exportation of agricultural products, including wheat, from the Argentine to the United Kingdom.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the export of machinery from England.


William Henry Moore: Yes. I shall not give a lot of statistics as to what happened, but I should like to quote one statement made before the imperial economic committee in 1936:
During the period under review the United Kingdom has been a steady purchaser of cereals. Although the United Kingdom taxed foreign wheat 2s. per quarter late in 1932 as a result of the Ottawa agreements, imports of foreign wheat have increased each year since then, while imports from the empire have fallen in 1934 and 1935.
We could go on and talk of the drought in western Canada, but it must be remembered that they had a serious drought in the Argentine. It is only my own opinion, but when everything is considered I doubt the value of a preference on wheat.


Charles Avery Dunning: But you admit the value of a free market?


William Henry Moore: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was always free except during the South African war.


William Henry Moore: I do not want anyone to think that I am prejudiced against trade with Great Britain. I think sometimes we politicians on both sides of the 'house are the object of suspicions which we do not deserve. I want to quote a word or two by some political philosophers as to the political effect of the Ottawa agreements. In 1933, immediately after the agreements had been effected, there wias a meeting of the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation. This meeting was held in London, and if we are ever to find political philosophers surely they should be found at a convention of the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Its headquarters are in Paris.


William Henry Moore: It is a branch of the league of nations. Professor Jacob Viner, of Chicago, was there. I understand that this gentleman used to be a Canadian, at least a British subject. He said:
I feel convinced there is no future for the British Empire on the basis of quid pro quo imperialism. If they try systematically to make mutual profit out of their empire, they will find that Britishers are too good bargainers to remain good friends. That is a matter which used of right to be of concern to me. Perhaps I should not longer speak on such questions. They are perhaps private matters.
Let .us have an Englishman's view. I quote Professor Bailey, of London university, who said:
Nothing in the history of the British commonwealth of nations is more likely to disrupt the association between the various partners than the recently concluded Ottawa agreements.

The Budget-Mr. Moore
Professor Coabman, who was in the chair, had this to say:
The outlook was dark in those days and it was natural, in view of the great unemployment here and in Canada, that the minds of men should be dominated by this short term policy of trade agreements and so on.
We are now asked to make, shall I say, a permanent arrangement. We are being asked to take the second step in economic imperialism. Somehow I think that we within the British Empire will be able to get along. We are pretty good friends, but the Ottawa agreements have a direct effect on the world's present hazardous position. There is no doubt about that. Professor Von Beckerath, who was speaking for Germany, had this to say at the same conference:
Although the Ottawa agreements may be consonant with the Zeitgeist, we cannot at the same time believe them to be objectively good. The interesting argument was put forward that in the long run the whole world economic order must profit by a procedure by which the economic situation and productivity within the realm of the British Empire gets better. Under certain conditions that is a small consolation for certain countries' who are only interested in making sure of their share.
And he continued:
Economists should bear these factors in mind when planning a new economic world order. There are members of that world order who are sick, and one cannot, without causing great harm in the long run, act on the assumption that all the members are strong and well when such a condition does not exist.
I was interested the other day in the little passage at arms as to who had been the better essayist, the man who wrote the agreements of 1932 or the man who wrote the agreement of 1937, on the question whether economic imperialism or the pact of 1932 or the pact of 1937 will lead to greater world trade, and I was interested in this statement in the London Economist, which journal, I think everybody will admit, is practically the organ of international liberalism:
The British government, acting within the letter of the most-favoured-nation clause but scarcely within its spirit, concluded the Ottawa agreements, which effectively imposed fresh handicaps on the trade of many countries with Britain and her dominions and empire. The inevitable reaction to the Ottawa gesture, and to the new British tariff accompanying it, was that the countries most affected proceeded to strengthen their own barriers. Ottawa had, in fact, quite the opposite effect to that which Mr. Baldwin declared to be its intention- namely, to loosen the shackles of world trade.
Let hon. members carry their minds back to world conditions in 1932. They will remember that Japan was stretching out her hands for a new empire in Asia. They will remember the bold steps that were taken,
and the defiance of the League of Nations. Those who keep in touch with the publication Pacific Affairs will remember that the Japanese stated in effect: We are going to do as Britain has done. It is only a step to trace the movement to Italy and on to Germany, and then to remember that Ottawa led the way. I have no desire to exaggerate, and when I make a statement of that kind I want to give some tangible evidence. If hon. members will turn up the League of Nations Survey for 1934-35 they will find that it refers to the conference that was held in Paris in 1935 to tighten the bonds of the French empire, and the League's observers say that that conference was called a "French Ottawa." The league observers go on to relate the trade agreements in which the nations of the world sought to protect themselves from the consequences of our new imperialism, and they wind up with this conclusion:
The list of these agreements is very long and as they follow each other in rapid succession, their practical effect is not only restrictive of trade but leads irresistibly to a greater degree of state control.
And may I add, war. You have to-day a division of the nations, and you say it is socialist, fascist and liberal. Well, Russia is all for peace. We of the British Empire are all for peace. The United States is for peace. It is the "have-nots" that are for war. When we made a preferential pact, though we had the old preference before, we have affected the psychology of nations. It is all very well to say, and I have no doubt the Minister of Finance will say, that every nation-Germany, Italy and the rest-is able to buy our wheat on a free market; they do not need to put tariffs against it. Quite true, but they have to have means of payment, and we have given Great Britain, their industrial rival, a preference in the means of payment.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have done so for forty years.


William Henry Moore: As I suggested a little while ago, when the whole empire is brought together, a psychological effect is produced different from that resulting from individual preferences under the old arrangement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other dominions gave preferences.


William Henry Moore: Yes, the others gave preferences too.


Charles Avery Dunning: For many years.


William Henry Moore: May I follow that thought? You had a different condition after the war. Before the war London was the world's banker,
i662
The Budget-Mr. Moore

lending money all over the globe, and half of it to foreign countries. When, in 1932, Great Britain and the dominions came together, a very different condition existed. Great Britain had lost some of her credit. The United States, the world's new banker, would not allow the peoples to pay their debts in goods. In the old days Canada and the dominions provided practically an open door for immigration, but after the war that door was closed. That was the atmosphere in which the Ottawa agreements were devised and which we to-day are asked, I take it, to perpetuate. I do not feel that I can support them. I do not believe that the Canadian people as a whole have realized the responsibility those agreements entail. I doubt whether from the debate a few days ago this house is prepared to defend a pact of economic imperialism. But surely we cannot leave others to defend the trade routes for which we have bargained! We cannot be a party to economic imperialism and then run away from its defence! We cannot contribute to the cause of war and then run away from war.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: In the opening session of this parliament, somewhat over a year ago, I told a number of Liberal members, many of whom were then entering the house for the first time, that they had a magnificent opportunity to render a great service to Canada, but I wondered whether sooner or later they would not find that their individual convictions conflicted with party expediency, and whether in all probability the latter would not prevail. At that time I assured the government that if they would use their unparalleled majority to remedy some of the domestic problems and grievances and injustices that were noticeably prevalent I would support them. We are now, Mr. Speaker, approaching the end of the second session, and we are justified in asking this question: Has the government, with its unequalled opportunity and its huge majority, been true to the confidence imposed in it by the people? In other words, is it keeping faith? The views I shall express this afternoon will be offered rather in a spirit of warning than of condemnation, but I wish to call attention to certain things which in my opinion should engage the attention of parliament. In doing so I say to the minister at once that any apparent criticism I offer is not directed at him personally, because 1 do recognize that he is an able administrator of his department. I believe he has devoted his strength and energy to the discharge of his duties. But having said that, I do not

think it necessarily follows that I must agree with the policies he has enunciated on behalf of the governmeirt or with all that he has said in the name of the government in the course of his budget. Before I proceed let me express to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, the member for Ontario (Mr. Moore), my admiration of the manner in which he always presents his thoughts. A little later I have some remarks to make on the British agreement and I will reserve until then anything I have to say to him. I shall probably refer to his remarks then. I hope therefore he will not think I am neglecting him at the moment.


William Henry Moore: Not at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The annual budget, I presume, is intended to give to parliament a broad picture of the country's economic condition and to indicate policies for the removal of such grievances as may exist. This budget, I submit with all due respect to the minister, was perhaps the longest, and apart from the presentation of the British agreement, about as barren a budget as any I have listened to in twenty-six years-not barren perhaps of reports of conditions, which reports were most admirably given, but barren of real remedies for internal or domestic problems which I know are agitating the minds not only of members opposing the government but of members sitting on the other side.
Let me invite hon. members, particularly my Liberal friends, to put to themselves a few pertinent questions. What hope is offered in this budget to the unemployed toilers of the country? What assurances are there to the struggling farmers of relief from exploitation? What solace is there to the harassed business man who finds himself little more than a tax collecting agency for the government? Business men in this house know very well that this description of the average modern business man is perhaps as nearly correct as any description could be.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says "Oh no," but I have talked with scores and scores of business men who, with the innumerable reports, tax schedules and so on, which they are obliged to make out, are little more than tax collecting agencies for the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Their income tax returns do not show it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The other day I was talking to a prominent business man who told me that his business had increased over fifty per cent in 1936, but that he had made less

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
and had worked harder for it; and he gave as the reason that increased taxation and harassing measures imposed by provincial, municipal and dominion governments were occupying the time and attention of the staff to the exclusion of the business of the company.
What answer is given to the repeated declarations of certain of the provinces that they cannot carry on the responsibilities placed upon them in social services and other lines, the relief of unemployment and all these other problems, with the revenues they are able to collect at the present time? That problem is before parliament; it is before the government; and nothing in this budget indicates a policy that will afford relief. I ask: What does the government propose to do about the continuing national railways deficit? And again we are bound to say that the budget gives us no answer.
I do not intend to deal with unemployment or the devastating relief charges, because they have been debated in the house for the last week. I will say nothing in that regard except this, that there is no current policy of the government that would indicate any permanent remedy for this condition of unemployment, unless perhaps it is contained in the plaintive cry of the government for wider markets. To that I shall return a little later.
Let me turn now to the British agreement. The hon. member for Ontario, who is so well qualified to discuss matters of this kind, not only by reason of his long study of these subjects but also because of his experience as chairman of the tariff board for a number of years, takes exception to the British agreement. I should like to call to his attention one set of facts which he seems to have overlooked. He referred to the historic background of 1932, but if you want to find what really made necessary the Ottawa agreements you have to go back ten years beyond that and follow up step by step the tendency of Italy, Germany and other European countries, which previously had been excellent markets for Canadian goods but which virtually closed their doors to Canadian products, particularly wheat, dairy produce, meat and other products of the farm. Italy raised its duty on wheat from free to something like 97 cents a bushel; Germany raised its duty to 87 and then to 90 cents and then to $1 a bushel. Other countries did the same, and Canada was confronted in 1932-in fact prior to that year-with markets which had been hers for years being gradually closed to her. That was the condition that obtained at that time. When therefore Canada entered into these agreements there was more justification for them than was indicated in 31111-105
the very able address by the hon. member for Ontario. I can quite appreciate the broad philosophical view which the hon. member takes; but unfortunately we are not dealing at this time, or indeed at any time, with countries who direct their financial policies on broad philosophical lines. The unfortunate part is that we are dealing with countries that erect tariffs and impose quotas and inhibitions of various kinds; and these things were done before Canada took action at all. And because of these things Canada, other dominions of the empire and the mother country, deemed it necessary to enter into these agreements.
1 Mr. MOORE: May I remind the hon. gentleman that I said the movement began in 1925 when this country had a low tariff government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; I recall my hon. friend having said that. This agreement which the minister has introduced in the budget is the one and only justification for the presentation of the budget, apart from a review of conditions. The government is to be congratulated in my opinion on securing an extension of the agreement for a further period of three years, because the agreement in essence is the same as the preceding one, and what the minister has done is to ensure a continuity of the trade expansion achieved so remarkably under the old agreement. I congratulate the government on having secured an extension of this agreement for a period of three years. It is not my intention to discuss the agreement, because when we come to the committee stage there may be items which will require scrutiny and debate. On the whole I agree with the agreement. It marks, I believe, the sensible abandonment by the government of the impossible stand taken by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1932. He said that if and when the Liberal party came into office the first thing it would do would be to repeal, rescind and abandon these agreements, and I say that the abandonment of that position by the Liberal party and the Liberal government is a matter of congratulation to the government. It displays a degree of common sense for which I think they should be commended.
I am not going to say more about the agreement, because there are other subjects with which I wish to deal. The government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), and I believe the Liberal party, attach great importance to external trade. I warned them last year, and I warn them again, that in external trade we are not going to find the

The Budget-Mr. Stevens

solution for the domestic problems of Canada. I am not belittling external trade; I think it is a splendid thing if we can extend our trade, and I know that every government, no matter 'how it might be composed, certainly would do its best to extend our trade with foreign countries. In his budget speech, however, the minister 'had this to say-I invite the attention of the house to his words, and after reading them I propose to review them very briefly:
This expansion of our foreign commerce of course reflects in part the improvement in world conditions. . . . But that is by no means the whole story ... it is not unreasonable to interpret this as clear evidence of the success of the governments trade policies.
Those are the words of the minister. Here he takes his stand; here is the justification for the policies of the government. I have no doubt that the minister invites analysis and criticism, so let us examine the matter.
The minister tells us that the increase of exports in 1936 over 1935 was $189,920,000, and I recall that when the minister made that announcement there were loud cheers from the party supporting the government. If, as the minister says, credit is due the government for that increase in exports, then I suppose the government would not object if we laid at their door responsibility for any diminution in trade or any decrease in exports. I think the responsibility must rest with them in the latter case if they choose to accept credit for the former. Let us examine these increases in exports. It is easy and simple to do.
Among the principal increases we find that the export of alcoholic beverages increased by $10,000,000. Well, I am quite prepared to say that government policy was responsible for that; let them have the credit. But next we find an increase of $89,750,000 in the export of wheat. There was no government policy responsible in that case. It was the result of a world drought condition, plus a war scare, plus a surplus that had been accumulated during the regime of a Tory government. What was a tragedy last year is today a great boon to the country, and is announced in the budget as part of the great surplus of exports. But that would not have been possible if that unfortunate accumulation had not been there; so certainly that was not diue to any policy of this government.
The next large item of increased exports is in wood products, amounting to $35,000,000, and if you want the reason for the steadily increasing export of wood products in recent years you must turn to the Ottawa agreements.

Now I turn to some other large items of increased exports:
Scrap iron	$1,266,000
Zinc	 1,100,000
Copper	 7.000.000
Nickel	 8,300.000
Lead	 3,250,000
In these five classes of metals we have an increase of about S21,000,000, every particle of which was due to the war scare in Europe, and not to government policy. The minister said the increase of exports was partly due to good policy, and partly due to good luck. I would say it was stark tragedy, international insanity, that was the reason for this great stimulation in the export of these metals. For seven, eight or nine da)'s we debated the question of defence; member after member called to the attention of the house the tragedy of this war scare-and that is what was responsible for this increase.
Our exports increased by $189,900,000 as compared with 1935, and these three items I have named, wheat, lumber and metals, with which government policy had nothing to do, account for $145,000,000 of that increase. I do not wish to take away from the minister or the government any comfort they can get out of the improved times, but it is well for the house to look at these figures and to realize that there is nothing very stable or secure in them. If the thing we all profess to desire, a condition of mind that would engender peace, could be brought about in the world, much of this trade would vanish overnight. If tomorrow the nations of the world were assured that there was no danger of war, prices of metal and our exports of metal would fall in a tragic way. So would the price of wheat and the exports of wheat, and we might say the same of other commodities. Thus, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the improved conditions and analyze the figures, we must come to the conclusion that not very much of the improvement is due to government policy.
Now let me turn to the other side of the picture. A moment ago I suggested that if the government should receive credit for increases. it must accept responsibility for decreases. What about these decreases? In the export of motor trucks the decrease was $1,100,000, and in the export of passenger cars $1,600,000; or a total decrease of S2,700,000 in the export of automobiles, representing 8,760 vehicles. That was in the calendar year 1936, as against 1935. Again I ask if the government is prepared to take responsibility for that.
Then let us take fruits, which concern a very substantial section of this country. The diminution in the export of fruits amounts to

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
$4,230,000. In exports of apples the decrease was $3,850,000; in other fresh fruits $265,000; and in canned fruits $245,000. Then take shingles, an important item to the province of British Columbia. These exports have fallen off by $1,200,000. There has been a decrease in the exports of sausage casings amounting to $185,000, and in processed milk of $366,000. In patent leather the decrease has been $400,000; in malt. S500.000; in electric vacuum cleaners, $400,000; in sewing machines, $500,000; in soap. $400,000, and in oats, $2,140,000. These, Mr. Speaker, are decreases in exports, and again I ask if the government is responsible for these decreases. Why does not the minister give us an analysis of the decreases?


Charles Avery Dunning: May I be permitted to
say that in the case of oats in particular, and certain kinds of fruit, the blame must be attached to providence or the weather, because they were not produced in sufficient volume to export.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a very fine excuse.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is it not a reason?


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the minister took
credit for an increase of $185,000,000 in exports.


Charles Avery Dunning: Read my words again.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quoted them just now,
and they were rather interesting. The minister said:
This expansion of our foreign commerce of course reflects in part the improvement in world trade conditions. . . . But that is by no means the whole story.
Then he said:
... it is not unreasonable to interpret this as clear evidence of the success of the government's trade policies.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well. I have pointed out that of the total increase of over $189,000,000 some $145,000,000 was made up of exports in connection with which government policies could not have played any part, and I am now pointing out a few items in which government policy could play a part.


Charles Avery Dunning: We sold some wheat,
you know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, the government sold some wheat. Last year on the floor of this house we listened to the most bitter condemnation of the wheat policy of the previous administration, under which that accumulation of wheat took place, and if it had not been for that accumulation the minister would not have had the wheat to export.
Now let us come to the subject so ably discussed a few moments ago by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier), who made an appeal to the minister. Let me put this to the minister: Is the policy of the government responsible for the decrease in the exports of fish? Those decreases were as follows:
Dried codfish	$500,000
Herring	 150,000
Pickled mackerel	 40,000
Dry salt salmon	 90,000
Pickled salmon	 177,000
Canned lobster	 195,000
Canned salmon	 1,030,000
Once again I ask the minister, who is responsible for those decreases? Let me take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare on his very able speech, the preparation of which must have required a great deal of time and thought. I want to say to the hon. member that one of the problems of the fishing industry, and one of the root causes of distress among the fishermen, lies in the control of the distribution of fish by the National Fish Company. That is where the trouble lies. Will this government do anything in regard to it? I am warning this government and hon. members from Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces, where large fisheries exist, that they will find a major cause of their trouble in regard to fisheries in the overbearing and dictatorial power exercised by the great distributing companies, chiefly the National Fish Company. That is where the trouble lies, and that is where we must correct the trouble. I asked the president of that company, when he appeared before a parliamentary committee some two years ago, if, somewhere between the half cent a pound paid to the fishermen and the twenty to thirty cents a pound for which the fish were sold, another half cent could not be found for the fishermen, and he said it could not. All we have to do is pause for a moment and ask ourselves in this parliament if we are helpless to find the fishermen another half cent a pound. I was in the little town of Sackville, I think it was, though I am not quite sure- at any rate it was close to the bay of Fundy, in the southern part of New Brunswick-[DOT] when a fisherman brought in five hundred pounds of the finest haddock one could wish to see. I wonder if hon members will believe me when I tell them what that man received for that five hundred pounds of fish. I was there that day, and was told by the man personally that he received one dollar, or one-fifth of a cent per pound. The hon. member for Sheliburne-Yarmouth-Clare knows, as other hon. members know, that in the
The Budget-Mr. Stevens


An hon. MEMBER:: Fifteen.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I thought it was more than that, but fifteen is a fairly large number. Fifteen Liberal members stood in their places and denounced the defence policy; then, like sheep, they walked up and voted for the very policy they had denounced. There is only one weapon left to a member of parliament, only one way in which he can express his objection ito anything; that is by his vote, and I sat here and saw that spectacle go on day after day. Members made magnificent, interesting speeches in which they presented their views ably and gave cogent reasons for the stand they were taking; then they declared by itheir vote their unswerving support of the government. Why? Well, they know better than I do, but speaking in a general way I know the reason is the fear of losing the patronage which goes to supporters of the government. This inglorious position in which parliament finds itself is due largely to the failure of parliament to occupy the field that has been given it under the British North America Act. I said that two years ago; I

The Budget-Mr. Stevens
repeat it to-day. Parliament is not occupying the field it was given under the British North America Act. Parliament is not and has not been discharging the powers it rightfully enjoys. It will not and it is not applying those powers to the remedy of public grievances in the country. Parliament is perishing slowly but surely from inertia and ineptitude. We play the game of politics, but we do not play the game with the people.
Let us look at the privy council decisions. Only one measure came through the reference to that body, and I pause to say that those references never should have been made- never. The only way properly to test a law is to put it into operation, with the force and influence of the government behind it. Then let a citizen challenge t'he law in the courts on its merits. But what is the sense, where is the courage, in taking a measure before it is given am opportunity to operate, and placing it before the courts, saying "Please tell us, have we done right or have we done wrong?" The basis of consideration under those circumstances is wholly technical and constitutional-not upon the merits, or upon a consideration of whether the law is applied correctly.
In spite of all that, one measure survived, the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, which provided for the setting up of a tribunal before which those having grievances in connection with trade practices might appear. I shall not go into details, but I must say it has never yet been given a chance to operate. In the first place, administration of the act was given to the tariff board, a body already overwhelmed with duties. When the present government took office they referred the measures to the courts, and since that nothing has been done. Not even the prosecutor has been appointed, an officer of the crown who was to administer those obscure laws already on the statute books, but which business men and others hesitate to invoke.
Some time ago a prominent business man drew to my attention a flagrant violation of the criminal code in connection with false advertising. There was no question as to the falsity of the advertising. He said, "Well, how can we have the act enforced? I have asked the Attorney General, and he does not take any interest in it." I am not sure whether he said he had consulted the Department of Justice. I said to him, "Lay the information yourself." But he replied, "Oh, no, I cannot lay the information." He did not want to do it, and as a matter of fact he should not be asked to do it. The measure provides for the appointment of an officer
to prosecute on behalf of the public in the event of violation of a law such as that respecting false advertising, which has been in the criminal code for years, but which has had nobody to enforce it. There is law dealing with false advertising, and deceiving or defrauding the public. Can the government do anything to correct that? Of course they can. What action is being taken? Concluding that part of my remarks, I say that if in the next two years parliament does not produce some practical results in the correction of grievances within Canada, then Canada is heading for disintegration and dissolution. Some may think that is strong language, but I warn the house that there is a deep-rooted dissatisfaction throughout Canada with the manner in which our affairs are handled under the so-called constitution.
Let me now turn to another subject. May I ask the minister this direct question: What does he intend to do about the railway deficit? Here is what he says:
I shall be greatly disappointed if we cannot keep our total deficit for 1937-38 within the limit represented by the net cash deficit of the Canadian National Railway System.
And I recall that that was greeted with cheers. What a thing to put before the taxpayers of Canada-we hope next year to restrict the deficit within what we are going to lose on the Canadian National Railways. That was a very graceful way of evading a very difficult question.
It is not as if we did not have information about the matter, because we have had most intensive investigations of the railway problem. We have had engineers' reports, expert opinions, traffic surveys, royal commissions, special committees of parliament, and standing committees of parliament, for twenty years to my knowledge. Since 1017 and the Drayton-Acworth report we have gone on year after year, accumulating data and information of all kinds until we have it by the ton-literally, Mr. Speaker, by the ton -in the archives of parliament. It is all there, available for the use of parliament. What are we doing about it?-just nothing; nothing.
Let me now examine some of the reports. I have the Drayton-Acworth report and the report of the Duff commission before me, but I shall not go into them in detail. I shall not read them, because anyone who wishes to may read them.
I shall be content with pointing out only one or two points. Some of the recommendations of the Drayton-Acworth report were adopted, thereby giving birth to the Canadian National railways. But its most vital recommendations
166S
The Budget-Mr. Stevens

were ignored, and because of that Canada has a railway problem. Those recommendations were that the railways were to be operated by trustees-I am talking about twenty years ago. They were to be operated upon a commercial basis, and were to be undisturbed politically. The trustees were to be nonpolitical, permanent and self-perpetuating. They were to be given the widest powers in the management of the property. It is the disregard of these recommendations which has been the chief cause of the deficit and our dilemma in connection with our railways. They have been subjected to political interference; no one can deny that. Let us be frank; let us state frankly what we know. We know they have been subject to political interference. We know that political lines were bought; I know it, other hon. members know it. We know, too, that political branch lines costing scores of millions of dollars were built; we know that. We know that there was political interference with the managements; we cannot deny that. No man can deny it. Yet these were the very things against which the Drayton-Acworth report of twenty years ago warned parliament and the people of [DOT]Canada.
What did the Duff report say? Speaking Pf the Drayton-Acworth report made fifteen years previously, the Duff commission made these observations in 1932:
The recommendations were designed to provide safeguards against political interference but-
And this is the finding of the Duff commission :
-the government declined to follow the plan of organization recommended by the commission.
Then they go on to show what the results have been. In other words, this parliament, you and I, stand convicted before the people of Canada of having failed to carry out the expert advice given to us, and particularly in connection with the one point of political interference, which has been the nemesis of the Canadian National railways from its very inception. The Duff commission made recommendations among which were emancipation from political influence, elimination of duplication, cooperation between the two systems, and economies. They proposed to achieve these objectives by the appointment of three trustees, to be appointed from a panel named by themselves. Then, there was to be an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate in connection with disputes between the two systems. In part, that was put into law in 1933.
But once again politics wrecked the recommendations of that commission. Once more we are floundering in a sea of prejudice and

partisanship. We have no chart, no compass; this parliament is just drifting so far as the railway problem is concerned. Yet this problem is the source of the greatest proportion of our deficits. It is the most serious problem, and has been so declared over and over again, with which Canada is confronted. Yet we are drifting along just as we have drifted for twenty years-and we expect the country to have confidence in parliament! I would not presume to say that I have a remedy or a solution for this problem, but there are a few suggestions I should like to make.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member's time has expired and he can proceed only with the unanimous consent of the 'house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The two previous speakers took ten minutes more; I have only a few further sentences in connection with this railway problem. I would suggest, first, that we agree in both houses of parliament to drop politics when we are discussing the railway problem. That is a real foundation upon which we might hope to build something of value. Second, I would suggest that we refer all existing data to three committees, made up of senators and members of parliament-[DOT] one committee to report on coordination, another to report on the rights of labour, and the third to report on the elimination of political interference and influence. Then I suggest that, we hold a special session of parliament this autumn for the exclusive purpose of discussing and dealing with the railway problem and receiving the reports of these committees.
I have this further suggestion to make, one which has been in my mind for many years but which I have never uttered as I felt it was more within the realm of experts and I feared to tread therein. I have been in the house twenty years, and year after year this railwaj' problem comes up and nothing is done. I am going to make this further suggestion. There is not a single transcontinental railway in the United States. Let hon. members get that. Canada should be divided into three zones for transportation purposes, one taking in Fort William to the coast; another taking in the great central areas of Ontario and Quebec, as far east as Quebec or Riviere du Loup; and the third taking in the maritime provinces. The maritime provinces have their confederation problems which are entitled to consideration. The great central provinces have their dense traffic problems, and the west has its wheat and farm products movements and other problems peculiar to that part of the country. Each of these zones

The Budget-Mr. Coldwell
ought to be administered from a central point within itself, and inter-zone traffic arrangements made just as they are made in the United States.
With a system of that kind I believe we could 'bring the railway problem of Canada within the ambit of the understanding of a board of directors or a group of individuals. Quite frankly I question whether any one mind or any one board is capable of fully understanding and grasping the problems of either the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific from Halifax to Vancouver. I contend that if parliament and the country would address themselves to this problem and take advantage of the information within our archives, a solution could be found.
Before I take my seat let me say one word in conclusion. In order that a democracy may succeed, it must be founded upon justice and equity within the state. Hon. members know that there are serious grievances which remain uncured. Apparently there is no possibility of correction by parliament, and until we as a parliament address ourselves to the correction of these iniquities, we cannot hope to retain the confidence and respect of the people of Canada.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I should like to join those who have already congratulated the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) upon his excellent presentation of the budget. There are some things in the budget I like and there are some I dislike. I dislike exceedingly both the sales tax and the sugar tax, but I do not propose to discuss them this afternoon. I think we have had a most .profitable discussion to-day The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) brought a refreshing air of reality into the debate. We may not agree with his philosophical fundamentals, we may not agree with his conclusions, but at least we can admit that he has given this house food for thought. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has done the same thing in a somewhat different manner.
I would point out that while the hon. member for Ontario was speaking, the evening editions of the local newspapers were delivered in the chamber. One of the statements appearing therein bears out what the hon. member said, that the Ottawa agreements might have repercussions which were not foreseen by some who supported the last agreements. We read in the press that the Australian Minister of Trade has resigned. The article continues:
Canada found it impossible to agree to concessions of such magnitude, it was understood. The Canadian argument was that the balance
of trade in Canada's favour was a natural one, largely because Canadian industry had developed to a point at which it was able to provide cheaply and efficiently a large range of manufactures which Australia required.
The commercial situation is thus set out in a few words. Every nation including this dominion is ready to sell but is not ready to buy.
The budget speech contains only a brief reference to a matter which I wish to discuss. The minister said that it was a matter for congratulation that a liability of amazing proportions in our national finances had been removed. He referred specifically to the accumulation of wheat which in a few short months had turned from a great liability into an asset of national importance.
Last evening the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made what I thought was an extraordinary and rather weak defence of the government's policy in relation to the marketing of wheat. The minister devoted considerable time to a comparison of prices in widely dissimilar periods during past years. He paid no attention to the point made this afternoon by the hon. member for Ontario, that during those years there had been tremendous increases in both acreage and production not only in the four great wheat producing countries but also in the importing countries. The result was that during that period a glut occurred. He forgot to mention, of course, that this accumulation began under the previous Liberal administration, whose failure to implement their own tariff policies and the wheat board legislation of 1922 was, I believe, in no small measure responsible for the accumulations. The failure to implement the wheat board legislation led, in 1923 and 1924, the years to which the minister referred, to the formation of the second best thing to a wheat board from the point of view of the western farmer-the Canadian pools. The minister said last evening, at page 1631 of Hansard:
The question of how wheat is to be marketed is of great importance to all the people of Canada, but it is of particular importance to the people who produce it.
That, I might say, is the reason why the the government's disregard of the wishes of the producers is very keenly resented throughout western Canada. The efforts of our farmers over a period of at least thirty years to create and to own their own marketing facilities prove conclusively that thieir hope of getting equitable prices for theiir products was through the establishment of their own marketing organization rather than in risking alternately high and1 low prices-mainly low prices-on a purely speculative market. It is this effort which the farmers of the west
The Budget-Mr. Coldwell

believe the attitude and the policy of the government and the present wheat board have very largely nullified. The minister said, at page 1632 of Hansard:
The person who buys the wheat is concerned only with the difference between the price at which he buys and the price at which he is able to sell.
Quite so, and that of course is the attitude of the trader, and of the middleman into whose hands, we believe, the government has played during the past eighteen months or so; for the bigger the difference between those two prices, the greater the profit to the speculator. I recommend to hon. members that they read the resolutions that were passed by western farmers during August and September last. They will find that those resolutions were more concerned with the method of marketing, the retention of the wheat board, than with a minimum price. Again may I repeat, in the words of the minister:
The question of how wheat is to be marketed is of great importance to...the people who produce it.
Knowing this, I rather admire the courage of the minister, who last night, by inference at least, condemned the pools and their policies, and in effect gave his approval to the grain exchange method of marketing the farmers' crop. The minister contended, at page 1633 of Hansard, that the farmers are obtaining to-day:
...the highest price for wheat.. .since the beginning of the stabilization activities of Mr. McFarland.
Are the farmers getting that price or are the speculators getting it? If the speculators are getting it, I should like to know why they should be allowed to do so. Look at the world condition now and compare it with that of 1932, when world prices were the lowest in four hundred years. Of course, the minister said that there is less speculation now than ever before. I disagree with that statement because I view the matter of speculation relatively. If there is less speculation it is because there is relatively less wheat, but I venture to suggest that there is a great deal of speculation with paper wheat-perhaps more relatively than ever before. The minister attacked the stabilization operations. But what would have happened1 to the west and to the entire dominion but for those operations? Moreover the stabilized price was on the basis of Fort William, not on the basis of the world price-fortunately for the western producer, for the world price, as I mentioned a few moments ago, was the lowest in four centuries.

A great deal of propaganda is coming across the ocean to western Canada to the effect that the new policy is hailed with delight in Great Britain. May I say, in passing, that I am glad to notice the better type of advertising which has lately been done in Great Britain? But I do not believe those reports present a true picture of the British attitude. For example, I have before me a copy of the leading editorial from The Miller, a British publication of February 1,	1937.
It refers to articles that have been sent from London by Mr. Grant Dexter to certain western papers, the purport of which is that there is a new feeling, a new spirit, in Great Britain towards Canadian wheat and flour since the change in the policies of the Canadian wheat board. The editorial goes on to state:
Thus, it is claimed, the campaign has demonstrated conclusively that the active resentment of the British millers and bakers during the past years to the Canadian policy of holding for a premium price has disappeared.
But it is perhaps allowable to point out at this stage that there never existed such a thing as active resentment on the part of the British millers to any Canadian policy. Canadian policy is an affair of the Canadian people, and always commands the most strict and friendly consideration of the Britisher. Milling for the British public is not an emotional pastime, but an economic service. The eompletest freedom of thought and action, to buy in the best market, and manufacture the finest product having regard to the requirements of the consumer, has been the policy of the British miller, and we maintain quite confidently that he has fulfilled his charge.
Incidentally, I am not so sure about that. Again:
The Canadian wheat policy under Mr. John McFarland had everything to commend it, had it been successful.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: Further:
Looked at in a very practical way, its only fault was its non-success.
May I just say to hon. members opposite who laughed, that that statement comes from a British source. We were told last year that we had to win anew the confidence of the British millers. This is a quotation from a trade organ with which usually I have found myself in disagreement. But I find myself in complete agreement with the statement [DOT]that the non-success of the wheat stabilization policy was a tragedy, not to the millers but to the farmers of Canada, although it might well react ultimately upon the milling industry, because (that industry must have a source of supply, and if bankruptcy overtakes farmers over a wide area of the world the milling industry suffers accordingly. I say

The Budget-Mr. Coldwell
it was a tragedy because last July, wheat was dumped in record quantities upon the market -no matter how we divide it between last year's crop and the crop of the year before or of tihe year before that. The accumulations and the 1935 crop, some 63,000,000 bushels of grain were dumped on the market and sold during July, when world stocks of wheat were the lowest in nine years and widespread drought threatened north American crops. Last night the minister said:	*
What I want to tell the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is this: If at the end of June he knew what the price of wheat was going to be, or if he knew what it was going to be at the beginning of July, or even in the middle of July, there were very few people who considered themselves authorities on the question who really thought they knew.
Does the minister, who is a member of the wheat advisory committee, recollect that on July 6-that is, in the first week in the month-the three Canadian wheat pools through their executive presented a lengthy statement, a copy of which I have in my hand, to that committee, to the government of Canada? Let me read just a portion of that statement:
We offer a few reasons why we believe the initial payment on wheat for the coming crop season should be above rather than below average production costs.
First: The restoration of buying power to agriculture is in the best interests of the entire dominion. If our main branch of agriculture is on the brink of bankruptcy every industry depending on agriculture will suffer.
Second: Largely as a result of disastrous crop conditions in exporting countries, particularly on the North American continent, the world wheat carryover is at the lowest figure in the past ten years and there has been a substantial reduction in the Canadian wheat carryover.
Third: The disastrous drought in the United States, particularly in the spring wheat belt, makes it more than probable that instead of having a substantial surplus for export, that country will again require to import a considerable quantity of Canadian wheat.
Fourth: The damage already caused to our own wheat crop by drought extending over a wide area along the southern boundary of the three prairie provinces in western Saskatchewan and eastern Alberta, and in northwestern Saskatchewan, so that the most we can look for is a fair crop, with very light crops over a great part of the west which has suffered severely in the past from partial or total crop failures.
Fifth: The setting of an initial price below production costs by the Canadian government would almost inevitably be regarded by importing countries as the price at which Canada would be prepared to dispose of its wheat, with injurious influence on world price levels.
Sixth: The bulk of the Canadian wheat crop will have been delivered and a considerable portion of it will have moved to world markets before there can be any competition from the Argentine and Australia so that the export
market price of wheat will be largely determined by the policy adopted by your committee.
Seventh: If the minimum price for wheat is set below the futures market price, the Canadian wheat board might be crippled if not destroyed, as farmers, after the experience of the present crop year would be reluctant to deliver their wheat to the board if they could secure a higher price on the open market. We believe that the continuance of the wheat board is vital to the welfare of our wheat growers under present world conditions and that any policy which would curtail the operations of the wheat board and increase the control of the private trade in marketing the Canadian crop would be against the interests of the producers.


Mr. GARDINER:: Does the hon. member think that there is in that statement anything that contradicts what I said last night? I would take it from the statement that what they are asking for is a set price at least no lower than the price as it was then. The price at that time was nearly the set price of last year. It does not indicate any increase.


Major James William Coldwell: There are two things indicated in this statement. One is this-and it is the point I am making-that the Canadian wheat producers on July 6 drew the attention of the government to the fact that there was likely to be a great crop failure over the United States spring wheat belt, and over wide areas of the Canadian prairies, that stocks were the lowest in ten years, and that therefore a price above the cost of production was warranted.


James Garfield Gardiner: The point I made last night, and which I wish to emphasize, was that in spite of that fact they did not prophesy a big increase in prices.


Major James William Coldwell: I think that was clearly implied.


Charles Avery Dunning: Their later statement disproves that.


Major James William Coldwell: I will deal with that in a moment-the later statement of September 5. I have only forty minutes, and the minister will have an opportunity to say something at some other time.
As I said on another occasion, I left Ottawa at the end of June and motored back, and I saw this condition. When I went to my own constituency early in July, day after day I saw crops fading out until about July 10 it was well known that the whole of southern Saskatchewan would be faced with almost an entire crop failure; and yet in the face of that, day after day, the Canadian wheat board dumped wheat on the market-during that month of July nearly 63,000,000 bushels. I say that policy was inept. In the face of
The Budget-Mr. Caldwell

the condition, that existed the board should have fed the market and watched developments so that, not for our farmers only but for the entire Canadian people, we might have recouped some of the so-called losses which have been referred to so frequently in this house. And the Minister of Finance took credit for some eight million dollars in his budget statement out of the very type of price advance to which I am referring. I believe that the experts in charge of the government's marketing policy, the wheat board, ought to have so advised the government. Their policy surely constitutes something in the nature of a betrayal of trust.
But the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) says that the people approved these policies in the election of 1935, and that in the Assiniboia by-election they confirmed their approval. He also took a sly dig at the running of a Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidate in that constituency. I wonder whether it would surprise him to know that on the day that candidate was nominated the campaign fund was $30, and that on that campaign fund we began. Out of the nickels and dimes that came in we financed the campaign. I am wondering whether the minister could say the same thing of his campaign fund. The largest contribution we received from any one person or any one source was the sum of $25. May I say, however, that what we have often heard suggested in Saskatchewan regarding the way in which elections are run in that province has been pretty well summarized in a few words in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Volume 2, No. 1, February, 1936, in which the following statement is made:


Charles Avery Dunning: Who makes it?


Major James William Coldwell: Escott Reid.


Charles Avery Dunning: Ah, yes.


Major James William Coldwell: The Prime Minister in a recent debate quoted him as an authority, so I think I might also quote him as an authority.


Charles Avery Dunning: I only wanted to identify him.


Major James William Coldwell: This is the quotation:
The Saskatchewan Liberal machine was efficient, hut it was corruption which furnished it with many of its workers, and when it could not win converts by legitimate persuasion it did not shrink from using corrupt methods. Seldom, though, did it corrupt by buying votes with money. It used the more sophisticated method, when seducing an individual, of offering him a job or a contract, and when it tried to seduce a section it offered a road or a public building.

And sometimes dams, and other rehabilitation measures perhaps.
Last evening the minister (Mr. Gardiner) was, I think, to a degree guilty of misleading the house. He quoted four lines from a statement issued on September 5 by the pools.


James Garfield Gardiner: I may call attention to the fact that in Hansard to-day the quotation cited on page 1635 is not all given as a quotation. There are four further lines; that has been corrected this morning.


Major James William Coldwell: The other lines follow?


James Garfield Gardiner: The lines that follow are part of the quotation.


Major James William Coldwell: I was not thinking of the lines that follow; I was thinking of the lines that came immediately ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: All I wish to point out is that I read the section-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member who has the floor will permit me, I know. I only wish to point out that I read every word in section 3, which was the third reason for not forming the pool.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact the word that led me to look for something ahead of this particular quotation was the word "further" which I think was the first word the minister used in the quotation in question. I find that the paragraph immediately ahead is this:
In view of early harvest a very substantial amount of wheat would have already reached the market before it would be possible to make the necessary arrangements to accept delivery to a voluntary pool.
The minister has corrected, the final lines, to which I was also going to refer, so I shall let the matter rest there. But I may say that if these words had been used prior to the four lines which were quoted, a somewhat different construction would have been placed on the quotation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who interjected a remark last evening.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not in relation to price.


Major James William Coldwell: The farmers were forced to market their 1936 grain without the advantage of an initial price and participation certificates; that is, the wheat board method as we understand it was denied to them. I say that has meant a very serious loss to these farmers. My colleague from Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) had one of his constituents in his room the other day. After years of drought that gentleman had a good crop last year. He

Questions
raised 17,000 bushels of wheat, but owing to his obligations he had to market that grain at once. He did market it, at a price some twenty or twenty-five cents below the price he might have received if he had been able to hold it for a little while. If he had been able to market that wheat through the board and participate in the average price it is probable that he would have received a considerably greater amount of money than he did receive for his crop.
Inferences have been drawm in this house that the whole agitation of last September was inspired by someone. I do not know who that someone was. The Minister of Finance points at me and smiles.


Charles Avery Dunning: I read some of my hon. friend's speeches on the subject.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Well, I deny it most emphatically, and I will tell the house why I deny it. On August 28 the price was announced. The morning of the 29th I was asked for a statement, which I gave. Then that same day I got in my car and drove to Ottawa. I was ten days on the way, and during the whole of that time I neither sent nor received a communication. No one had my addresses en route. So I was not responsible for the organization of that agitation in any way whatever. On the contrary, it was the most spontaneous thing within my experience and came about to some extent from the very keen disappointment which was naturally felt on the part of the farmers. For example, on the 17th of August one of my constituents wired the Minister of Agriculture from Dins-more, Saskatchewan, as follows:
Please advise if wheat board is to function through crop year nineteen thirty-six and thirty-seven and if so what is to be the set price? Threshing is in progress and farmers are anxious to dispose of crop through wheat board if it continues to function. Wire reply.
The reply received on August 20 by that gentleman was as follows:
Wheat board will function this year. They will announce decision on nineteen thirty-six crop price shortly. I presume it would be impossible for them to make any announcement re nineteen thirty-seven crop.
Of course, the latter sentence was entirely unnecessary. The point is that apparently at that time tihe minister himself was not sure exactly what was going to happen in relation to the wheat board method of marketing.


Charles Avery Dunning: What minister?


Major James William Coldwell: The Minister of Agriculture. That reply, intentionally or otherwise, certainly was both misleading and evasive of the question. Then on the 28th
of August the announcement was made. A moment ago the Minister of Finance pointed at me, suggesting that I had led this agitation. During the last day or two I have looked up the files, and I am going to let the newspapers tell the story. However, I see that it is just two minutes to six, and perhaps you will call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. To-morrow afternoon I can go on for the remainder of my time and refer to the public press records of what haippened in western Canada last autumn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, in order that this debate may continue on Friday, if there are still those who desire to continue it on that day, it is necessary to provide that Mr. Speaker will not leave the chair without question being put. With the permission of the house, therefore, I move:
That standing order 28 respecting the committee of ways and means be suspended for the sittings of Friday, 12th March, 1937.
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pusuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 11, 1937