Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

Under his own government

a speech, as I stated, delivered by the hon. member for Chambly and Ver-cheres. I suggest to my right hon. friend that that would have been a very good time to have applied the closure.

Mr. MEIGHEN- It would have been better applied.

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

Yes, for my hon. friend. He said further:

Although the Minister of Militia in discussing the estimates of his department the other day denied that any goods belonging to the Militia department had been sold to Roumania or Greece, I find at page 3 of the report the following-I am giving the various sums

in round figures:

Militia and Defence:

March, 1920, military equipment .... $ 30,000

May, 1920, military clothing 325,000

April, 1920, dubbin 3,000

I do not know that I need read it all, because I know it is not agreeable to our friends opposite to hear this history. But it is very important at this time that the House should know the causes of the huge deficits which were rolled up at that time. If hon. gentlemen opposite can give a satisfactory explanation of these expenditures I Shall be glad to take my seat to hear what they have to say.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Will -the hon. gentleman permit me?

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

With pleasure.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I reality wondered what

imagination gifted with mendacity could possibly have prompted the utterance of such rubbish as the hon. member read. The government had nothing whatever to do with the placing of any contracts at all or with the selection of the goods, nor is it a fact that any company controlled by the gentlemen mentioned got even those contracts. The gentlemen -mentioned, I presume, were interested in some companies whom the commission appointed by -the Roumanian and

Grecian governments bought goods from, but just -as many Liberal members of parliament were connected with companies that sold as were Conservative -members of parliament. That was demonstrated over and over again. The government had nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

I do not for

one moment excuse any Liberal or any Conservative

Mr. MEIGHEN:

He does not need an

excuse. The Liberal was just as honourable about it as the Conservative. It is the reading of such rubbish by the hon. gentleman that I object -to.

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

I thank my

right hon. friend for reading me a -lecture. I am ready to take all that he chooses to hand across, as it is emphasizing my point.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

You need it.

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

I wish to point

out tha-t the na-mes are on record of the different parties who were interested and to whom large amounts were paid. The story is familiar -to a great many members of the House, but when we -are read -a lecture on the financial situation of to-day as compared with -the financial situation under hon. gentlemen opposite, I think it is time for some hon. member of this House to rise up and protest and show some of the things that have taken place under the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member for Chambly and Vereheres went on to ask a question about supplies, and said:

That is your opinion. I find also that the Department of Militia and Defence sold to Greece the following:

Brushes $ 11,728

Boots 635,000

Braces 8,320

Denim 38,000

Sweaters 150,000

Blankets 876,000

These are all items which I do n-ot think the government of Canada can escape responsibility for. They were sold either by the government or by a department which was, or should have been, under the government's control. I do not propose reading any further, but there is a great deal of information contained in this speech, and I refer hon. members and the country at large who wish to go into this matter any more fully to Hansard of May 18, 1921, and they will find many names of men of the government of that day in this interesting transaction.

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

Coming to the amendment that was moved by the hon. the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) the other day, I notice that one of the first items he mentioned in his amendment is the sales tax. He says:

Conditions in Canada urgently demand reductions of taxation, especially of the sales tax and other levies which have been increased by the present government; the House regrets that the financial statements now presented show no evidence of the economy necessary to make such reductions possible, but rather disclose an alarming increase in the public debt.

My hon. friend refers in the first instance to the sales tax. I wish to submit a statement in that connection to show that there was a loss of revenue due directly to the reduction in the sales tax of last year.

The decrease in revenue this year is estimated to amount to about $52,800,000 brought about by a decrease in customs duties collected of about $13,300,000, a decrease of excise taxes of $35,676,000, the chief source of this tax being the sales tax and a decrease of about $2,353,000 from delayed business profits tax. These decreases were offset to some extent by an increase of about one million dollars in excise duty and about $2,300,000 in income taxes collected.

The revenue of this country, which is estimated to be about 344 million dollars, is taxation, and it is evident that a decrease in revenue is a decrease in taxation. Our estimated population at present is about 9,225,000. Therefore, this decrease in taxation means a saving in taxes of about $5.75 per head for each man, woman and child in this country.

This was brought about by reducing the duties on agricultural implements and on the materials imported for the manufacture of these implements, and by removing the sales tax from all the articles and materials consumed in the process of manufacture of these agricultural implements, as well as by reducing the sales tax from 6 to 5 per cent. Like reductions were made in the duty payable on articles relating to the fruit growing industry, poultry industry, dairying industry, mining and quarrying industries, the lumbering and fishing industries. The sales tax was removed also on these articles. The list of exemptions was increased among which we find, binder twine, cream separators and others.

These reductions have no doubt stimulated our Canadian industries, the result, as I have showed, being that we imported 70 million dollars less for the period covered by the eleven months ending February, 1925 than during the eleven months ending February, 1924. Although this meant a loss in revenue of about twenty million dollars, it decreased the burden of taxation on our Canadian people to that

extent, as well as encouraged our Canadian people to supply the decrease in importation by enhancing Canadian production to supply our demands.

So I do not think that the ex-Minister of Finance could very well prove his contention that the sales tax was immaterial, or that the reductions that were effected last year did not mean a reduction in the revenue and also a big reduction in taxation.

I wish now to refer to another matter which always receives a great deal of attention in this House; I refer to the question of the tariff. I hold in my hand a resolution which has been standing on t'he order paper in the name of the right hon. leader of the opposition since February 5. It starts out by saying:

This Dominion requires an immediate revision of the Canadian tariff on a definitely and consistently protective basis.

So evidently there is no doubt in his mind but that this is the proper course to pursue. Higher protection. He goes on to say:

That such revision should apply to natural products such as farm products, fish, and coal with no less thoroughness than to manufactured goods.

I would like the hon. gentleman to explain to the House what benefit a protective tariff would be on agricultural products. A protective tariff against goods of which we have a surplus cannot be effective. The hon. gentleman will admit that water cannot rise above its own level, and this is a similar case; American agricultural products cannot come in here unless there is an absolute shortage on the Canadian market. As far as the duty is concerned on American fish coming into Canada, any man in the Maritime provinces or in any other part of Canada who has any knowledge of the fishing industry will admit that the only market in which the Canadian fisherman can obtain remunerative prices for his fish is the American market. Again, I would like any hon. gentleman in this House to point out where American fish is supplanting the Canadian article on the Canadian market. To my mind the mention of fish in this resolution is simply propaganda, an endeavour to appeal to the fishermen. It has really no significance.

If I wished to go into that a little further, I migdi't submit figures to show that the total imports of fresh fish from across the border into the whole of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific amount to only $364,000, and of this amount, $233,000 is for oysters, or what are known as shelled oysters, which are imported into Canada under a duty of 10 cents per gallon. I leave it to the people

1618 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

of Canada who consume this article whether in their opinion the policy advocated by the right hon. leader of the opposition in his resolution is in the interests of this country. Those oysters cannot come into the Maritime provinces because they would not be used there even if they were brought in and given away free. It is only in the extreme western sections of Canada where it is possible to sell these American oysters. The few oysters that we do have in the Maritime provinces to ship at the present time find a ready market in the cities of Quebec and Montreal and in the Maritime provinces themselves, so that the word fish in this resolution is pure political propaganda.

The next paragraph refers to the conservation and development of our natural resources. No fault can be found with that, but every member on this side is just as anxious to see our resources properly developed as hon. gentlemen opposite are.

The next paragraph is more or less of a surprise coming as it does from the Conservative party who on different occasions have endeavoured to make the people of this country believe they were the great imperialists and had a monopoly on this side of the water, of patriotism and loyalty to the Motherland. Still we find this paragraph goes so far as to state that hon. gentlemen opposite are in favour of withdrawing the British preference already granted to Great Britain and which is an inducement for goods to come through' Canadian ports. Their excuse for this policy is that it is in the interest of the workers of the country. This again, to my mind, is purely political propaganda and an appeal to the workers and the manufacturing interests of the country. Well, I will venture the assertion that if hon. members opposite were in power to-morrow they would not dare to put such a proposition into effect.

In this connection I think it will be only fair to point out how the existing duty, even under the British preference, affects the Maritime provinces. We have two gentlemen in this House one the member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) and the other the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) who claim to be the champions of the rights of the Maritimes. Let me point out to these gentlemen how this policy of a withdrawal of the British preference would affect the Maritime provinces. Supposing a ship load of goods valued at $100,000 arrives at the port of St. John or the port of Montreal. Immediately that ship docks a crowd of customs officers at once patrol the docks. They pounce upon that ship and even under

present conditions will ask to have handed over at least $20,000 in duties. Supposing you increase the present duty 10 or 15 per cent and instead of $20,000 the sum demanded would be $35,000. Will hon. friends opposite point out how thev expect the ports of St. John and Halifax to flourish under such a proposition? They cannot answer this argument and the very suggestion would drive business from those ports. As I said before, if they held the reins of power to-morrow they would not dare to put any such proposition into effect. If they did I do not see how the orators of the Conservative party could go to the country and again fool the people by waving the flag of loyalty to the Mother Country.

Mr. GOOD:

Would the hon. gentleman advocate taking off all the duties on British goods coming in so as to increase the trade entering Maritime province ports?

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

It is all right for the hon. gentlemen who have not the responsibility of governing the country to advocate a policy of that kind but in view of the financial condition of the country regard must be had to ways and means whereby sufficient revenue can be raised to meet the needs of Canada. Even with the preference as low as it is there has been a greater increase in imports from countries which do not enjoy the preference than there has been in imports from Great Britain.

Mr. GOOD:

Would that not be all the more reason why we should reduce the duty on British goods still further?

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

My hon. friend might be justified in his view but the present arrangement is working out fairly well. The preference already granted has tended to bring goods to Canadian ports. Ninety-nine per cent of the goods imported from Great Britain now come to Canadian ports as a result of the 10 per cent additional preference that was granted last year. I certainly would be in favour of a further increase in the preference if it were at all possible; I am entirely opposed to the proposal of hon. gentlemen opposite to withdraw the preference and I think that when we take that stand the country is behind us.

There is this further fact, and it will perhaps be an effective answer to my hon. friend, that according to official figures the imports from Great Britain in Canada in 1924 actually decreased as compared with the previous year. I do not know how the hon. gentleman can explain that. At the same

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

time Canadian exports to Great Britain increased- Nevertheless the protectionist opposition will still argue that the British preference is responsible for admitting into Canada an increasing volume of British goods.

I might further point out that during the same period while imports from Great Britain were decreasing imports from Germany were increasing at an enormous rate on which a high duty is charged. Canada grants no tariff preference to Germany yet that country supplied goods to Canada last year to the value of nearly $6,000,000 as compared with less than $5,000,000 in 1923 and $2,000,000 in 1922. When our friends of the opposition blame the Liberal policy of the British preference for the increased popularity of British goods in Canada they should also explain the reason for the growing volume of German goods to which no tariff preference is accorded. But the expounders of this protectionist policy are in the game for some other purpose than to enlighten the public. They cannot fool the people all the time but they look forward to fooling part of the people part of the time, and in that way to again put something over the Canadian public as they did in 1911.

The next paragraph in this resolution recommends the appointment of a tariff commission. Had that proposition been advanced by the government bon. gentlemen opposite would be the first to utter denunciations because of the appointment of another commission. However-, if the present government did not get better results from the appointment of such a commission than the country obtained from the tariff commission of some years ago over which the ex-Minister of Finance presided the expenditure for the purpose would be a pure waste of money.

The last paragraph in the resolution contains the only sane proposition in the entire list. This has reference to transportation burdens, and suggests that relief be given to the western and Maritime provinces by way of a contribution from the government to reduce freight rates. I should like the House to take notice of that fact: The proposition of the right bon. leader of the opposition is that the western and Maritime provinces be given relief in freight rates by a contribution from the government of Canada. The proposition may be commendable but I cannot see how the originator of the proposition can reconcile that policy with the attitude he is taking with regard to the government's proposed control of ocean freight rates. What he is proposing is absolutely along the same line as the policy of the government

contemplates. Would the right hon. gentleman be good enough to point out to the House and country, what benefit it would be to the producer of the Maritime or western provinces to grant a reduction of rates to Montreal only to find that when the goods arrived there the ocean rates were prohibitive and that the goods could not be exported at a profit. This is something I should like the right hon. gentleman ito explain when he next comes to discuss the Petersen contract.

I know that hon. gentlemen opposite are quite adept at Changing their position in an endeavour to square themselves with their proposals, but it wild take all the ability of the right hon. leader of the opposition to explain the really ridiculous position in which he finds himself by reading this clause of his resolution.

Mr. STEVENS:

I should like to draw

attention to the fact that this discussion is wholly out of order, but inasmuch as the hon. gentleman has been debating this resolution for some twenty minutes I trust that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House will also be accorded the privilege of discussing it when they come to reply.

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

In reply to my

hon. friend let me say that I am quite in order. I understood, when the hon. gentleman did not have a chance ito discuss this resolution on private miemfoer's day, he would have a chance to 'discuss it on the budget, and I am quite sure he will avail himself of the opportunity.

I think I have paid enough attention to this rather peculiar document, and I pause for a moment to draw the attention of the House to another motion, and I only wish I could say that I thought it was prepared by some other member; but unfortunately the members of the House will find that it was prepared by the same hon. gentleman. I find the resolution which I have reference to stood in the name of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), who was then the member for Portage la Prairie, and in this connection I wish to read from page 1915 of the Debates of the House of Commons of January 18, 1911. The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), in addressing the House in one of his pedantic flights of oratory used the word "wobbled." I think he attributed that to the quality of this government, or possibly some of his friends on this side of the House. I wish to point out that this resolution to which I have just referred, which was submitted by the right hon. leader of

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

the opposition which I am about to read, is not wobbling at all. It is worse than that. It is an acrobatic feat which possibly very few of us can perform, and that is a complete somersault, or right about face, or looping the loop, as one hon. member suggests. This resolution of January 18, 1011 reads as follows:

That in the opinion of this House, a substanttial reduction in the import duties on agricultural implements is now due the agriculturists of Canada, and is in just accord with the true ends of a protective tariff.

He then goes on to say:

But the charge I have to make and which I hope to bring home to the government this afternoon is not that one, though it is the most serious; it is this, that in their attempts to continue the National Policy which had obtained for years before, they have overlooked, they have neglected one essential feature of that policy, they have quite forgotten its guiding principle, namely the principle that as our industrial institutions advanced in strength and as they were able with every advance to acquire a hold on the home market, the import duties were to be diminished and adjusted in order to meet the evolving and changing conditions. It is that restraining, guiding principle which I claim this government has entirely overlooked and as a consequence they have allowed, in the respect which I am discussing this afternoon, protection to run rampant, and they have for reasons which are only too obvious become the slaves of those who helped them into power, and who now maintain them there behind ramparts of gold.

And so on all through his speech. The leader of the opposition, the gentleman who proposed this resolution, now asks for a higher protective tariff. The maxim, "consistency thou art a jewel" is correct. I just imagine, if any hon. gentleman on this side of the House placed himself in this ridiculous position, to what flights of oratory our hon. friends opposite would rise in exposing his position to this House and to the country at large. But proceeding on this line a little further, I find that the hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), speaking on the budget on April 10, 1924, seemed to lament the fact that we were shut out of the American market. He said:

We would further expect something to be done to help the Canadian farmer who to-day is shut out by an absolute barrier from his natural market to the south.

If this statement which the hon. gentleman expressed in the debate last year was correct on April 10, 1924, was it net also correct in 1911, when hon. members opposite shut us out of that market, and shut us out in the Maritime provinces to the detriment of those provinces possibly for all time to come? Yet those hon. members to-day will stand up in this chamber and say: "The government

should do something to let the Canadian farmer into the market to the south of them, which is their natural right." I think this is

fMr A. E. MacLean.]

so amusing that we can hardly realize that the hon. gentleman would express such sentiments, and as an hon. member suggests, a real and national tragedy was enacted at that time involving the infliction of a great wrong on the people of Canada. Discussing the matter further the ex-Minister of Finance says:

The tariff has nothing to do with the difficulties of the farmer.

He gave us three causes for it, hard times, the practically prohibitive tariff of the United States directed in the main against farm products, the deflation of prices applicable to grain and live stock, and the loss of the purchasing power of the great consuming country due to the war. Here again the hon. gentleman stresses the fact that file United States is our only market, and again I ask, if it was right on April 10, 1924, ivhal was wrong with it in 1911 when our friends, with the assistance of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, diut us out of that market, probably for all time to come?

In this connection I wish to point out to my hon. friends in the section of the House almost directly opposite to me, what the manufacturers' attitude is to-day in regard to this same question, and I quote from the Financial Times of April 10, 1924, shortly after the last budget speech was delivered. This paper is published in Montreal, and the article reads:

The Manufacturers' Association at their meeting stated as follows: " The future seems clear for an

out-and-out struggle between two ''-

Mark these words:

-" between two, not three, political groups for the maintenance or destruction of the fiscal policy that was brought into effect in 1878."

The Manufacturers' Association realize that the aims and objects of our friends of the Progressive party and of a large majority, I must say, if not all, but, I hope, of all of the Liberal party, are the same, and it is their duty at the next eleotion to go out and fight both the Progressive party and the Liberal party on this issue. The article continues :

It may be that the manufacturers and labour elements in eastern Canada will be forced to take up the gauge. The tariff, unfortunately, has been thrust again into the political arena. The manufacturers must remember, therefore, that it is votes that count, and they must be prepared to justify a protective policy to the electors, to the consumer, if they are to win out in the political fight.

If who is to win out? I ask hon. gentlemen whom this has reference to. Is it any political party that is going to win out? No, they say, if we are going to win out; if the

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

Manufacturers' Association are going to win

out! It is their election and they say: We

must join with the Labour party and go out and defeat those two other parties, the Liberals and the Progressives.

As their official champions in the federal field the Conservative leaders should be prepared to dispense with the extreme exaggerated attitude and statements that set forth their views on the present budget. Mr. Meighen's first interview was hardly the carefully considered, serious, statesmanlike opinion that the country had the right to expect. It too, was strongly tinged with political considerations.

As we have urged before, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, if it enters the fight officially, must make it clear that it holds a reasonable view on " protection," and that it is quite prepared, and, indeed, will insist on periodic revisions of the tariff not only upwards-

Mark those words.

-but in a downward direction where manufacturers are taking advantage of excessive customs duties to bear too heavily on the average consumer. Extreme demands can only alienate support.

Hon. members will notice that they endeavour to camouflage that a little at the last, but let them go out and defeat those two parties at the next election, and I can *assure the people of this country and hon.

members of this House that the 9 pan. revision of the tariff will certainly not be downwards, but be upwards with a vengeance. I do not know whether I am within my rights or not, but I am going to take a long shot at it and say that whoever sees another campaign fought in this country will see the money which has been extracted from the pockets of the consumers by the Manufacturers' Association thrown into that campaign to defeat the two parties which I have just mentioned. I will not withdraw or qualify that statement, and if they succeed it will not be the Conservative party that will be in power but the Manufacturers' Association.

We have endeavoured to deal with the tariff to some extent, and we have pointed out some of the reasons for the falling off in revenue. Hon. gentlemen opposite and especially the ex-Miniister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) seemed to be very much concerned at the present time over the workmen. The hon. member seemed to be able to weave that word " workers " into his argument many times. I should like to ask that hon, gentleman if he has carefully considered the tariff revisions and what is the largest item in the whole tariff list of reductions. If the workers of this country are to succeed, the first essential is a reduction in the high cost of living. The largest item in the whole list of tariff reductions which became effective last year

is on the importation of sausage casings which stand in the list at $55,000 as a loss of Tevenue to this country. Will my hon. friends say in this House that this duty should be restored on this article which enters into an article of food that is bought by the working man every day of the year. I do not think that they will venture such an assertion. I also wish to show that in the total imports the tariff reductions are largely in the general tariff. The next largest item to the one to which I have referred is that of agricultural machinery. But taking the tariff reductions as a whole the reductions and the loss in revenue on the general tariff amount to $15,000,000. In the preferential tariff, as I pointed out before, the amount is about the same as that of the previous year. The treaty rates which were largely criticized in this House this year and last and which we were told were not worth the paper on which they were written, have worked out splendidly and we find that the imports under the treaty arrangements of 'last year from the different countries show an increase of something over $2,000,000; or in round figures, the imports under treaty rates in 1924 amounted to $5,731,000, while for the first ten months of this year they amounted to $7,916,000. Therefore, it is obvious that the treaty arrangements that have been entered into by this government have not only worked out splendidly from the standpoint of bringing in cheaper goods, but have had the effect of increasing the revenue. As I pointed out in the first portion of my remarks, it canuot be laid at the door of this government that the reduction in the duty was the cause of loss in revenue, because it has been plainly shown, and anyone who glances over the returns will see that the great loss in revenue was due to lack of importations, and no government can force people to buy or import against their will.

A good deal of the time of the House has been taken up with a discussion of loans to the railways. As I discussed that matter somewhat fully last session, I will not trouble the House with any further remarks regarding that question. A clipping which I have in my hand referring to Sir Henry Thornton reads:.

London, June 30, 1924.

King George received the premiers of the Canadian provinces at a garden party at Buckingham Palace. In questioning the visitors on Canadian affairs, His Majesty expressed very particular pleasure at the success of Six Henry Thornton as president of the Canadian National Railways. " You have taken a good man away from us in England," said the King.

1622 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

I do not think we want any higher tribute to the gentleman who is president of the Canadian National system at the present time. We have our grievances in the Maritime provinces, but the president of the road has paid us several visits and has done a great deal in the direction of remedying the situation. He has been very painstaking in every detail that has been brought to his attention, and although we have not obtained all the reductions which we had hoped for, nevertheless certain reductions have been made by means of which the Maritime provinces have |been placed on a very much better basis than in previous years. When we came into confederation we were supposed to receive certain rights but as time went on and so many different changes came about in the railway system those rights were gradually taken from us one by one until now they have almost completely disappeared. Have we ever studied the railway situation in this light? We have a great many government services in this country all of which possibly are essential; but I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that perhaps there is no service that can be rendered. by this government which is as essential to the people of Canada tojday as the service rendered by the Canadian National Railways. We spend millions on other services; do we get any returns? We may get returns in an indirect way, but it is a very indirect way indeed; and we do not get interest on our money nor do we see the results in any very tangible form. Now here is an institution which has given to the people of Canada a service which they could not possibly have got along without. We all hope the day is not far distant when this service will be on a paying basis; but until that time comes is it any crime that some assistance should be given to the Canadian National Railways by the government of Canada? I do not think it is. Someone will say, why is it that the Canadian Pacific Railway is able to get along and pay dividends while the Canadian National Railways are hardly able to meet operating expenses? My answer to that question is this: The Canadian Pacific

Railway built its roads into those portions of the country where dividends were in sight, whereas the Canadian National system was built into those sections of Canada that needed to be opened up so that the great hinterlands of the north might be settled. That in my opinion is the answer to such a question. The Canadian Pacific Railway went

after dividends, and in doing so they built their roads where they expected the traffic to pay. The Canadian National Railways on the other hand have up to the present time been operated in the interests of the country and if they have not been as successful as their rival the reason I think is just as I have stated.

It may not be of interest to the House to know this, but I may say that before coming to Ottawa to attend the present session I prepared at the request of the railway commissioners a brief which I submitted to the management of the Canadian National Railways in regard to reductions. We felt that we had certain grievances in Prince Edward Island which called for some remedy, and after gathering all the information that I could upon the subject I submitted this brief to the Canadian National and have received their reply. With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place this statement on Hansard: It is most interesting to the people of the Maritime provinces and it deals with questions affecting not only Prince Edwrard Island but also the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The management endeavoured to meet us as best they could, and I may observe here that they have before them other items which they state will receive their careful consideration.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I must point out to the

hon. member that no statement not read in the House may be incorporated in Hansard without the consent of the House.

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

I understood

that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I asked the permission of the House.

Mr. STEVENS:

I suggest that the hon.

member read the statement. We are interested in the views of his province in regard to these matters.

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

I have no objection to reading it if the hon. member insists.