Mr. NEILL:

Hear, hear.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

Mr. SPEAKER:

May I be allowed to

remind the house that there is another rule, No. 12, section 3 of which states positively:

When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.

Now, I am familiar enough with the amenities of debate to know that when the member who has the floor accepts an interruption, and is willing to answer it, there can be no objection to the interruption. Furthermore, it goes without saying that he must be credited with the time lost in answering such interruption. But I would ask hon. members to bear in mind that when interruptions become-shall I say?-riotous, that is, when they come from all parts of the house, the hon. member who has the floor cannot make an intelligible speech, and therefore I would ask the house to see to it that the debates are carried on in such a manner as to obviate confusion. For my part, I do not object to an interruption, but when the hon. member addressing the house has to meet so many interruptions that he does not know where to begin or where to end, I think it is time for the Speaker to intervene. Let us not defeat the forty-minute rule. It is a good rule.

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways): On the basis of your ruling to-day, as contrasted with your ruling yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I think I am entitled to about ten minutes more time.

Mr. NEILL:

Mr. Speaker, I was only asking that the rule be enforced in accordance with the assurances given last year.

Mr. SPEAKER:

To give effect to the

forty-minute rule I shall have to prevent all interruptions according to section 3 of rule 12.

Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):

Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock last night I was advocating that more Dominion notes be put into circulation to take the place of the bank notes of our chartered banks, and so save considerable money to the Dominion. I also recommended that a higher rate of interest should be paid on deposits in the post office savings banks, with the idea of effecting a saving to the government on their borrowings.

I come now to the last phase of my address. This seventh budget of a Liberal administration is, I think I am safe in saying, fairly satisfactory to the hon. members of the Conservative party, but is not at all satisfactory to a very large number of the government's supporters, and certainly cannot be accepted by the members of the groups in this corner of the house. Several hon. members have said that the government has tinkered with the tariff in the latest budget proposals. No less than 122 items of the tariff have been struck out and 159 substituted. Taking it all in all, a study of the tariff discloses that whatever benefit is to flow from this tinkering will be to the advantage of the manufacturers rather than the consumers of this countiy.

As a basis for what I am about to say, may I be permitted to read a resolution which was passed at the convention of the Liberal party held in Ottawa in 1919. It is as follows:

That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation be made, with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance; first, diminishing the high cost of hving which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second, reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.

That to these ends, wheat, wheat flour, all products of wheat, the principal articles of food, farm implements, and machinery, farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery and repair parts thereof, roughly and partly dressed lumber, gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, nets, net twines, fishermens equipments, cements and fertilizers should be free from customs duties as well as the raw material entering into the same.

That a revision dowmward of the tariff snorilci be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption other than luxuries, as well as the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.

That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.

And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution ivhen returned to power.

The Budget-Mr. Spencer

I want the house to visualize for a moment the extent to which that important resolution has been carried out by the Liberal party since they came into power. I admit that a portion of it has been carried out, but only under pressure from certain groups in this house when the government found themselves in a very difficult position and were struggling to keep power. This resolution, this program, this platform, has been preached day in and day out, year in and year out by the Liberal party from one end of the country to the other. It has not been preached very much in this house. It is a good device for getting votes, but so far as the government is concerned it is not something upon which to base legislation.

I desire to put on record the tariff clause enunciated to the house a few days ago by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Paragraph 5 of his statement reads:

5. The reduction of the customs tariff or the imposition of higher excise taxes, whenever and wherever necessary, to prevent the immoral use or abuse of the existing tariff, or any unfair advantage being taken of the tariff, as for example by those who would resort to profiteering by exacting unduly high prices for their products from domestic consumers, under the protecting elements of the existing tariff.

I know perfectly well that hon. members on the government side will say, as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) said yesterday, "Oh well, they don't mean that; they won't keep their promise." If that is so, I ask, what is the difference between the two parties? The Liberals say that the Conservatives will not keep their promises, but we know full well as a matter of fact, from the experience of the last few years, that the Liberals do not keep theirs.

The Minister of Railways, in addressing the house yesterday, said some pretty harsh things with respect to the smaller groups in this house. Other hon. members have also said harsh things, and bitter things were said in 1926 when the small group of twenty-three were in a most difficult position, holding, to use the common phrase, the balance of power. It was said that these twenty-three would be entirely wiped out at the ensuing election. But the people of this country are realizing that more and more they must turn to independent groups, and so much is that the fact that at the following election, not only was every one of those members returned, but eight more were added to their number. Of the thirty-one that were returned, ten of them, for reasons best known to themselves, took their seats on the government side of the house, not as part of the government members but

among them. In my opinion, if those members had stayed in their old position we should to-day have a very different budget from that which we are now discussing. To use the words of the Minister of Railways,

I suppose log-rolling is a good deal easier on that side of the house. We hope our confreres who have left us, temporarily as we trust, will some time come back. I am very much afraid, however, it is another case of the old story about the lady who took a ride on the tiger.

There is not the slightest doubt about this fact, that the budget is not at all acceptable to the majority in this house, had hon. members what they consider real freedom in the expression of their opinions. If, for instance, we had a set term of years for parliament and there was no possible chance of going to the country in the event of the budget being defeated, if moreover each hon. member had the opportunity, and took advantage of it, of expressing his absolute opinion with regard to this budget, I am confident that it would not meet with the approval of the majority. Unfortunately, however, under our present parliamentary rules and usages I do not suppose there is a single member on the government side belonging to the Liberal party, irrespective of the degree in which he dislikes the budget, who will stand in his place and vote against it. I say, therefore, that there is a tremendous responsibility at the door of those ten members who sit on the government side of the house because, whatever we do from this corner, we cannot without their support, be successful in trying to get the government to carry out its own program. As this budget does not carry out the expressed promises of the government in the past, and does not give relief to the masses of the people. I find myself compelled to support the sub-amendment.

Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):

It is not my intention to discuss at length the merits of the Robb budget. Our colleague in the government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), has been, I think, particularly fortunate in all his budgets, and the Robb budget to-day is looked upon by the Canadian people as probably no budgets have 'been under other administrations in times gone by. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Spencer) read a resolution which was brought before a convention of Liberals in 1919 and I am very glad he did so. He suggested that the government had nibbled at this resolution but had not carried it out. We know better than that, and the people of Canada know better, because the items mentioned in that resolution

908 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. King (Kootenay)

have all, I think, been dealt with by this parliament during the time the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been leading this party. I know, coming from the province of British Columbia, that those engaged in the saw milling business, in mining, in fishing, and in agriculture do appreciate the fact that the government acted upon that resolution, and that their action has been helpful to these primary industries. And it is due to the fact that these primary industries have been thus enabled to flourish that we have to-day in Canada the condition of prosperity that exists.

The resolution to which my hon. friend has referred, and which Liberals can claim to have received throughout the country the endorsement of those engaged in primary industries, brings to mind the peculiarities of this debate. Experience is supposed to be a good teacher, but apparently hon. gentlemen opposite will not be taught, because during this debate we have heard the same arguments as were advanced every year from 1921 to 1925, all attempting to show that on account of the Liberal party Canada was not a good country to live in and that therefore many young Canadians were going to the United States. Hon. gentlemen opposite have advertised that fact through the medium of the press of this country, the United States, and abroad, and have left the impression that they as a party advocate that our young people should leave Canada to go to the United States and enjoy greater prosperity there.

That is not correct.

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

That is the only assumption to be taken.

Mr. BENNETT:

It is untrue.

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

That point was

very well dealt with by my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm). One peculiar thing about history is that it repeats itself, and fortunately for the Liberal party history is now repeating itself again. The only time during the history of Canada when our young people were not seeking employment in the United States was when Sir Wilfrid Laurier headed the government of this country, and we have reason to believe that the policies instituted by this government are bringing about a repetition of that very important condition.

My hon. friends opposite held a national convention during the fall of last year in the city of Winnipeg.

It was a dandy,

too.

[Mr. J. H. King,}

Mr. KLNG (Kootenay):

I agree with my hon. friend; it was a dandy convention, and as a result we now have our good friend the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) as leader of the opposition. With the Prime Minister and other members of this government I congratulate hon. gentlemen opposite on their selection of the man who now occupies that position. But is it not rather amazing both to the people of Canada and the members of this house that during the course of this debate we have not had one reference, to my knowledge-and I have been fairly constant in my attendance-t-o the resolutions passed at that convention as indicating the policy of the Conservative party? Our friends opposite are here to advocate the policies of their party, but we are told by one who is in close touch with them that these resolutions were not intended to outline the policy of the Conservative party but were merely passed for the purpose of being used in those localities where they would receive popularity. To prove my assertion I have only to refer to the resolution passed by that convention with reference to oriental immigration, which was sponsored by the Conservative members from British Columbia. I make that reference because there never has been an election in British Columbia since 1900, provincial or federal, during which the Conservative party have advocated a white British Columbia, and hon. gentlemen opposite cannot point to one act of the Borden government or of the Meighen government either before or after the war by which they undertook to control that immigration.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Do not all speak at once.

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

No, they will not speak. But despite the advice of some of the older statesmen who had some knowledge of conditions within the empire, this convention passed the resolution in order that the Conservative party might go to British Columbia and say, " Here is what we stand for."

Mr. ESLING:

What would you say in British Columbia?

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

I have always stood for a reasonable and sound policy in that regard.