Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

How do they know that some of the American wheat shipped by way of Montreal is not credited to Canada instead of to France? The whole point is this: the government have made some very foolish trade arrangements; in fact, they have never yet made a wise one, and they are endeavouring now by repudiation of their own records to bolster up these treaties and to make them appear better than they are. I would direct the attention of the minister to this fact-and it is a fact-that it is a part of the policy of the United States, and has been for years, to encourage the importation into that country of raw material and to work up that raw material into the finished article, thereby giving employment to their own people. In pursuance of that policy over half of the imports of the United States are in raw form and 53 per cent of all they export is in jhe manufactured state. Exactly the reverse is true so far as Canada is concerned. According to this record I have here, be it worth what it may, 26.6 of our total imports is now in the raw state as compared with 28.9 in 1922, and we are importing 64.9 per cent of fully manufactured goods as compared with 61.5 per cent in 1922. So that, measured by the standard the minister himself suggests, we are fully manufacturing less goods now than we did some years ago when this government came into power. Consequently there are fewer people engaged in our industrial enterprises and there is less employment. It is a fact that we do export 73 per cent of our wood and wood

products in the raw state, and we import 64 per cent of such products finished outside of Canada. Canada exports 87 per cent of her metals raw and imports 87 per cent of metal products more or less finished.

In order to present the matter as it impresses me I would like to refer to one particular article; I refer to asbestos, which we export in the raw state to the value of $10,000,000. Those exports go to some ten or twelve different countries, mainly to the United States but also to France, Japan, Austria and so on. The value of the raw rock exported to the United States is about $7,000,000; that is finished in the United States, after which it is worth some $36,000,000. There are 49 factories in the United States engaged in working up that raw material, giving employment to 6,129 people and having a payroll of $7,692,000. On this side of the house our contention is that the government have been indifferent and lax in encouraging the manufacture of our raw materials in Canada to the extent to which we believe they could be fully manufactured here.

Now I wish to refer to New Zealand for a moment; the hon. gentleman said, " Oh, we export goods to the value of some $15,000,000 to New Zealand," and he charged that hon. members on this side would scrap those exports because of our imports of butter from that country. That is not stating the case fairly; we are just as anxious to deal with other countries as are hon. gentlemen opposite, but we hope we never will be guilty of the mistakes they have made in their trade arrangements with other countries. May I remind my hon. friend that previous to the negotiation of this trade arrangement with New Zealand our exports to that country were about $1,500,000 more than they 'were last year. With respect to the dairy industry, the hon. gentleman laboured very hard indeed to bring forth an excuse which would be acceptable to his own side of the house and which might be swallowed by the country at large. He said, " Oh, it is true that we export less cheese and butter, but our milk is being made up in other forms." Very well; again we will take the hon. gentleman at his word and I will refer to another publication issued under his authority, which shows that our total milk production in 1927 was less by nearly 500,000,000 pounds than it was in 1926. I will give the figures; approximately 13,000,000,000 pounds of milk in 1927 and about 13,407,000,000 in 1926, and according to the same authority our production of milk in 1928 was even less. If the Prime Minister were here I would like to

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)

ask him if he believes that the New Zealand arrangement has worked an injury to the farmers; if you like we will admit that the Australian treaty has some advantageous points to it, but in the absence of the Prime Minister I would ask the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat if he will not agree with me when I say that the New Zealand arrangement has worked an injury to the farmers of this country. Will he admit that?

Mr. MALCOLM:

I have just made a

speech on it; I think it is a good trade arrangement.

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

Then my

hon. friend does not admit the injury to the farmers?

Mr. MALCOLM:

My hon. friend can

take any inference he pleases from my speech; it will be in Hansard to-morrow.

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

Then will

the Minister of Finance venture to say whether or not the farmers of this country have been injured because of the arrangement with New Zealand? He is busy at present so perhaps he will think it over. The reason I have asked these questions is because on September 21, 1925, the Prime Minister made a speech in the town of Woodstock; referring to [DOT] this Australian treaty, which was to take effect on October 1 following, he said:

There is one condition of that treaty which says that we are free to alter or to abrogate it altogether on six months notice. I say to the farmers of Oxford that if the Australian treaty does any injury to your industry I will undertake to say on behalf of the government that I will give that six months notice on short order.

Who said that?

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

The Prime

Minister said that on September 21, 1925. Now I would like to direct the attention of the house to a further fact; the Australian treaty came before this house and the representatives of the people in parliament were given an opportunity to express their opinions for or against it, but it was only after dissolution that the cabinet, consisting of some sixteen or seventeen gentlemen, sat around a table here and by order in council made the treaty arrangement with New Zealand without any previous negotiation and without our receiving anything in return. That is what I find fault with.

Just here I want to say that I believe a wrong impression is going about that the advantages of this treaty had to be extended to New Zealand, and in that connection I quote a section from the act itself:

.... subject to the customs tariff, 1907, the governor in council may, by order in council, extend the said advantages to gpods the produce or manufacture of any British country.

It was on the strength of that section that the cabinet extended these advantages to New Zealand, and that action was taken just five days after the Prime Minister made his speech in Woodstock. Was the Prime Minister dealing fairly with the farmers of Oxford county when he spoke to them on September 21 with regard to Australia and said nothing about an arrangement with New Zealand, or are we to infer that on that date the government had no intention of extending this treaty to New Zealand and that that was the reason the Prime Minister made no mention of it? This is just one of those autocratic acts which have characterized this government ever since it came into office.

With regard to this arrangement with New Zealand I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to one or two figures showing the results of this unprofitable bargain and the effect which it has had on the dairy industry and the farmers of this country. In 1926 our imports of butter from New Zealand amounted to 3,193,382 pounds; in 1927 they had increased to 8,714,985 pounds; in 1928 this increased to 16,124,641 pounds, and the trade commissioner for New Zealand estimates that in 1929 New Zealand will send to Canada double the quantity sent in 1928. Then I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the fact that last year we imported 16,801,656 pounds of butter, and taking the figures given by his own department as to the milk production of the average cow, that importation would equal the production of

84.000 cows; allowing 10 cows to a farm that would give a good start to 8,400 farms, and allowing 5 people to a farm it would mean something to 42,000 people. I would add to that this further fact: Since this arrangement was entered into we exported last year 35,000,000 pounds of cheese less than we did before this arrangement was made. That would represent the production of 83,000 cows on 8,300 farms and would affect 41,500 people. Add these two together, and the result of the improvident bargain which was made would be equal to the production of

167.000 cows on 16,700 farms affecting 83,500 people. It is a significant fact that while the number of milch cows in Canada has decreased 101,000, according to the minister's own report, and the number of swine has decreased 197,422 in the last year, the dairy herds of New Zealand have increased during the last twelve months by 57,000 cows, and

952 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)

the number of swine by 66,755. We used 347,000,000 pounds less of milk in the production of butter in 1926 than we did in 1927; we used 377,000,000 pounds less in the production of cheese, but although a little more was used in other ways our total production of milk was less than it was before this arrangement was entered into.

I would draw this further fact to the attention of the minister to show him that the prosperity he speaks of is not general throughout the Dominion of Canada. I call his attention to the exports of certain farm products, such as pork, bacon and hams, lard, cheese, butter, milk and cream, milk-condensed, evaporated or as milk powder. When he studies the figures relative to the export of the surpluses of those articles, closely identified with this trade arrangement, he will find that for the last calendar year our exports of pork were $900,000 less than before this arrangement was made; our exports of bacon and hams $20,000,000 less; cheese, $8,250,000 less; butter, $8,000,000 less; milk and cream, $1,400,000 less; and milk-condensed, evaporated or as milk powder-$1,400,000 less. Previous to our entering into this arrangement the exporting of the surpluses of these products brought into the pockets of the farmers of the Dominion of Canada the tidy sum of $88,115,725. The figures for last year, two years after we entered into this arrangment,. show that, the farmers received only $47,179,797. That is to say, the action of this government has decreased the revenue of our farmers by over $40,000,000. I do not expect the Minister of Trade and Commerce to be very much affected by those figures, because I note that he is reported in the Goderich Signal, a Liberal paper, of August 16, 1923, as saying:

[DOT] ^jlic farmers are the most dissatisfied men m the Dominion of Canada.

He said the farmer's occupation was essentially a labouring job. That is true, it is a labouring job and it is not receiving very much encouragement under this administration. The article continues:

. The fact of the matter is that the farmer is spending more to-day than 100 acres will ever yield.

He deprecated the 'tendency to take more from a job than the job would earn and declared that the farmer should live on the money he actually earned. He said a mechanic could only have a mechanic's living at the best. He advocated' the importation of raw labour for the carrying on of our public works, and called attention to the fact that in years gone by the Irish came here and did

LMr. J. \V. Edwards.]

this work. They were unfitted to do anything else, and that is the reason they did this labouring work.

Mr. STEVENS:

Who said that?

Mr. EDWARDS:

The Minister of Trade and Commerce. He then went on to say that the Italians came over and took the place of the Irish, and now the Slavs were the pick-and-shovel men of North America. All of this would seem to be indicative of the heartfelt sympathy the Minister of Trade and Commerce has for those who labour. The article continues:

Mr. Malcolm contended that Canada should continue to import raw labour which will live humbly and which will do a day's work for a reasonable fate of pay. Canada's development depends upon plenty of cheap labour.

And so his colleague, the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), has brought into this country during the last two years, according to the statement of his deputy minister, over

100,000 men from central and southeastern Europe and has dumped them into the cities to rob good Canadians of their jobs and force them to leave this country and go to the other side of the line.

I am sure that every member of the house was very pleased when the honour came to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) of being created a doctor of laws (by one of the universities. It is said that universities occasionally confer that honoured degree upon men of wealth with the object of having them make a large donation to an endowment fund, but in the case of the Minister of Agriculture I do not think anyone will say that it was done for that purpose. Undoubtedly this degree was conferred upon the Minister of Agriculture because of his outstanding merit and because of certain distinctive qualities which he possesses in a very high degree. I am glad to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) applauding so heartily, and I hope the same honour will come to him some day. What were the distinctive qualities which caused this university to confer the LL.D. upon the Minister of Agriculture? It seems to me that the one thing in which he excels, above all others, is in the vast number of new words and phrases which he has added to the English language, and the dignity he has given to slang and to political buffoonery. The minister took a trip over to Europe and he took along his car and chauffeur. Before he left he had emblazoned on the door of his oar the coat of arms of Canada, and it was the duty of the chauffeur to explain to the people who gathered round to see this wonderful automobile that the insignia on the door

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)

of the automobile represented the coat of arms of Canada and that it was one of the things with which the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) had not up to date interfered. What did the Minister of Agriculture do over there? He says that he visited Holland Denmark, Sweden, and Ireland. And for what? I use his own words: "I went over there and I examined the live hogs of all of our competitors." While he was examining hogs-and I hope he fared better than did the prodigal son of ancient times-his chauffeur was explaining the coat-of-arms. As he passed through the country in a blaze of glory, it looked to the people of France as though Napoleon had come to life again, and as he went through Germany the little children shouted " Hoch der Kaiser 1" The minister says that he has used certain yardsticks and that by all the yardsticks which indicate prosperity this is a prosperous country.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Yes.

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

The Minister of Public Works says yes. Let me direct this question to him: Is it not true that in

his constituency any man can go out and buy hundreds of farms for the price of the buildings with the land thrown in? He knows that is a fact.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I might say to my hon.

friend, if he will permit me-

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

I will not

permit him to take up my time.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

My hon. friend has asked

me a question. There is no port of Canada where an intending purchaser of a beautiful farm can do better than in the county of Middlesex.

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

I get my

confirmation from the minister himself, although he did not intend his remark in that way. He says that an intending purchaser can come into his county and buy a beautiful farm cheaper than in any other part of the country and he wants that understood. But what about the man who is selling the farm? Is it a yardstick of prosperity that hundreds of thousands of Canadians are leaving this country and going to the other side of the line in order to get jobs? Is it not true that millions of dollars are being spent in bringing hundreds of thousands of aliens into Canada to take the place of Canadians who have been deprived of jobs in this country? Is it an evidence of prosperity that we tear down whole city blocks in Ottawa and the Minister of Agriculture 'intimated that the intention was, in the course of time, to rip out all the

buildings along Wellington street and make it all a park? I suppose that will include the post office also. The Minister of Agriculture very properly held that a minister should be informed. Yes, of course, he should be informed. I presume it is just as well, when he goes trotting around Europe in a high-priced car, to take his chauffeur along with him so that he can be informed too and pick up some crumbs of information that the minister might otherwise miss.

I should like to direct attention to the importance of our home market. The home market for Canadian farm products based on the average of the last four years and indicating the percentage of the total production consumed in Canada, works out as follows:

Article

Cheese

Milk, condensed or evaporated

or as milk powder

Butter

ZU per

51 per cent 95 per cent

Last year the amount of butter consumed in Canada was 99 per cent of what we produced. Let me direct attention to a statement which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) will remember having made in 1925. He said that the policy of the government was to encourage *the bringing into Canada of butter, eggs and so forth from New Zealand, and that we would sell ours in the United Kingdom. May I remind the hon. gentleman that in 1926 we bad a market in England for more than 18,000,000 pounds of butter, and that last year we bad a market for 47,000 pounds. Instead of our finding a market in England for our surplus butter, last year England shipped to Canada 1,300,000 pounds of butter.

Mr. ROBB:

Because the price was three

and a half to four cents a pound higher.

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, no westerner can be

very enthusiastic over the budget. Even the member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) admitted that it did not contain much meat, but he seemed to find some solace in the fact that he could discover no poison.

I am inclined to think a good many of us are becoming rather weary of this negative goodness, in fact, I do not know whether we can even call it goodness. It is simply a stand-pat attitude. It is quite true that there is no further reduction in the income tax, and for that we are duly thankful. But there are practically no concessions to the western farmers, and, as far as labour is concerned, I am afraid that we are not particularly interested in the items of the budget. I recall an ancient condemnation of the Laodiceans, "I know thy works, that thou are neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth." Some of the hon. members are inclined to say of the budget: Because you are neither too

cold nor too hot, I think I can swallow you.

The amendment suggests that there is no provision for reasonably safeguarding and protecting the interests of those engaged in agricultural pursuits or in industrial employment in Canada. Perhaps it is hoped by the Conservatives that by taking such a position they may be able to attract the votes of those who are here specially representing the farmer or industrial groups. I am afraid, however, this amendment is altogether too general in its terms, and, as interpreted by the speeches, it simply means the old time-wom doctrine of protection.

May I point out, Mr. Speaker, without developing the subject, that protection of in-

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

dustry has never meant the protection of workers in industry. If it did, it might be some temptation to some of us to vote protection. But never yet, as far as I have been able to study the situation either in Canada or elsewhere has protection of industry meant protection of the workers. There was a very good suggestion contained in the report of the committee in Sydney which investigated the conditions among the steel workers. I referred to this report in my speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The report to the ministerial association called attention to the fact that for the continuous operations in the steel works, that is, consisting of the coke ovens, blast furnaces and open hearth departments, approximately one thousand men a day are involved. The day shift is eleven hours and the night, thirteen, throughout a seven-day week. That is, the men in those departments work on an average of eighty-four hours every week, sixty-six during the week on day duty and one hundred and two for the week on night duty. Nothing whatever is being done for those men, and the federal government tells us that it has no jurisdiction. The report says, and I think very pertinently:

We recommend that representations be made immediately to the federal Department of Labour and to the Prime Minister of Canada, urging that if and when the steel companies of Canada are allowed a protective tariff, provision be made for the men receiving the standard hours of labour adopted by the parliament of Canada, namely, the eight-hour day.

I would urge upon the government that if protection is to be accorded to this industry -and it already has received much at the hands of various governments of Canada-the least that could be done would be to insist that the workers be safeguarded, at least, to the extent of reasonable conditions of labour.

The member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) called attention to the unsatisfactory practice that at present prevails of the government bringing down a budget containing a great many different items and saying to the house: Take it or reject it. There is no alternative. In connection with a recent debate on another question, a sharp distinction was drawn by speakers on the government side between the respective functions of the administration and parliament, and we were told that the administration must assume the responsibilities for whatever course might be taken. Now, I know that has been the practice, but I would submit that there is no reason why it should forever continue to be the practice. In some respects the Prime Minister and the present government are more Tory than the Tory

administration in Great Britain. In this connection I would venture to call the attention of hon. members to a very interesting report presented to the British house by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Amery. It deals with a suggested constitution for the island of Ceylon, and is the result of the work of a special commission presided over by the Right Hon. the Earl of Donoughmore. The report contains one or two paragraphs that I think might very well be taken to heart by this house. For instance, it is suggested that at the present time there is:

Uncertainty among those best informed as to the future form of parliamentary practice in Great Britain.

And:

Within political parties in Great Britain inquiries are constantly being undertaken to ascertain whether the machinery of parliament cannot be reformed so as to make it more responsive to public opinion.

Then will the house kindly listen to this- and it is from Conservative members of parliament in Great Britain:

We propose to take full advantage of the opportunities which we have enjoyed of gauging the deficiencies of current parliamentary practice and the direction in which the forces of constitutional evolution are now impelling us, and to frame our recommendations with the object of providing for Ceylon a form of government, modern, practical and democratic, *which will combine with the best elements of the parliamentary system, features designed to escape its ascertained and acknowledged weaknesses.

That is a remarkable statement coming from Lord Donoughmore and presented to the British house by the Conservative Secretary of State for the Colonies. The report goes on:

It is a scheme which is calculated to divert attention from the academic discussion of political theory to the practical consideration of the pressing administrative problems of the day.

How that would transform the discussions in this house 1

It is a scheme which, while giving responsibility as well as power, guarantees that political progress shall go hand in hand with administrative knowledge.

And further:

We have framed our proposals in some relation to the system obtaining in the most modern deliberative bodies of power and influence, such as the League of Nations. Here the representatives of the world powers, with all their varieties of races and outlook, have though fit to organize themselves on a basis of standing committees as the most convenient method of disposing of the program of administrative and detailed work which habitually

The Budget-Mr. Woodworth

confronts them, of facilitating practical achievement, of acquiring and distributing an exact knowledge of those problems which await solution, and of inspiring all members with that mutual confidence so essential to effective cooperation in the common interest.

The report proceeds to suggest a constitution under which the conduct of the business of the house will be divided into various committees, the members electing the chairmen of these committees, and the chairmen then becoming what we would call departmental ministers. I think such a modification might well merit the attention of this house. We cannot but think of its advantages as we are asked to say "yes" or "no" to the budget.

A great deal has been said pro and con in regard to our national prosperity. I have often wished I was in the happy position apparently enjoyed by some members of being able with a good conscience to say that all the people of Canada are happy and prosperous. Let me suggest that the various social and economic movements which are taking place do not altogether corroborate the idea of general prosperity. We can maintain our population only by importing the poverty-stricken people of Great Britain and the continent of Europe. During the period from 1921 to November, 1928, we expended on immigration no less than $16,242,219.03. Sixteen million dollars to beg people from Great Britain, Europe and the United States to come to this country I

Miss MACPHAIL:

And we cannot even keep them.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

No, as my hon. friend suggests, we cannot even keep them. I suggest that if we spent one-quarter of that sixteen million dollars in making conditions a little more tolerable in this country the results would be better for the nation. From 1881 to 1928 we received no less than 5,599,250 immigrants. Yet notwithstanding that addition we have hardly kept the population that we would have had we been able to retain our own native-born. That does not seem to reflect any very great and general prosperity throughout the Dominion. I am not blaming this particular government. In my judgment the doings of this or that government do not matter very much in regard to these great economic problems, but I do say it is absolutely absurd for the government in the face of such movements to suggest that the great mass of the people are prosperous.

Then again there is the general shift from the country to the city, so that now over half of our population lives in urban centres. I am not one of those who believe it is possible to retain a great majority of the people in the country. I think machinery has been introduced to such an extent that we can hardly hope for that condition. But undoubtedly it is because the agriculturists of this country, and indeed the agriculturists of the United States, have been placed in such an adverse position that there has come this very swift shift from country to city. Further than that, there has come a very decided shifting of employment from the truly productive to what might be called the merely luxury occupations. As far back as 1917 Mr. W. J. Hanna, the food controller, put this very well:

That there have long been too many city people and too few farmers in ^ this Dominion is common knowledge, but it is not so well known that among our city people there are too many mere distributors, too many shippers, packers, carriers, wholesalers, retailers, advertisers, printers, salesmen, brokers, sub-brokers, deputy brokers, assistant-sub-deputy brokers and the whole army of people in the services and professions that wait upon the middleman.

I do not say that the functions of these nonproducers could be done away with, but I do say that there were and there are too many for each function-too much duplication of effort and equipment. . . . This inflated staff of non-producers, not only in Toronto but in every Canadian city and town, was and still is, dependent for its wages upon the movement of farm goods to the city and city goods to the farm, and all the over-specialized, overelaborated processes which a luxurious civilization imagines are necessary to its happiness.

We have to face that situation at the present time.

Futhermore, I suggest that the diminution in the birth rate is not altogether satisfactory. In 1921 the birth rate was 26-4, and from 1921 to 1926 it had fallen to 22. In eight provinces of Canada, Quebec excepted, there was a loss of 4-4; while Quebec dropped from 37-6 in 1921 to 32-1 in 1926, showing a loss of 5-5 points. In other words, there is a greater drop for the province of Quebec than for the other provinces of the Dominion. Or take the figures as given us in the census returns of families according to numbers. The number without children is 30-6 per cent; the number of families with one child, 20'9 per cent-that is to say, half of all the families in Canada have either no children or only one child; the number with two children is 16-7; the number with three children, 11-6; the number with four children, 8-0; the number with five children, 5-3; and the number with six and up, 8 * 7. I venture to suggest that the reason for the decrease in the size of families, while in part doubtless due to higher standards and even to the desire for certain luxuries, is also due to the fact that in the middle and wage-earning classes it

The Budget-Mr. W oodsworth

has become simply impossible for people to attempt to rear families of even a moderate size. They cannot afford to have families.

The unemployment and misery existing in some of our eastern cities was very well depicted a day or two ago by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). In this connection may I direct attention to a very suggestive editorial in this morning's Citizen, from which I quote the last paragraph:

Well informed members like Mr. Bell must know enough of history to realize that only the most exceptional conditions under the present economic system can produce a situation where there are no employed, and hence no extreme poverty. They must know that a reserve of unemployed is one of the most helpful factors in the successful functioning of our present industrial order.

I wonder whether we all accept that. I* does not come from some radical journal, but from the Ottawa Citizen.