June 7, 1922

CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

Does not that constitute protection for Switzerland's industries?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I do not say it does not. It is a temporary condition though, as I shall try to show to my hon. friend. In the same issue I read an excerpt from a speech by a prominent Belgian statesman. At a banquet of the French Chamber of Commerce in Brussels Monsieur Janson spoke as follows:

We fear to see the era when France still more wrongly inspired, accentuating her policy of protectionism, shall condemn us truly, because, in my opinion, it would be a condemnation, to resort, three years after peace, to a policy of retaliation. If we mean to maintain and increase the sympathy which we have for France, if we mean to keep as much as circumstances permit this military accord created between us, we must develop this sympathy, this agreement, in realizing between us this economic "entente" to which Mr. Houtard alluded. We must say to the Frenchman, because it is the undeniable that every time that between you and us the barrier of protective duties will be raised the necessary wall of defence which we have built on the eastern frontier shall be torn down. On the political ground, as well as the economic ground, it is necessary tlhat France and Belgium should go together.

I have also the issue of May 12, 1922, of The Economic Review, in which it is stated that Holland, Belgium and Sweden were awaiting the results of the Genoa Conference before deciding to protect themselves more substantially against the goods of the other country. Here is what I read there:

The decision of the Government to postpone until after the Genoa Conference consideration of the policy to be pursued in the face of the unfair competition to which the country is exposed as a result of the fall of various exchanges is fully justified, in the opinion of the Rotterdammer, by the attitude adopted by other neutral countries, and it quotes with approval the complaint made by M. Branting that the governments of these countries, notwithstanding a close community of interests, have no concerted policy with regard to the stabilisation of the rates of exchange and the abolition of Customs barriers. In the event of the Genoa Conference proving abortive, Sweden and Belgium, according to the Socialist statesman, will be driven to building up Customs tariffs for their protection against the competition of countries with a depreciated currency, and tihe Rotterdammer fails to see how Holland Will be able to abstain from measures to regulate imports.

Spain has created four different tariffs. Two are applied to the various countries and two other tariffs, with CO per cent more, are applied to the countries which have depreciated currency. Of course, this will not be permanent; I hope it will not be, for I agree with my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) that economic and tariff wars always lead to real wars. But, Sir, every fair-minded Canadian will admit that under such circumstances, where free trade countries have to modify their tariff policy, it was our duty to act cautiously and not to enter too deeply on the path which other countries feel compelled to recede from temporarily.

I resent, therefore, the taunt that we have been untrue to the principles of the Liberal party. All the changes that have been made are in a downward direction, while other countries are moving the other way. Any more radical changes at this time would have been unwise, and perhaps dangerous; and we would have been unworthy of the trust conferred upon us had we taken our decision on preconceived notions and ignored the evidence and the facts existing at the time of making the decision. Is that a deviation from the principles enunciated in our programme? I submit that it is not. The various resolutions which have been read during this debate are declaratory of a principle, and by that principle I am willing to stand. The measure of the reform to be accomplished, the extent to which it is possible to accomplish it to-day, the time when it can be accomplished-all these depend on the exigencies of the hour, and no fair-minded man can seriously blame us for taking this view and acting in the way we did. Liberalism means evolution along reasonable and progressive lines. It holds the middle course between changes that would endanger our institutions and obstinate resistance to the spirit of the times. Sir, even the Manitoba Free Press, which is most friendly to my hon. friends of the Progressive party, said in an editorial, I think the day following the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, that nobody

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe

expected that the Government would make so many changes at this session. I believe that this will be the general opinion of the country, and that the budget will be universally accepted as the best that could be devised under the circumstances. As far as I am concerned I have no doubt that the country would vote for the adoption of the budget if it were submitted to it to-day.

The other day the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) referred to the supposed failure of the Liberal party to enforce the platform of 1893, and said that it had been called " the great apostasy." Well, my hon. friend was hardly fair. I believe that if there has been a breach of faith it has not been on the side of the Liberal party. The duties were reduced at various times; and when in 1911 the Minister of Finance brought forth his great measure of reform to establish reciprocity of trade in natural products between this country and the United States, who broke faith? My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) went down to defeat with his party at that time as did also that great veteran of Brant county, the late Hon. William Paterson. I was glad to hear my hon. friend say that he voted for Mr. Paterson on that occasion, but, surely, all those who elected him to this House failed to vote for Mr. Paterson.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

William Charles Good

Independent Progressive

Mr. GOOD:

Did the Liberal government, between 1896 and 1908, materially move in the direction of free (trade?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Well, perhaps, if it

had done it in 1908 many of the friends of my hon. friend would have defeated the party instead of defeating it in 1911. i My hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Wbods), who spoke in this debate, knows that almost all the farmers of his country voted against reciprocity in 1911. The same thing happened in most of the rural constituencies of Ontario and in many of the western constituencies. I heard my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) make an open confession that he voted against reciprocity. Well, he will be forgiven much for having so confessed. On the other hand, he is taking away some of the merit which he would have by saying immediately afterwards that the Liberals had been unfaithful to their pledges. Who was unfaithful on that occasion? Do we deserve to be told that we have not kept our pledges? When we tried to enforce them, we were defeated through not receiving the support of many of the hon. members who are now criticizing

us for not having done so. The policy of the Liberal party is not one of free trade, but of freer trade by way of a revenue tariff. That was the policy of the great leader under whom I am proud of having received my political education. By that policy I have always stood and by that policy I stand to-day. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has stated in some of his speeches that there are only two systems, protection and free trade, and that a tariff revenue meant protection.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I said two principles.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Two principles. Well I join issue with him in that statement. The very nature and essence of the protective duty is that it must prevent the exchange as between the foreign product and the domestic product. The very nature and essence of a revenue duty is that it exists only when an exchange takes place. The less the foreign product enters the country, the more the protective duty achieves its end; the more the foreign product enters a country the more the revenue duty achieves its end. When a duty has for its purpose the blocking of the entrance of other countries' goods at the expense of the national revenue, so that only the national goods can be bought and their price artificially made higher, it becomes a purely protective duty. There is the difference between the two programmes, and my hon. friend is mistaken when he says there is no difference between him and ourselves. In the language of a great French orator-

Nous ne mfritons pas eet exees d'honneur ni cette indignite.

We do not deserve this excess of honour nor this indignity. I do not wish to speak at any greater length, except, perhaps, to express my regret that certain exaggerated statements have been made during the course of debate. Conditions are, indeed, serious in Canada, as they are in every other part of the world, although they are better here, perhaps, than in any other country. Our agriculture in common with all other industries, has felt the effect of this world-wide crisis, but I do not think it makes for public good or for the improvement of conditions to say that agriculture is dying in Canada. I cannot let such a statement go unchallenged. In the part of the country with which I am best acquainted agriculture is not dying. The farmers have had better days at times in the past, they may have better days in

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe

the future; but at no time has their courage, their energy, and their spirit of hope been higher. Nor is it an evidence of the soundness of rhat argument to say that there is scarcity of pupils in certain schools. Mr. Speaker, when there are few children in the homes there cannot be many in the schools, and whatever may be said against protection this objectional fiscal system is not responsible fcr that condition of things. There was another statement which was made with which I am not in sympathy. I will not name the hen. member who made the statement, because she is the one in the House with whom I would least like to quarrel. She said, speaking of the condition in the country:

Everyone has tried to acquire capital by doing his fellowman, and if he could not do him well enough without legislation, he cleverly sought legislation to help him do the other fellow more successfully.

Well, this is an unfortunate statement. A great Canada cannot be built nationally or economically by the sowing of germs of suspicion, hatred, discord, and class war. It can only be done by the union and cooperation of all citizens and classes, and by the creation of a spirit of solidarity. I sincerely believe that such notes of despondency and discouragement must be avoided, if we wish our country to pass through the crisis which prevails at the present time. For Canadian manhood, and for Canadian womanhood, as well as for Christianity, hope is a cardinal principle. Canada must smile once more. If there is one thing I would, with their permission, urge upon my hon. friends in this House, it is, "keep smiling." I will be more emphatic, and I will ask my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition to start smiling. The electoral battle has been waged. The political atmosphere has been purified. Should we not ail co-operate for the progress and prosperity of Canada? Let my right hon. friend forget his disappointment. Let him forget that his fellow citizens, the electors of Canada, have shown what he seems to consider a lack of appreciation about himself. After all the country is still alive. Moses passes, Aaron passes, but the Ark remains. My right hon. friend is no longer Prime Minister of Canada, but the country still exists, and it needs co-operation. The country requires of the right hon. gentleman that he do nothing which (might hamper the efforts of those whose duty it is to lead her towards progress. I believe the Government has done a day's work. Of course,

it is not exempt from human weaknesses; it is not blessed with all of the human virtues.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance says "hear, hear." Let me tell him, however, that the present administration shines in comparison with other governments in that respect. He will admit with me, I think, that the Government is entitled to fair play on the part of all, and especially on the part of those whose mistakes it is its unfortunate duty to repair. These are my last words, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Simon Fraser Tolmie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria City) :

I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lapointe) who has just taken his seat. I have heard all of the criticisms which he has directed towards the right hon. member who leads the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), but I do not purpose replying to those criticisms because I believe, and I think the House will agree with me, that the leader of the official Opposition is quite capable of taking care of himself. I was rather surprised to hear the statement that the election of 1917 was simply to return a Parliament for the duration of the war. I do not know what had occurred previous to that time, because that was my first election experience. I do not know, however, that so far as my constituency was concerned-and I think I am safe in speaking for the whole of British Columbia-we did not believe that the Parliament that was being elected at that time was to function only during the war. We understood that it. would run the usual course, and I think that was the general understanding throughout the whole country.

Before taking up a few matters in relation to the budget I desire to join with other hon. members who have preceded me in congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on his achievement and on the years of excellent service which he has rendered this country. He has served in both provincial and federal governments and has a long record that is absolutely free from any besmirchment of any kind. At this late day it must therefore be a matter of deep gratification to him to feel that no one can point an accusing finger at him for anything that has not been proper during the whole of his public career. After all, that is the greatest possible reward a man could hope for after as many years

rhe Budget-Mr. Tolmie

in the public service as my hon. friend has put in. I wish to extend to him my best wishes for many years of good health and of usefulness in the future. I quite realize the difficulties with which he is faced in the present situation. His position is similar to that which has been experienced by ministers of finance from the commencement of the war up to the present time, a position fraught with difficulties that were never contemplated in the past history of Canada and that require the greatest degree of ability and intelligence if they are to be solved.

Now, among the items dealt with in the budget I notice my old friend the tariff on agricultural implements appearing again. The farmers have had conceded to them on this occasion a reduction of 2J per cent in that tariff, aggregating, I understand, something less than $250,000 a year; while, on the other hand, the sales tax represents a total increase of some $30,000,000. I have been looking with some interest to the farmers in some sections of the country where they had been demanding the entire removal of the tariff on agricultural implements, and I have been wondering how they will receive this concession of 2i per cent. It must, I am sure, be a great disappointment to those people who expected,when the results of the election were made known on December 6th last, that the present Government would usher in the new era. Some of these enthusiasts, no doubt, anticipated a wonderful change throughout the country; they believed that the tariff would be absolutely wiped out and that with the exit of that much abused government that had carried on the affairs of the country during the war and for the period immediately ensuing, all the ills of the country would be cured-they would have no more tariffs to bother with; would not be troubled with rust or hail; and that even the grasshopper in the western plains would lose his hop. Expecting all these things, they must have experienced a considerable jar when they were given this reduction of 2i per cent in the tariff. I wonder whether, after a careful survey of the situation, they will decide to laugh or to get angry. In my opinion the benefit of the tariff on agricultural implements, as it has been discussed in relation to the success of farming in this country, has been exaggerated to a very great extent. It has been used by politicians and stressed by them until it has almost developed into a humbug. There are many other matters of greater importance relating to agriculture that would

have brought much better results, such as better cultivation, the improvement of our live stock, the improvement of crops by the use of good seed, and so forth. The actual experiments on the government farms have shown an increase of from ten to 100 per cent in production by the use of first class seed, and I am sure that if half the energy and time that have been devoted to a fruitless discussion of the tariff on implements had been directed towards the improvement of farming in Canada, we should have had results amounting to millions as compared with a few hundred thousand dollars which the farmers will gain by the tariff concessions. However, we must not be too hard on this tariff on agricultural implements, because, in addition to having been an excellent instrument in the hands of opponents of the late government, it has no doubt helped to while away many a dreary winter's evening in the country districts.

With regard to the various budget proposals, I find that it is suggested that we shall have better trade relations with Australia. I would call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that when this question is being discussed there are some items that should not be lost sight of. Among hese I might mention beef, mutton and lamb, which can be produced in Australia and New Zealand, by reason of the peculiar climatic conditions and the cheapness of land there, at a lower cost than in Canada. Besides that, there is a most excellent refrigerator service from those countries to Pacific coast points, so that their products can be landed in this country at a very low cost. And especially in the years when those countries are affected by drought, their animals are sold for almost a song, and they can be dumped into Canada on an enormous scale, thus seriously interfering with and handicapping the development of our live stock industry. When I spoke on the address I referred to the importance of mixed farming as being the only system that would insure the success of Canadian agriculture I was laughed at by some of my Progressive friends. Therefore it is very pleasing to me to note that at a representative meeting held in Saskatoon the other day, attended by delegates from all the provinces west of the Great Lakes, a resolution was passed to the effect that only mixed farming would give lasting success to agriculture in the western country. When I referred to the importance of developing our sheep industry, some of my friends, speaking on this subject later, said that

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

there was no money in sheep, and that they had had a great deal of difficulty not only in selling the stock but also in getting rid of their wool, and some very clever speeches were made along these lines. I am delighted to be able to tell them that already at this early period the situation is improving very rapidly throughout the world. We find that the wool market is picking up and that large quantities of surplus wool held by the British government are being disposed of without difficulty; that wool is getting scarce in South America; that Bradford, England, the great wool centre of Europe, is buying again very freely; that wool is moving very actively in the United States, and that only the other day as high as 40 cents a pound was paid in Utah for wool in the grease. The business of sheep raising is very promising for the future, and for the benefit of those of my friends who may be interested in the business I am going to quote them a few figures. It has been demonstrated that a flock of fifty sheep, costing not more than $500, will, under ordinary farm conditions, yield a return of not less than 15 per cent net, and in addition to that the wool is usually figured as a net gain. Besides their ordinary value for commercial purposes, sheep have a great value in the destruction of weeds and the cleaning up of rubbish on the farm, and they afford a convenient supply of fresh meat to the farmer in the busy seasons of the year when there is not always time to go to town for supplies. Under these conditions I would draw the attention of the Government to the necessity of guarding carefully against the entry of cheap mutton and lamb from those countries the competition of which would be unfair to Canadian farmers. And in that regard I am sure the hon. Minister of Fin-, ance when concluding arrangements with Australia will give particular attention to these few points which I have brought to his notice.

I am very much concerned in the proposed removal from the Customs Act of what is known as the anti-dumping clause. I have watched with a great deal of in terest the development of the fruit industry in British Columbia. We have there a large area known as the Okanagan valley, which only a few years ago was devoted to cattle raising, but in the meantime it has been irrigated and now supports a large number of people who have something like $40,000,000 invested in the fruit-growing industry, and their product

last year sold for $8,000,000. On several occasions previous to June 4, 1921, our American friends were able to come into the Canadian market with large quantities of their No. 3 apples and sell them at such ruinous prices as made it impossible for the Canadian producer to compete with them. This was repeated from time to time until, on June 4, 1921, what is known as the anti-dumping clause was introduced into the Customs Act. This clause made it necessary for the shipper to take into consideration the cost of production with a fair profit added in arriving at the amount on which the duty was based. This clause has rendered a very valuable service to the fruit growers of British Columbia. It may be asked, why are the Americans able to compete with our fruit producers in that way? In the first place, during a boom in Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Montana, very large areas were planted in fruit; in fact they planted more land to fruit than they had market for the product, with the result that they were able, in those years when there was a large crop, to put a certain amount of their product on the Canadian side at a very low price. In addition to that they were able to dispose of their No. 1 fruit in their large cities at fancy prices, and consequently they were glad to sell their culls, or No. 3 apples, at a sacrifice. These apples have been placed on the Canadian market as low as 30 cents and 40 cents a box. It is estimated that a box of apples costs $1.35 to produce in Washington today. In quoting those apples to our Canadian buyers the Americans have even gone so far as to intimate that no reasonable offer would be refused, indicating that they were simply dumping their surplus on our side. They were, however, careful not to dump their apples on the American side of the line, simply because they did not wish to injure their own market. In the production of small fruits and vegetables we find that growers in the United States have a distinct advantage owing to their geographical position. In the southern States their early produce comes on the market in February and March and soon finds its way on to the Canadian market. Then, as the season works northward, we continue to receive their fruit and vegetables until such time as our own products are ready but by that time the sharp desire of the consumer for fresh fruit has been satisfied by the early American fruit, and the result is that the Canadian producer does not obtain the

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

fancy prices which have been paid to his American competitors. This year we expect a very large fruit crop, particularly in the eastern section of the continent, and it is to ibe hoped that this anti-dumping clause will be retained for the purpose of giving the protection which I have referred to. These are matters of actual experience, not guess work. Our fruit men have sent delegations to Ottawa on many occasions to place these matters clearly before the government, and they have stated that this anti-dumping clause has proved to be an effective instrument in keeping out this unfair competition. The Minister of Finance in the course of his budget speech pointed out that there would be considerable difficulty in finding out the actual cost of production. I think no such difficulty need be feared, for the simple reason that if we send an expert down to the few fruit points from which we expect this competition he can look into the whole situation carefully, and will have no difficulty in arriving at the cost of production to such an extent as will enable the clause to be put into operation.

It is also proposed to place a tax of ten cents a gallon on temperance beverages. This tax is very strongly opposed by the manufacturers, who claim that it will so upset their present selling prices as to make it impossible to place their goods on the market at a popular figure. However, circular letters have been sent to all the members, and no doubt to the Minister of Finance, and I do not propose to take up the time of the House any further in this connection, save to ask the Minister of Finance to give the matter his very careful attention and endeavour to make an adjustment which will be satisfactory to all concerned. But there is another phase of this question of considerable importance-that is the application of the tax to beverages made from fruit juices on the same basis as those that do not contain any fruit juices. It may not be generally known that some of these beverages which are on the market and are described by large, bright labels as being made from fruit juice, contain only chemical flavours. Therefore I think if the Minister of Finance finds it impossible to remove this tax, he should at least give preference to the genuine article made from fruit juices, and refrain from taxing them. This fruit juice business is a very important one to the fruit growers of this country, because it makes a market for the smaller portions of the crop which can-TMr. Tolmie.]

not be disposed of to advantage in packages-the smaller apples and pears, for instance. It also enables us to dispose of many of the smaller fruits, such as loganberries, which are grown extensively on the Pacific coast-to the extent of thousands of acres in Washington and Oregon and hundreds of acres in British Columbia. This berry produces a juice which is used in the manufacture of summer drinks; it is of a very high colour; the beverage produced is a very wholesome one; and with the industry growing as it is, it should not be seriously interfered with.

With regard to the hog situation and the British market, I pointed out when speaking a few weeks ago in this House that as far as I could judge from what I saw on the other side, if we are to meet the needs of the British market we must supply the Britisher with an even grade of product; it must be uniform and of high quality, and furnished in sufficient quantities to attract the attention of the buyers over there. While the late government was still in office a plan for the grading of hogs was inaugurated. I do not know what progress has been made in the matter, but I urge upon the Government the necessity of pushing it as rapidly as possible so as to ensure the placing on the British market of an even grade of product. We must do this if we are to retain that market in competition with such countries as Denmark and Holland, where careful grading is carried out.

I wish to direct the attention of the Government also to the opportunity that is offered at the present time to rid Canada entirely of what is known as hog cholera. This disease has caused severe losses in this country, as well as in Great Britain and the United States. In 1912 we had about 4,249 hogs slaughtered on account of hog cholera, in respect of which compensation was paid to the extent of $23,446.51. I have the figures here for ten years, but I will not quote them all. In 1915 the disease had increased to such an extent that it was necessary to slaughter 34,779 animals, and to pay in compensation $196,981.28. In that year we introduced what is known as the garbage feeding regulation, with the result that in 1916 only 5,700 hogs were slaughtered on which compensation to the extent of $33,699.95 was paid. What made the difference? Under the garbage feeding regulations it is necessary for all feeders of swine to cook thoroughly all garbage obtained from hotels or board-

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

ing houses-that is, waste material, bacon rinds, ham bones, etc., which are fed to hogs and which may give them hog cholera if fed in a raw state. The boiling, however, sterilizes them and makes them a safe article of food. A great deal of bacon is imported from the United States, where hog cholera is so prevalent that it is found necessary to vaccinate the hogs-to inject a serum and virus into them to prevent them from dying of the disease. While many of their hogs are immunized to a certain extent as a result of this operation and do not develop the disease, in many cases they are carriers of the disease, and when the meat is fed to hogs in a raw state, the disease is communicated. In the year ending 1921-22, the regulations having been applied very carefully from year to year, the figures indicate that the mortality from this disease had been reduced to such an extent that only 429 hogs were slaughtered in Canada, compared with 34,779 in 1915. I suggest to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that here is an opportunity, by thorough organization, to wipe out the disease altogether. It will require a little money, but money will be saved in the long run. I speak from experience in this matter. When I entered politics in 1917 I resigned the position of Chief Inspector of the Health of Animals Branch for British Columbia. Hog cholera was very prevalent in that country; in many cases the animals were owned by foreigners who did not understand the English language and could not read our regulations. But even at that we were successful in cleaning out the disease, and for nearly two years previous to the time I resigned, British Columbia was entirely free from hog cholera. This shows what can be done by proper organization in the way of eliminating this disease.

What would be the advantages of bringing about this result? We would save a great deal of money through having no compensation claims to pay; we would save the present heavy cost of enforcing the act; we would save tremendous losses in swine; we would greatly encourage the development of the swine business by the extra confidence which would be given to the raisers of those animals; and in addition to that we would add substantially to the agricultural wealth of this country. And, referring again to the British market, if we could point to our goods as coming from herds entirely free from contagious

disease, you can readily understand what a tremendous advantage our product would have over the vaccinated pork coming from the United States.

I have been rather alarmed to hear suggestions in this House that we should introduce the United States system of dealing with this disease. In this country we have adopted what is known as the eradication system. In any case where hog cholera is found to exist the animal is destroyed, the carcas burned and the whole premises disinfected. We use serums only in cases where the remainder of the herd is not infected at the time of the inspection; serum is injected and the animals thus immunized until such time as they can be slaughtered. It would be a great mistake -and I say this after many years of experience in this work-to adopt such measures as are adopted in the United States. The United States have adopted their present system simply because they cannot do otherwise, the disease having become so widespread in that country. This disease can be entirely wiped out in Canada, I am quite sure, by close inspection of our herds, by a campaign of education among the hog growers, and by an even closer application of our garbage feeding regulations. If this is done I am sure the results will be excellent indeed.

Another point that was brought up last evening by the hon. Minister of Agriculture was his proposal to extend his work in connection with the eradication of tuberculosis in this country. This is a very important work. Its extent is very great; millions of dollars will be required to carry it on, and it must be approached with the greatest possible care. I was also much interested in his suggestion that isolated areas like Vancouver Island and Prince Edward Island might first be cleaned up. If it is the intention to do that, I suggest that he include with Vancouver Island the islands of the Gulf of Georgia, which are isolated in the same way; he can clean that whole section up at one time. That can be done by simply applying the quarantine regulations of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; the areas can be quarantined and it can be made illegal to take cattle on or off these islands without a certificate of a health of animals inspector. I advise the minister, however, to proceed very cautiously in this connection.

As an indication of how serious are the ravages of bovine tuberculosis in the human race, I will just quote a few figures.

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

According to tables which I have here, 75 per cent of gland cases in children are of bovine origin; 66 per cent of generalized tuberculosis in children is of bovine origin; 18 to 26 per cent of deaths from tuberculosis in children are caused by the bovine bacillus. About 10 per cent of all tuberculosis in children from five to sixteen years is bovine. The British Royal Commission figures are much higher, namely, 37.5 per cent under five years of age; 29.5 per cent from five to ten years of age; 14.6 per cent from ten to sixteen years. This indicates that there is a great danger from these sources of the infection of the human being from the consumption of bovine products affected by tuberculosis.

Glancing at the livestock situation, of the

cattle inspected in our abattoirs in 1910- and these abattoirs I may say are very carefully inspected by highly qualified men ___2.70 per cent were affected by tuberculosis. In the same year the number of hogs showed an infection of 9 per cent. In 1921, of the 737,195 head of cattle slaughtered under inspection, the percentage affected amounted to 5.26 per cent, and of the 1,727,296 head of hogs slaughtered in the year ending 31st March, 1922, the percentage had increased to no less than 22 per cent, indicating the rate at which tuberculosis is increasing in this country.

We have also found, in hogs, and this is a very interesting point,that in dairy districts where the by-products, such as skimmed milk and other by-products are fed unsterilized the percentage of infection among animals coming to the abattoirs is not less than 10 per cent greater than from those districts where no dairy products are fed. In those districts the percentage of affected cattle is no greater, indicating that the sources of infection in the swine is from the by-products of the cow. This will indicate the need for prompt, persistent, and careful action for eradication of this disease. But I am quite sure that the moment the Minister of Agriculture applies to the Minister of Finance for funds in this connection, he will be met by a statement regarding the heavy expenditures that are necessary under prevailing conditions, and I know that the Minister of Finance will be quite justified because under present conditions every dollar has to be carefully considered before it is allocated for expenditure. I am going to make a suggestion that should meet with the approval, I think, of the Government and of all the members because I think there never was a time in the history of this country when it is so [Mr. Tolmie. 1

necessary for us to secure money in every legitimate way for the purpose of furthering such work as I have pointed out m connection with tuberculosis. I am going to suggest that we follow the system adopted in France. In France, horse racing is placed under federal control. The government of France secures a small percentage from all the moneys that pass through the books in connection with these horse races which are carefully supervised by government representatives. This percentage is aplied to helping out of poor people and orphan asylums, and also to improving the quality of the livestock.Splendid results have been obtained in that way. If the horse racing in this country could be placed entirely under federal control, we should be able to obtain from that source very substantial sums, and I would suggest that half of the proceeds be given to the Dominion Anti-Tuberculosis Society, and the balance be used for the eradication of tuberculosis among animals. This should not 'be done, under the Criminal Code. A s pecial act should be passed for this particular purpose. In this connection, I think, it is rather a slur on many respectable men who are interested in horse racing in- this country to have racing dealt with under the Criminal Code.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

Does my hon. friend think that any regulation is required in connection with horse racing that could not be furnished by provincial enactment?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Simon Fraser Tolmie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TOLMIE:

My idea of putting racing under federal control would be to have the law uniform all over Canada. In my opinion, that is the only satisfactory way of controlling and stabilizing horse racing. The sport is a very popular one. It is patronized by thousands of people wherever races are held, but there is a great deal of room for improvement in conducting the races. I was never so much impressed in my life as I was by a visit to Ascot in England, when I saw the race for the Ascot gold cup. Everybody from the costermonger to the King of England was there -ambassadors from all the different countries represented in London, the very best people in the land, tens of thousands of them, and they all seemed to be happy and enjoying themselves. If we can run our race tracks in this country under proper regulations, and I am quite sure we can, the great majority of the responsible men connected with this sport would very heartily fall in line with any such regulation. In addition to that it would provide

The Budget-Mr. Tolmie

us with a very useful source of revenue which could be devoted to the eradication of tuberculosis in this country.

With regard to the export trade of cattle, which has been developing to a certain extent since the war and since ship space was available, we have had at first loud clamouring for more ships, but, as a matter of fact, our Canadian feeders have not kept up with the ship space offered, and it has been necessary during the last few months to secure cattle from the United States to fill the ships. In the fall, of course, we shall be able to fill up the space on the ships very much better than we are doing at the present time.

It is gratifying to note the great interest that is now being shown in Great Britain in regard to the embargo on Canadian cattle. Many men are interested in this question now who did not show any interest some time ago. My attention has been drawn to a statement in a newspaper from the Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain, Sir Arthur Boscawen, who says, speaking of the cattle embargo:

As a matter of fact, I inherited this question, and it has not been a pleasant heritage. I can never get away from Canadian cattle, and I only hope that when I go to another world there will be no Canadian cattle there.

I surely thought the right hon. gentleman would be satisfied with maintaining an embargo on Canadian cattle in this world, without suggesting that there shall be an embargo on them in the next. I can assure him that if he will only do what he can to help remove the present embargo, Canadian cattlemen will Ibe willing to take a chance on there being a cattle embargo in the next world.

My attention has been called by a number of telegrams to the taxes imposed on cigarettes, autos, and the stamp tax on cheques. These matters have all been brought very fully to the attention of the Minister of Finance, and I do not propose to take up time in discussing them further, except to read a telegram I have received from the Victoria Chamber of Commerce:

Victoria Chamber of Commerce most strongly opposed to proposal to amend regulation covering stamps on cheques and drafts which would result in penalizing those with large aggregate at present carrying heaviest burden and tend to retard normal flow of business. Convinced that auto tax would vitally affect employment situation curtail sales and defeat end desired. J. H. Beatty President Victoria Chamber of Commerce.

There has been a good deal of complaint over the selection of these particular lines for special taxation.

With regard to the amendment which has been proposed, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) implied that we were clamouring for a lower tariff. I do not think that is the intention of the amendment at all. I look upon it simply as a strong protest against the idea that it is permissible for a party or a candidate to gain victory at the polls by promises which he or they never intend to carry out.

If it is necessary for a man in business undertakings to keep his word; I feel that the responsibility of any candidate or any government to carry out a pledge that has been given is just as great as it is in the case of a private individual. And when the violation of a pledge is brought to the attention of the Government, to hear the reply, in effect, "Don't worry about that, it was only an election pledge," is certainly surprising.

I am quite sure, therefore, that many members of the House will agree with me when I say that such a course certainly is not conducive to that high standard which the government of Canada should aim to attain.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Charles Wallace Stewart

Progressive

Mr. C. WALLACE STEWART (Humboldt) :

Mr. Speaker, on rising to continue this debate I cannot refrain from expressing regret that the proposed amendment offered by the leader of this Progressive group is not before the House at this time. Not, Sir, that I would cast the least aspersion on the ruling handed down to us by the Chair or suggest in the, least any doubt as to its fairness or wisdom. In fact, if I have followed the reasoning aright upon which that ruling was founded, I think that no criticism can be made with respect to it; but that rather we are suffering here as the result of the ' sins of our forefathers descending upon the third and fourth generation. However,

I say that I regret that that amendment is not properly before the House, for this reason. That amendment states concisely, and emphasizes, the point of criticism of the budget that I would wish to make. And I think this other reason too might appeal to hon. members generally, and not alone to this group in which I sit-that if that amendment were properly before the House perhaps I would not feel it incumbent upon me to take up time in presenting arguments to the end so well expressed in the amendment, but that I might have been satisfied to have supported the amendment with my vote and thought I had done my duty But I do

2598 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. C. W. Stewart

feel, Sir, that we in this group represent a distinct school of thought, that we are urging a policy that is not stated either in the remarks of the Finance Minister or in the amendment to his motion. I feel too that at this time, in view of the serious conditions that confront us in this country, all the suggestions for improvement that can be made should be taken into consideration. Therefore I make so bold as to occupy some of the time of the House in offering some further criticisms and suggestions.

First of all, I want to state, and if possible to make clear, why I am not satisfied with the amendment to the motion. I thought, Sir, when the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) first started to propose the amendment that it was going to be one that would appeal to me; I thought that he was making statements which sounded worth while-I refer to that part of the amendment which, perhaps, to a greater or lesser degree camouflages the real point, where he recited those pledges as expressed in the Liberal platform which, he declares, have not been carried into effect. I say, Sir, that I thought perhaps I was going to be able to agree with him because that point did appear to me to be worth while. But later, as my hon. friend concluded his amendment, I realized that he did not express my views as I would wish to express them; and if I had any doubts-for I must admit, Sir, I did not hear very clearly back here where I am seated and was not very sure just what the actual nature of the amendment was -if I had any doubts the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) cleared up those doubts when he made it plain in the concluding remarks of his speech in this debate as to just what the intent of the amendment was. My hon. friend said, " It is not an amendment requiring hon. gentlemen opposite to carry out their pledges, but an amendment condemning the practice of making promises it was not intended to fulfil ", and so on. Now, in so far as it goes, that statement appeals to me. If pledges have been made and not beeh fulfilled, then I would like to join in condemning the practice. But that is not the point in respect to the budget proposals before us that I want to emphasize; and, as the amendment does not go further than I have stated, it does not completely,-does not by any means completely-express the criticism that I would like to make of the bud-

get. I want to state, Sir, that I was not sent here as a guardian or keeper of the Liberal party though it happened to be in power; at least my conception of the reasons for sending me do not include that responsibility. I was sent here, I think, to state as clearly as possible, and to keep before this House, certain definite principles and certain proposals, and I shall endeavour to do so. I do not think that criticizing the party that is in power carries out, under any circumstances, the obligations which were placed upon me. I have also noted that members of the group sitting immediately to my right have not only pointed out that the amendment is capable of expressing their opinion and their criticism, but that some of them have gone to considerable trouble to point out that the amendment is also capable of expressing the criticism and viewpoint of the Progressives. I take exception to that ambiguous feature of the amendment, and I wish to say that when this group has the privilege and the opportunity of expressing its views it will attempt to do so without ambiguity. Personally I do not feel that I can join in an expression that is capable of two interpretations. I do not think that it was a fair criticism to level at us in this corner of the House to say that when the resolution which did express our sentiments was offered it was offered as a means of safety to the government. I would point out, Sir, that the result of the two amendments would be practically the same. That is, both constitute a censure of the government; and I cannot see that in taking the stand that I do

although I cannot admit that the amendment now before us satisfies me-I am in any way coming to the relief of the Government.

Now, I want to make a few comments on the budget proposals. In the first place I would like to join in the congratulations that have been offered to the Minister of Finance on the service that he has given for so long, and is still giving, to the country. I would like, in particular to congratulate him on a point that I think has not been stressed, and which I believe is important. That is, that the phraseology in which he has clothed his proposals is so clear and intelligible that it was not difficult for any hon. member to grasp the points which the minister wished to place before us. That is commendable but that is not the whole point that I have in mind. It is the fact that my hon. friend's phrase-

The Budget-Mr. C. W. Stewart

ology is so understandable that the average citizen throughout Canada can realize the present situation fairly accurately, and that, I think, is something desirable. It should be possible for the people of the country to understand the condition of the Dominion at the present time. I believe that the average citizen is now getting a better grasp of the conditions than he had, perhaps, at any time in the past, and that he is realizing that we have a very heavy burden of debt to sustain. It is not possible, perhaps, for the average citizen to think in the terms of billions or millions of dollars; but the people as a whole are now realizing that a very heavy debt is placed upon us. They realize that the interest charges on that debt, and the other fixed charges, together with the legitimate charges of carrying on the administration, amount to a very large sum. They realize this requires a heavy taxation, and if I might diverge again, I would congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on having presented tax proposals which are intended to bring in a large revenue. I believe that we all realize, both in this House and throughout the whole country, that a large revenue is necessary to carry on the government at this time. I do not wish to be misunderstood in that respect. I do not mean to say that, because a large revenue is necessary, we should encourage the Government in making the expenditures and charges over which they have direct control greater than are absolutely necessary at this time. I am wholly in sympathy with the statements regarding the necessity for economy, which have been made by my hon. colleagues in this coi'ner of the House. I believe it is possible that reductions can be made in the expenses of the various departments of this government. As a new member of the House, I would not try for one moment to place my finger on the weak spots. I would not attempt to criticize; in fact I think most of us who have been in our seats during the passing of the various estimates have felt that it would be almost futile to touch those estimates with the knowledge we have of them. It is the business of the Government and of the heads of the departments to find out where there are encroachments on the revenue which can be stopped, and where items can be cut oif, without seriously injuring the ability of the Government to carry on. My whole idea in commending the Minister of Finance for having introduced proposals that would

bring in a large revenue is that a large portion of that revenue might be diverted from the ordinary expenses of government to reduce our national debt.

There are other features of the budget I would like to comment upon. The first is one which has been touched upon many times here, and that is the statement of the Finance Minister as to his attitude-and I presume the attitude of the Government for whom he speaks-with regard to reciprocity with United States. I commend that attitude, and personally I am prepared to stand behind him wholly and unreservedly in that matter. I also commend certain features of the budget where the minister makes proposals for more direct taxation. I believe, Sir, that the people of this country, if they are not now wholly in a position to accept direct taxation, are making long strides towards that position. They are demanding that the taxes shall be placed upon them directly, so that they can trace them to their source, and know exactly how much they are paying, and through what channel it is reaching the treasury of the Government. I refer to the taxes on bank notes circulation, cheques,, money orders and the like. Those taxes are commendable in another sense, in that they do not bear unjustly upon the man of small means and with very little income. Those are proposals which meet with favour. I might also mention taxes which are included there, which might be termed luxury taxes, such as the taxes

5 p.m. on automobiles, tobacco, confectionery, and taxes of that nature. If I have a criticism to offer on those taxes, it is that there should be greater attention given to the graduation of the taxes. The greater the value of the article, the more right it is to term it a luxury, and in my estimation the greater the tax it should bear.

I commend all measures in the budget tending towards freer trade. In this, my first attempt to address the House, I will not state that I am a free trader, either in theory or every day practice at this time, but I believe in much freer trade than we have at the present time. I am commending these measures because they point towards freer trade. I will mention some of them. We have the alteration in the Marking and Valuations Act, the change in the regulations regarding the arbitary value of foreign money, and the direct reduction of tariff where those occur in the proposals before us. These are all tendencies toward freer trade, and I commend

2600 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. C. W. Stewart

them in that respect. Although supporting the thought expressed in the resolution to amend the amendment, as submitted by the hon. leader of this group, (Mr. Crerar) I do not in any sense wish it to be understood that I am advocating radical changes in the fiscal policy over night. I do not think that any person in this House wishes to do that, and if there were such, I would, least of all, wish to be connected with them. In my most optimistic moods I never supposed the Government which in power would do anything radical in that respect, and in my more pessimistic moods, viewing it in the light of history of the past, I did not expect anything more radical than we have at the present time-and I submit we have no radical changes at the present time. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) last evening, I believe, characterized it as a step. I think he was going beyond bounds when he characterized this as a step, either in the right or the wrong direction. I believe the hon. member from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) also said it was a step forward and a step backward. I submit this is not a step. I think the hon. member from Brome (Mr. McMaster) characterized it properly. I admire very much all his logical reasoning and argument, and was particularly delighted to find that he was logical with regard to statements he had made as much as two years ago. I think I remember reading about two years ago a criticism he had made of the budget proposals of that time. At that time there were proposed reductions of from 5 to 7i per cent, and, in criticizing them, from his standpoint, he stated that it might be termed a step in the right direction, but certainly not a stride. The other day, in following to a logical conclusion, he stated that the change at the present time was probably a shuffle. I think that is a truthful statement of the situation, and meets wholly with my approval. However, I want to be absolutely fair, and to give full credit to the Minister ' of Finance for the results which may follow the slight changes made, particularly with regard to agricultural implements, where he has altered some of the customs taxes by 2i per cent. My chief objection to the customs tariff, as a means of raising revenue, is that it takes so much out of the pockets of the consumer to place $1 in the treasury. I have heard it stated -and I have not heard it successfully refuted-that for every dollar which, through that means, finds its way to the treasury, $8 is taken from the consumers' pockets.

If that is a fact, let us consider fairly what even 2| per cent might mean to the consumer of this country. I am not sure, Sir, that this 2J per cent reduction is worthy of the commendation I am giving it, or that it would work out in practice as it does in theory, because it is such a slight reduction that, possibly, advantages will be taken of the situation which will not permit it to work out as it should. Theoretically, the 2h per cent reduction will mean a saving in taxation to the agriculturists of this country of as much as $250,000, which is not a very enormous sum. But if $250,000 is deducted from the treasury, then it means not $250,000 saved to the agriculturists but at least a million dollars, taking into consideration the indirect taxation placed on them. It was suggested by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that this reduction might mean a loss to his treasury of possibly $500,000. That is so much taxation taken off the people of the country. If therefore my theory is correct there is saved to the people not $500,000 but $2,000,000. And while these are compartively low figures as compared with the whole budget, yet I am willing to give the minister the full credit that is due him in that respect.

Next I want to say a word or two with regard to the sales tax. To me it is one degree less objectionable than the customs tariff as a means of raising revenue, but only one degree less objectionable, in that it is perhaps a more direct method of taxation than the customs tariff. But when I find that there is a difference in the sales tax as between home manufactured goods and imported goods, in favour of the home product the effect, it seems to me, is practically the same, and in reality there is little difference between the two forms of taxation. My objection to this taxis that it is an undue burden on those people who have small incomes. It is not equitably distributed. It is a tax on the necessities of life, a tax on a man's consuming power and not on his ability to pay taxes. It is a drain upon the real source of our wealth, and the Government would have been well advised to have taken that fact into account before increasing this tax by 50 per cent. I know that certain claims have been put forward to justify the present proposals of the budget, among others the contention that the exigencies of the present critical situation demand the increase. I am willing to admit all these things; and I should be most patient, Mr. Speaker, with the pres-

The Budget-Mr. C. W. Stewart

ent administration if I could see any sign that they were heading in the right direction. But, as I view the matter, I take the position stated in the second amendment, which was refused consideration, that the whole budget is based upon protectionist principles. I therefore cannot give it my endorsation.

The speech of the Minister of Finance does not suggest, either directly by its context, or by inference, that the Government intend to implement their promises towards freer trade either immediately or in the distant future. And I was very much interested last night when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) refrained from committing himself on that point although he committed himself on almost every other point that suggested itself to him. If I thought that a readjustment were contemplated and we were given a serious undertaking towards that end by the Government, matters would be different. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, may I say at this juncture that I am becoming very dubious indeed of all pledges, when we find that what we supposed to have been the pledges of members of the Government were only pledges made by their supporters, not, apparently, with their authority and approval. I say I am becoming quite dubious of pledges of any sort. If, however, we had a solemn pledge on the part of the Government at this time that they intended to implement in full their pre-election promises and to put them into legislation, I should be more patient than I am at this time.

Now, I wish to offer a few constructive criticisms, because I am in sympathy only with criticisms of that character. We in this corner have been criticised for not placing on record more constructive material in our criticisms of the budget. In our platform we have some very definite proposals, and I will recommend some of them to the serious consideration of the Government. I believe that the most equitable tax we have ever had in Canada is the income tax. It is my opinion, further, that this tax should be readjusted. There should be a gradation in the scale, following the British system, not only increasing it very much as it ascends, but also recognizing a difference between earned and unearned income. In the same category with that I place the business profits tax which has been discarded by the Government. I would also recommend the inheritance tax which has been suggested already. Another

tax which I favour very much, and which I believe should receive the earnest consideration of the Government, is what is known as the tax on unimproved land values. I was much pleased to hear the hon. member for Gloucester, (Mr. Turgeon), the first member on the Government side to do so, suggest that this tax should be considered. Up to the time he made the suggestion it had not been mentioned, and the hon. member expressed his disappointment that some member of the Progressive group had not advocated the tax. Since then several hon. members have advocated the tax on unimproved land values, and I believe that the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) outlined it at considerable length. I have criticised the sales tax severely, and now as a practical suggestion I would urge the Minister of Finance to consider the matter of taxing these unimproved land values. I would suggest that there should be placed on all lands throughout the country, both urban and rural, a tax of 2i mills on the dollar with assesment based on unimproved values. If the Minister of Finance did this he would secure at least as much as he will get through the 50 per cent increase in the sales tax, and it would be a more equitable distribution of taxation throughout the country. This tax, I can assure him, would not bear very heavily on those who would pay, and it should be given a fair trial. In many instances people are afraid of the proposal, because they do not know how the tax would operate; and if the experiment were tried it would satisfy these people. Certainly it would be meeting the demand which is being made for a movement towards more direct taxation. Of all the taxes that can be levied, perhaps the income tax and the tax on land values are the most direct methods that could be adopted. I have done some figuring on this question. The figures I have been able to obtain are from the Chief Statistician and they show that the assessable (values of unimproved lands and property throughout the Dominion would probably amount to $16,000,000,000. That is why I suggest 2i mills on the dollar; it would produce the revenue which the Minister of Finance finds it necessary to secure by means of the increase in the sales tax.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Andrew Ross McMaster

Liberal

Mr. McMASTER:

How much would

that tax secure to the treasury? Have you worked that out?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Charles Wallace Stewart

Progressive

Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):

A tax of 2i mills on $16,000,000,000 would be about

2602 COMMONS

The Budget

Mr. C. W. Stewart

$40,000,000. On the average farm in western Canada, with the values of which I am well acquainted, that would mean a tax of about $7.50. As I make it, on an average the sales tax will mean a tax of about $20 to each farmer in the West. It makes then to the farmer the difference between $7.50 and $20. Now, it cannot be claimed that that difference would have been thrown upon the working man, because, as a rule, he is not a holder of land at all, and therefore would not have had any land tax to pay. It would have thrown that difference on to certain companies, perhaps speculators, who are holding valuable lands, some in rural districts, and large areas in the cities.

Now, Sir, in conclusion, what I have said with regard to taxes, the revision of the customs tariff, the lessening of the sales tax, and the adoption of direct methods of taxation is not offered by me as a panacea to cure all the ills that afflict this country at the present time. I come from western Canada where the agriculturists are labouring under very serious handicaps, and they are not simply clamouring that conditions shall be changed in order that they may try something new, hoping that that will be better than the old, but they have given mature thought to the disadvantages under which they labour, and I am sent here, together with a number of my colleagues, as the expression of that mature thought. They have sent us here to place certain definite proposals before this House. They think that wider markets would improve their condition. I may say that for the last twenty years I have been watching the efforts of the agriculturists in western Canada, and although I have not during the whole of that period been directly interested in agriculture, because I am going back to my school days, yet during the years that I have been directly interested I have noticed that the western farmers have overcome the very serious handicaps they laboured under by attacking small points and gaining one at a time. They believe if they could obtain wider markets it would materially help them. In fact, I think the proposals they suggest could be put under three heads of relief.

First, they believe there should be increased returns for the products of the farm. Wider markets would help to bring that about. I have already commended the Minister of Finance for his efforts to that end both in regard to the past and the very near future, for undoubtedly he has made real efforts to obtain reciprocity.

We from the West have asked for better marketing conditions as we believe they could be obtained under a wheat board. I am not going to pursue that further for the moment because I believe very shortly we shall have an opportunity to debate the advisability of some such scheme of control for marketing our crop. We will also perhaps have the opportunity to debate the manner of lessening the cost of transportation not only of grain but also of commodities that enter into the necessities of agriculturists.

Speaking of transportation brings to my mind the completion of the Hudson Bay railroad, which a very large number of agriculturists in the prairie provinces are convinced would materially lessen their costs of transportation. They believe, Sir, that ten or twelve years ago they made out a case before this House. They had the definite promise of the Prime Minister at that time, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that that road would be built. They saw its construction undertaken and carried on to a very large extent by the last government, and they lived in hopes that the road would be completed. Now, I come to this House pledged to my constituents to work for that completion. I find numbers of hon. members, perhaps new to this House, are dubious of the wisdom of continuing this work. The people whom I represent feel that the case is made out, and that if the completion of the road is considered a dubious undertaking, it is the duty of those in doubt and opposed to the work to make out their case in opposition. I place that before you, Sir, as a means, not of greatly increasing the returns of agriculturists, but as a means to some extent of increasing the returns that would be received for agricultural products, particularly grain.

Then, too, I must mention the necessity for the construction of certain branch lines of railway. The cost of production to the farmer is materially enhanced when he is a great distance away from a railroad. For fifteen years I hauled my grain thirty miles to a railway, and so I think I speak with authority in that regard. I paid as high as 25 cents a bushel for a number of years to get my wheat to the railroad car, and I know if that expense could be saved sometimes a considerable loss could be turned into a considerable gain.

These matters, then, this Parliament has more or less direct control over and could attend to if it thought fit, and if carried out they would all help to increase the returns on the farmers' products. But the

The Budget-Mr. C. W. Stewart

people of the West have taken the stand that if the returns for their products cannot be greatly increased, at least we should increase the purchasing power of the dollars that they do receive. I want to make that point perfectly clear to the House. Not so very long ago, in fact in my time as a farmer-and I have been farming only about sixteen or seventeen years- I sold my grain at no greater price than is being obtained at the present time, and yet in those days I considered myself fairly prosperous. But for the past two or three years I know 1 have been farming at a loss. The difference is simply this, that in the years gone by my dollar purchased something, whereas at the present time a dollar by itself is not worth very much. I think it would be only repetition of my argument if I were to go back and state that that is one reason why I claim the customs tariff on agricultural implements and on clothing and the other necessaries of life should be reduced to the minimum, so that the man engaged in developing not only our farms but all our natural resources should be enabled to obtain the maximum return for his expenditure.

I said there were three methods that the people I represent believe would lighten their burdens. The third is, by readjusting taxation. I am not asking for any special concession for the people of the West. They are perfectly willing to pay taxes according to their incomes, but they do ask that they should be taxed according to their incomes. If this Parliament has it in its power, and should see fit, to readjust these matters I have brought to their attention to such an extent that the farmer -and when I use- the term farmer for the people in the West, in my constituency at least, I do not think I exempt any person, because all there are either directly engaged in tilling the soil or are very directly dependent upon the farmer for their living -if it can be so worked out that they will be prosperous, that their incomes will be augmented, that the value of their land holdings will he increased, then they are willing to pay in due proportion of their increased incomes and the added value of their property.

I would like to have mentioned the effect this would have had upon our immigration policy. I am firmly convinced, Sir, that the salvation of this country lies in increasing our population; that we need an immigration policy. But I have in mind an ideal immigration policy, that is, to make all the deserving people of this country so

prosperous that they will be anxious to have their friends come to them and settle beside them. When that day comes then we shall have indeed a real immigration.

During the campaign last fall when I had the privilege of speaking to a very large number of my constituents, I made it a point at every meeting that I addressed, about sixty in all, to ask the people there if they would feel justified under present circumstances in inviting their friends to come to this country and become citizens alongside of them, and in all those occasions I did not find one man who felt he would be justified in inviting his friends to come and share with him his prosperity or lack of prosperity. But if these people were prosperous they would be glad to have their friends come here. They are not selfish; they do not wish to enjoy prosperity alone. Nor are they crowded in that country. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as I travelled through my constituency last fall I was struck as I never had been before with the room there was for more people. I do not know whether my constituency differs in that respect from that of any other hon. member from the West, but I found that section after section of good arable land was vacant, right in some of our best settlements and very close to railroads. I had heard it stated a number of times that we had in this country thirty million acres within fifteen miles of railroads, but I never realized the proof of it until I saw with my own eyes, when [DOT]travelling through my constituency in a car, these areas of the very best land lying idle.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Andrew Ross McMaster

Liberal

Mr. McMASTER:

Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Charles Wallace Stewart

Progressive

Mr. STEWART (Humboldt) :

Certainly.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Andrew Ross McMaster

Liberal

Mr. McMASTER:

Who, as a general rule, would own these unoccupied farm lands?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Charles Wallace Stewart

Progressive

Mr. STEWART (Humboldt) :

They are almost entirely held by non-residents, usually companies; they are what we in the West call company lands.

I was stating, Sir, that if the system which I have called the ideal system could be worked out we would not need very many immigration regulations or restrictions. If the conditions were such that the people were inviting others to come into the country I would be in favour of allowing all whom we could assimilate to come into Canada. That term "assimilate" has been used very often and very glibly dur-

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie

ing the present session. I wonder just what interpretation has been given to it. When I use it I have reference to all the people that we can make citizens of this country. We need citizens-I have stated that fact; and when I use the term "citizens" I am not thinking of those who become citizens simply because they are domiciled in a particular country; I refer to those who are willing to share not only the advantages of citizenship but also, if the occasion requires, the responsibilities of citizenship as well. I state, Sir, that if this country can attain a sufficient degree of prosperity to cause people to wish to come here, and to stay here when they do come, then we can indeed welcome practically all races, all those who will assume the responsibilities of good citizenship in this country.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton and Victoria) :

Mr. Speaker, I must indeed congratulate the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Stewart) upon his very excellent exposition of public questions as he sees them. This is the fifth Canadian Parliament of which I have had the honour of being a member; including the provincial parliaments, I have been in seven different parliaments. The present Parliament is of particular interest, because it is composed of three strong groups. We had in one or two previous parliaments three groups, but the third group was largely, as has been the case in the British House of Commons, composed of middle-bench men who were exercising the right to their own individual and independent ideas but were not calling themselves collectively a party. In this House now we have three distinct parties, of which the Progressive party contains the largest number of new members. While I am not disposed to be fulsome in praise of them, I must do the new group the justice of saying that of the many Parliaments which I have seen on the Hill I do not know of any large group of new members who have brought to Parliament such a good equipment of parliamentarians as they have. Of course, their ideas of parliamentary life and parliamentary usefulness, their ideas concerning the way in which they should carry out their duties in this House, will undergo some changes when they have been here quite a number of years and have become acclimatized to the conditions in the House. I am not saying that from any critical point of view, but as one who has travelled that road I think it is only fair that I should

tell my hon. friends that if twenty years hence they are still sitting in Parliament they will be surprised at the striking change which their views have undergone concerning how things can be done and the way they should go about doing them. But it would have been a great mistake for my hon. friends not to express their views upon public questions as they have been expressing them and as they will, no doubt, express them during the remainder of this session.

My hon. friend who has just taken his seat has made reference to the duties of citizenship. He points out that the word is used freely, and he says he is not so clear that its meaning is fully understood. Few things in the world are so important as citizenship. The great Scottish poet, Robert Burns, said: "An honest man's the noblest work of God." There is no doubt that is true, and the attributes which Robert Burns had in mind when he penned these words must of necessity be part of the equipment of every true citizen. It is impossible for a man to be a good citizen in the proper sense of the term without possessing those noble qualities to which the immortal Burns has made reference. I am glad that my hon. friend has referred to citizenship. I am sure we are all proud of being Canadian citizens, and prouder, if possible, to be British citizens enjoying all the privileges that the British flag and the British Crown bring to us. We have one king and one crown, one flag and one country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When we talk of groups and divisions, and of one party attempting to build up one section of the country regardless of the necessities of other sections, let us understand at once that such a thing is an impossibility. It is impossible to build up a country by building up one section at the expense of another, with no uniformity of development, just as it is impossible to build any other structure on the same principle. For these reasons I say at once to my friends of the Progressive party, who are here practically as new men-I need not say it to the old hard-shells of the Tory party, many of whom have been here for a long time, and who make it their boast that they are true and loyal, good Imperialists- that we must have regard to the necessities of the country as a whole, and try to find a policy that will enable us to govern and carry forward this whole country from coast to coast, a policy that will be in

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie

conformity, so far as possible, with the best interests of every citizen in this great country of ours.

Men and women come to this country, they accept our laws and our privileges, they accept the splendid welcome we give them, and in return we expect nothing from them except that they shall perform their duties as Christian citizens of this country, and in that way become worthy of the heritage which has been handed to us by our forefathers, all of which we are willing to hand down to those who come to this country and make their homes amongst us, exacting only from them that they shall be good citizens. Much depends in that-regard upon our own conduct. It is just the same as the example the head of the family sets to his children. As a rule, you will never see well-behaved children in a household where the father has no respect for the amenities which should govern his conduct as the head of the house. On the other hand, if he shows himself well-behaved, a moral, devout Christian man in all the duties devolving upon him, the children are glad to follow in his footsteps. It is the same with citizenship. If we who were born here, or have been here many years, live up to the ideals of British citizenship and of the British flag, if we stand fast by them in honesty of purpose, industry, and everything else that makes for good citizenship, those who come to this country will try to live up to our standards; but if we depart from them, let us beware that we are not dragged down to the standards which the stranger to this country would set up if he found a lack of principles in us who ought to know better.

I have made these observations, Mr. Speaker, I think justifiably, because we have a great many new members, excellent men who are here for the first time. They have heard a great deal about politicians and public men and have perhaps heard that they are men not over-1 burdened with morals, and without any proper conception of what is real manhood, and of what are the duties devolving upon public men in this country. I do not hold myself up to be anything but perhaps a poor example of the good men of this country, but I have been in touch with public men in Canada for the past thirty or thirty-five years or more, and I must bear this testimony, that taking our public men as a class, they are as fond of principle, of honour, of right and square dealing as

any other class of men that I ever came across in this country. I want to convey to my good friends who may have brought here with them from the far West or from the Old Country, or wherever they come from, the idea that public men in Canada are such that they must be on their guard against them, and that they have no proper conception of honour in dealing with their fellow citizens, that such is not the case, and if my good friends will do their part, if they will uphold those high standards of citizenship that the old Nova Scotian, the old British Columbian, or the men of any other province of Canada hold as their ideals, we shall be happy together, and no one will have any reason to find fault with our citizenship.

I do not think that I shall follow the speech of my hon. friend very much further. I agree largely with what he says, and I am pleased to find that he has such a clear conception of his duty and of what should be done in connection with the affairs of this country.

A good many words of praise and congratulation have been tendered to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). These praises have come from all parts and all forners of this great country, and when other hon. members from far-away provinces have tendered their congratulations, and quite properly, to the minister, it is not only incumbent upon me, coming from the same province, a colleague of the minister for many years, and his follower as a humble member of the Liberal party for nearly forty years, but a very great pleasure to tender to him my warmest congratulations upon this the delivery, and the delivery in good style and splendid form, of his sixteenth budget. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that few men if any-possibly there may have been a few, but I could not myself in any leading countries of the world discover any such person-have had a history like the present Finance Minister. I do not know whether the famous Iron Chancellor-who for many years, although not the real ruler of Germany, was the financial centre and strength of that Empire and was in office at the time of the Franeo-Prussian war of 1870-had the great distinction of introducing into his Parliament as many budgets as our present Finance Minister, but if it was not his good fortune to have done so, I do not know of any one else.

May I be permitted to boast somewhat of our Liberalism in the province of Nova Scotia and to hold out to our friends who

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie

are not very fond, I believe, of the old party, some of the beauties, the traditions, and the achievements of that party in the good old province down by the sea-a province where law is respected, where citizenship is respected, where property rights are respected, and where religious beliefs-and everything that goes into the making of life what it ought to be and making life happy and contented

are respected. There is no province in the Dominion of Canada, no Spot in the world-and that is said without any disparity to any other place-* where those essentials of life are better preserved and more respected than in the little province of Nova Scotia. Let me say that while we have had splendid men in the province of Nova Scotia and have given splendid men to the world-we have had such men as Joseph Howe; Mr. Johnson who was the contemporary and also the premier of Nova Scotia "as well as Howe

the Tuppers, the Bordens, Fielding, Murray, and many others who stand high in the ranks of the public men of Canada-[DOT] among them all there was none who contributed more to the stabilising and the elevating of the public life of Canada than the hon. gentleman who is now the Minister of Finance of the Dominion, and who has had the honour of introducing the budget we are now disci'ssing.

I am sure it would be surprising for some people to know that ever since Confederation we have had only one change of government in the province of Nova Scotia. I need not tell hon. gentlemen how long ago that is. During that fifty-four years

[Mr. McKenzie. I '

Liberal party a man like that, who has given us a spiendid government and a splendid record of progress, am I not justified in presenting, not only to this House but to the world, the good old Liberal party and saying that within its ranks, and exhibiting its doctrines and its principles, are to be found men and measures worthy of this great country, and that these measures deserve to be developed, perpetuated and continued? Let me add that for fourteen years before the Hon. Mr. Murray took charge of the affairs of the province of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, who is now the Finance Minister here, was the premier of that province. That also involved being the finance minister for the province as well, for he was also the provincial treasurer and provincial secretary, the duties of which, in our province, correspond to those of the federal Minister of Finance. So that the fact deserves to be noted that Hon. Mr. Fielding is not only presenting his sixteenth budget in the Dominion Parliament, but he had previously presented fourteen budgets in the Nova Scotia legislature, making a record more unique and more striking than that of any other man, I believe, who ever occupied high office under the British flag.

Now, I may be criticised perhaps, for talking about these things, but I think it is only right and proper that there should be a due presentation of them to this House and to the world. Public men do not always, perhaps, get the praise and the credit that is due to them, and when there are clear and striking evidences of this kind due recognition should be forthcoming. For the province of Nova Scotia is just as exacting-perhaps more so-of a high line of conduct from its public men as any other part of Canada. So happily have the expectations of the province in this regard been fulfilled that for twenty-six years we have had one premier (Hon. Mr. Murray), and for fifty-four years we have had the one government or the one party in power excepting, as I have said, for a brief spell of four years. This shows there is virtue, stability, a high conception of honour, and efficient administration to be found in the party which is so appreciated by the little province down by the sea. I am producing these goods largely for the benefit of my hon. friends of the Progressive party. I would ask them to examine them and, if they are of a proper type and fitness, let them wear them.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

When the House took

recess, I was referring- to the achievements of the great Liberal party of which I have the honour now to be a member, and I was saying that both parties, Liberal and Conservative, from the province of Nova Scotia, have contributed many excellent men to the service of the irrespective parties and the country at large. I felt at the time that I was forgetting one of the distinguished Nova Scotians to whom I should have made reference, and, during the recess, I thought I recalled that I had made no reference to a gentleman who was for some years Prime Minister of this Dominion, the Right Hon. Sir John S. D. Thompson. He was a Nova Scotian of whom we all have reason to be proud, and his name should be mentioned when enumerating distinguished Nova Scotians. I desire to include the name of that illustrious gentleman with those of the other prominent Nova Scotians whom I have already mentioned. The budget is always interesting to the Canadian people. It is the accounting for the year, or possibly for a number of years, which the government submits to the people, on which they are to pass judgment in regard to the financial operations of those who are charged with the business of the country. The present Administration has been but a very few months in office. Hon. members who are familiar with the operation of government and the responsibility of parties will well understand that it takes considerable time to get a proper hold and understanding of various matters to be attended to in the administration of this or any other country. It must not be expected, in reason and fairness, that, in the few months that this Administration had been in power, before the Hon. Minister of Finance (.Mr. Fielding) was called upon to prepare and present his budget, we could have the full and various details that would (be necessary in order to give as thorough an account of the affairs of this country as might possibly be expected had the present Government been longer handling the affairs of the country.

I propose paying some slight attention to the manner of criticisms which have been made by the official Opposition, and, particularly by the night hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and those who were in his administeration. They

*criticized us as if we had been for years in charge of the affairs of this country and were responsible for the public debt, the way in which that debt was incurred, the way in which the various resources for borrowing money in this country were exploited, the way in which the credit of the country, in so far as borrowing money was concerned, was exercised and used and everything of that kind, when, as a matter of fact, the late government was responsible for all these things, and borrowed money wherever it could be borrowed. Now, we are criticized as if that were all our business, and not theirs, and as if they had no responsibility at all. What would you think, Sir, of a landlord who while living, say, for ten years -in a house, had allowed the shingles to 'blow, off the roof, the chimney to break down and become smoky, the floor to be broken, the windows to be smashed, and, in short, had permitted the house to get -into a dilapidated condition; who had then managed to rent the house to another man, and who, the day after the tenant had taken charge, came in, and turning savagely on the poor tenant, said. " How is it the house is smoky? What is the matter with the broken floor? How is it the roof is leaky and the windows smashed? How is it this house is in the absolutely uninhabitable, deplorable condition in which I find it?" You would say he was a very daring or insane sort of man. The answer would be 'This is your house; you lived in it for ten years; if the windows are broken, you broke them; if the roof is leaking, it is because of your neglect; if the chimney is smoky, you allowed it to break down and get into a smoky condition; this is your house, under your administration, and you are responsible". But the landlord tries to shake off all responsibility and place it on the tenant. You would say such a person was without any conception of a proper reasoning power as to his own responsibility. That, Sir, is the position in which the former members of the government are placed. They stand up with considerable nerve and criticize as boldly and as strongly as if they had nothing whatever to do with the conditions in which we find the country to-day, and the position in which the minister who has charge of the finances of the country must of necessity be.

The question of raising money is not so hard in one way, because there is only one source from which we can get it. It must

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie

come from the people directly or indirectly, and whatever may be the means adopted of collecting it, in the last analysis it must come from the pockets of the individual citizen. Now, everybody knows that we have an enormous debt. We have tremendous obligations that must be met; and every Canadian who is proud of his country acknowledges that those obligations we are in duty bound to pay in due course. The only question therefore is as regards the method of collecting the money, and the application of the revenue so secured towards the discharge of those obligations. Not only does the right hon. leader of the Opposition acknowledge that fact, but the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar), a day or two before the budget was introduced, predicted that, unless he was much mistaken, the Minister of Finance would be obliged not only to continue the exactions that were already being made upon the people, but to propose new taxes in order to meet the obligations that faced him. Well, that prediction has only been fulfilled; and the leader of the Progressive party and his associates, in view of that judgment pronounced by him, must do us the justice of not criticising us too harshly if we find it necessary to do just what that hon. gentleman thought we should have to do, under the circumstances that exist to-day and in view of the heritage that has been bequeathed us by our predecessors. When the opinion is expressed by the member for Marquette that the Government will have to impose new taxes, it is illogical to tell us now that we should make reductions in the present taxes that are levied.

Some people criticise the war debt with some timidity. I think that I am among those in this country who can talk about the war debt and everything else that relates to the war and our relations to the Sovereign, without fear of adverse comment. I say that without any intention of boasting in any way. But the war is made an excuse for all kinds of extravagance. Now, it was quite proper that we should have done all that we did do in the war, spending the last dollar and sending the last man to the front, to discharge our full duty in the cause. But there is

such a thing as doing one's duty properly; and a nation can play its part in a war without any reckless extravagance, spending $50 where $1 could accomplish the same thing. Criticism can properly be offered in that respect, and the

outgoing government and the government of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden cannot escape criticism at the hands of the people by simply blaming the war for everything, because our debt is out of all proportion and is absolutely beyond the possibility of adequate explanation. For instance, many Conservatives who supported the last government know that hundreds of thousands of men were gathered up in Canada at the expense of the treasury and sent to England although it was fully known that they were absolutely unfit for service and could not pass the test that would be made overseas. Medical men among the Conservatives told us in this House that in the discharge of their duties they were called upon to pass all these men. These statements can be found in Hansard. A man would come to headquarters and say he wanted to be a colonel and he would be told to go and get a regiment. If he could raise the men he was given the commission, so he went into the highways and byways and gathered up a crowd, got his commission and went overseas with the men. These men sometimes were kept for as long as six months in different towns in Canada. Regiments were sent to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and other places. One regiment was stationed at Amherst in my own province and another in a little town near Louisburg in my county; and this was done simply as a matter of patronage to supporters of the government, in order that the supplies of food and other necessaries required in the camps might be procured from Tory merchants. When these men who were so hastily got together were taken overseas it was found in England in many cases that not one out of fifty was fit to go to the front; and as the authorities were too busy with legitimate business these men could not be transported back to this country. The result was that for years, as military men in my hearing know, hundreds and thousands of men were kept over there doing nothing at all except eating their heads off at the expense of the country. They were sent there simply for the purpose of affording some man an opportunity of getting a commission as colonel, and for the other purpose of supplying patronage to supporters of the party. I see a military gentleman opposite laughing, but I defy him to deny these things. What I say is absolutely true, and the records bear me out. Now, these* are some of the ways in which money was squandered improvidently, without the slightest benefit to the country, by the Conservative party when in office.

The Budget-Mr. McKenzie

What happened in connection with the Ross rifle? I suppose millions of dollars have been expended in the manufacture of the Ross rifle for the purpose of murdering our soldiers. When last session the matter was brought up on the estimates, a gentleman now in the other chamber, a much-honoured senator and military man-a general in fact-who was at that time a supporter in this House of the right hon. gentleman's government

of course, I mean the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition-made a speech in which he condemned in the most unequivocal terms the continued manufacture of this rifle and its murderous effect on our boys who had to use it at the front. But it was a case of patronage.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

June 7, 1922