May 18, 1923

CON

Edmond Baird Ryckman

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):

I hope the Minister of Finance will not think I am lacking in that profound admiration and respect which I certainly have for him if I frankly criticize this budget. I think the budget is a disappointing one; I believe that the minister has told us in it that he has not quite done his best. He has said that it is a budget of compromise, for a government which consists of sections is possible only through compromise. If a man is compromised he has suffered somewhat; if a woman is compromised she has suffered more; and if a country is compromised its position is still worse.

This budget has not met the challenge which every worthy, and, may I say, self-respecting budget must meet, namely, that of striking the balance. It has been announced to the world that Canada cannot meet her bills, that Canada has an unbalanced budget. Canada is in the same category as Brazil, though not to the same extent, of course-a wealthy country with large resources which cannot meet its budget and with a currency that is depreciated. That is the state of affairs, and I believe it has already had its effect. It may not be that the relationship of the New York exchange market to our budget is perfectly distinct, but New York exchange has risen since this budget was announced. When a household is unable to balance its budget that household is on the wrong road; and it is the same with a country. The budget could have been balanced, it seems to me there is no question about that. However, that is something to which I shall refer later on. The failure to face the situation squarely means that this country will suffer from the bare fact that there is a discrepancy, which has to be taken into consideration although it is not a very large one; and we shall find that throughout this year Canada will be subject to a disability that will come from the reputation of an unbalanced budget.

The fact is that the budget has tried to satisfy too many factions. So to speak, there is a little blood let here, a small poultice applied there, a hot bath given and a cold douche administered; and we are expected to be satisfied with this. From the reports that have appeared in the newspapers, it is abundantly clear that the Canadian people do not feel that in the budget which has been brought down by the minister the requirements of the country, its necessities as they exist to-day, have been met. There are many matters to which I should like to refer, but in the time at my disposal I do not think I shall be able to deal with them all.

There is one small item I would take up first of all, and that is that the incidence of some taxes on certain businesses that might be described as summer trades has been changed, but the change does not come into effect until the first of August. I do not know whether the reason is that the Finance Minister is in league with the weather prophets or whether he knows for a certainty that we are not going to have summer until the first of August. It is to me quite manifest at any rate that since the Minister of Finance has said that the change was desirable and since these particular businesses are summer trades, the change in this respect should be put into effect now. I offer that suggestion respectfully for the consideration of the government. There is one feature of great merit in this budget and that is the assurance that we shall have stability in this country. Canada needs stability, for there cannot be any sustained effort in industry, no matter in what branch, unless the people engaged therein can feel assured that there will be some certainty in conditions. That assurance has been given by the Minister of Finance and I believe it will be lived up to. But we have it from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), who comes upon the scene, that this stability does not and will not exist, that there is no finality, and that we may expect changes to continue until we have that condition which the Liberal party has declared in the past that it would endeavour to bring about. However, I prefer to take the express statement of the Minister of Finance. There has therefore been given to the manufacturers and their workmen this assurance of stability; but so far as I can see nothing of a similar character has been offered to the farmers.

First of all, let us consider this sales tax. I consider that the imposition of this tax and the method provided for its collection are, if I may use the word, cowardly, in this respect in that there are a couple of thousand manufacturers and importers in this country and hundreds of thousands of jobbers and merchants. What this tariff proposes to do is to call upon the manufacturers and the merchants to do the collecting of this revenue and to account for it to the government. What happens? The manufacturer levies the 6 per cent; the jobber then levies his profit on the manufacturer's price plus the 6 per cent. Jobber No. 2 then comes along and exacts his profit on all that has gone before; and, as we were told at the last session of parliament, there were in some cases seven intermediaries, jobber No. 3 and those who follow him secure their profits in a similar way, with

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman

the result that when the farmer or the housewife or the labourer gets these goods, with all these profits added to the price, the tax really is not only 6 per cent, but has increased by as many times as a profit has been added. The farmers therefore get no benefit from the tax, and it will be found that less revenue will be collected, while there will be more expense involved in the collection of the tax.

Let me say a word with reference to the income tax, which has been dealt with by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. King). But before I speak of that tax I want to refer to an incident that occurred in this House last year. The House will find a reference to it at page 3241 of Hansard of that year. The occasion was the discussion of the duty upon cigarettes which this year has been taken off. I rose in the House then and told the Minister of Finance that while I did not desire to be considered a champion of the cigarette trade, at the same time representations had been made to me from which it was obvious that there must of necessity be a loss of revenue if the tax which he proposed then was put on cigarettes. I declared at that time that so obvious was this to me that I desired to go on record in the matter. The minister replied that representations had been made to him also, that he had considered them, and that the matter was doubtful. But he was determined to impose the tax for the then current year, and if it was found, as represented, that there was a loss of revenue the tax would be taken off.

The Finance Minister was as good as his word; the tax was taken off, and there was an immense loss of revenue. The loss, as was stated during the course of this debate, was 15,000,000 in connection with the tobacco trade and $1,200,000 on the item of cigarettes alone. How this should have been allowed to occur I cannot understand. I do not think the Finance Minister gave the matter his personal attention; he probably relegated it to his adviser in the department. I think that that gentleman, or whoever was responsible for the decision which meant a loss of revenue to this country of $1,200,000 should lose his position. It was plain that that result would follow, and there should be no chance of such a thing occurring again.

With regard to the income tax, with its surtax and its supersurtax, I am of the distinct opinion that this country is losing money every day by its imposition. It is lessening production and I believe it is lessening revenue. It is deliberately cutting off the limb upon which sits any chance for the growth of industry in this country. I feel very strongly on this point, and I hope I may be able to convince the government that that is the view to be accepted. Let me develop the point a little; the argument is not mine originally, but every reasoning fibre of my being is responsive to it. One of the chief fallacies in taxation is that if you levy the tax at the top, the bottom will escape; in other words, that if you levy the tax on the lieh you will avoid imposing it on the poor. That is an absolute fallacy. In the next place the income tax is altogether unfair; it means the imposition of a levy on those who have worked and saved, for the benefit of those who will not work and will not save. That is the doctrine entertained by some of my friends to my left, and when you get to the extreme left you have the doctrine which would go to the extent of taking away all capital from the rich in order that the poor might benefit. The idea would be fine if it worked, but it does not work, it never has worked and in the nature of things it never will. In this connection I want to adopt the argument of Mr. Otto H. Kahn, a distinguished banker and publicist of New York, a German by extraction whose conduct during the war was admirable, and I have great pleasure in quoting his views. He says:

The usual advocate of the income tax says: "Supposing the rich man is made to pay two-thirds or more of this income in taxes. He still has plenty left." The user of this argument can see no farther than his nose. He forgets that the income tax drives capital out of constructive use in the first place.

In the second place, it reduces the incentive to venturing to the vanishing point, so that capitaJ will not undertake new work.

In the third place, money that ought to be used in the expansion of the country's business and the prosperity of the whole people is drained into the coffers of the government.

Again, it amounts to a campaign against thrift. Why save when the government will rob you of your savings? The income tax is half brother to the inflated currency of Germany and the confiscation policy of Russia. It promotes extravagance and discourages industry among' the rich.

The one point that is overlooked is, as Mr. Kahn points out, that the income tax and surtax defeat their own purposes. Greed, envy, and injustice always overreach themselves. The result of these excessive taxes is not only that capital turns to tax-exempt securities for investment, but it takes every legally permissible dodge to escape intolerable taxation, while a reasonable tax would willingly be paid.

That this is not theory but actual fact is proved by statistics, which show an enormous reduction in the revenue derived by the government from large incomes.

The government referred to is, of course, the government of the United States. They have reduced their income tax. The United Kingdom has reduced its income tax by one-third since the war began. Canada is the only nation I know of that has increased its income

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman

The Budqet-Mr. Ryckman

met in a special way. The Finance Minister has said-has said it several times in my hearing-"Oh, it is difficult to raise money for the war debt. It was incurred while the war was on and there was a patriotic and most commendable feeling in the public mind. Bonds could be sold and money was cheerfully contributed by the people because it was for the carrying on of the war. But that is all past and the money cannot be raised now." I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the very same spirit could be depended upon to raise revenue-perhaps not to as great an extent but still to a very considerable amount -in this country to-day if the governmenc would only adopt the right method. What method would I propose? Well, I would take the sales tax which is so objectionable to some and I would scrap it. I would then introduce what is known as the "turn-over" tax. That is well understood by all the members of this House but in short it is this: There should be a tax levied upon all processed goods, and upon all annual services in the case of doctors, dentists, and other professional men. Speaking of processed goods I would say the tax should be in turnover to the extent of $10,000 annually, using that figure only for the purposes of illustration; in the case of professional men it should be applied to incomes of $5,000 annually. The turn-over tax should be one per cent and whatever that tax yielded should be applied to war expenses, interest on the debt, pensions, and so on; but that not one cent of revenue from that tax should be paid for any other purpose than war expenditure. Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied the amount such a tax would yield would take care of the necessary war expenditure that we have and, together with a properly graduated income tax, would provide even for the railway deficits. This tax has been tried in Switzerland and has worked well; but we would be satisfied with knowing that this tax of one per cent, which I have mentioned for the sake of example, would not be objected to. Who would object to paying one per cent on $10,000 a year? Who would object to paying ten cents on any $10 article he purchased? No one at all, especially if it were known that the revenue from it would be devoted to meeting war expenditure exclusively. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that after the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 the lament of the next generation of young English boys was that they had not been of an age which would have permitted them to have taken part in the wars in which

I Nfr. iljvkioan.]

Great Britain triumphed so magnificently. I want to say that if opportunity were given our people to contribute of their means to war expenditure they would gladly subscribe if they knew the money would be solely devoted to meeting war expenditure. The spirit which was so splendidly exhibited during the war is still alive. The young men who will succeed us, if the tax is still in existence, will know that in bearing it they were upholding the sentiment that the Canadian nation upheld and fought for during the Great War. I say, Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister does not know the immense amount of money that would be willingly given by the nation for this purpose. No one would default in payment of this tax, few would try to do so. But consisting in the main in small amounts the total revenue to be derived from this source would largely meet the burden that now rests upon the shoulders of the people and which, owing to our confused system oi finances, is of such a character that no one really knows how much money is taken or how it is expended. If, after the imposition of such a tax the budget failed to balance I am quite sure that by practising the real economies I have spoken of the ill would be cured.

We are told that the farmers are still suffering and that they have a strong antipathy to a protective tariff. Really I have been much amused during the progress of this debate to observe some of the statements which have been made. For example, the leader of the Progressive party during his speech said that he lived close to the international boundary line, and that he could buy more cheaply on the other side of that line and that he could obtain a higher price for his products. I could not help but think that the hon. member should have paused for a moment to consider where that kind of argument led him, because if there is any country in the world that has a tariff "as high as Haman's gallows" it is the United States. There is where you have a real high tariff protectionist country. Yet the leader of the Progressives tells us that we ought to have free trade in Canada, and that if he crosses the boundary line into that highly protected country which is so near to him he can buy-he did not say everything- but he can buy many articles much more cheaply and if he went to sell his farm products he could get a much higher price. A short time ago I had the pleasure of reading a biography of William Henry Seward, a very distinguished man, an Olympian, who was overtopped only by Abraham Lincoln. He was the Secretary of State in Lincoln's cabinet

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman

He was an orator, a patriot and a public man of the highest integrity, and in making a political speech seventy-five years ago, before any of the Progressives were born he said:

Industry falls into three classes in this country, agriculture, manufacture and trade.

He said also:

Some say that agriculture is a basic industry. It is but they are all basic industries. The three of them are so associated and dovetailed together that it is impossible to benefit one without benefiting the others.

It is impossible to do an injury to one without hurting the others and equally it is impossible to in any way do anything which will displace one either up or down without affecting the other two.

He said further:

There are some who argue in favour of a lower tariff. I will admit that if this world were composed of a number of Utopias, theoretically the argument is correct, but I have lived in this country, and I have seen that every time the tariff was advanced this country prospered and every time the tariff was lowered this country suffered. With that experienc I can do nothing else than say that I am for a higher tariff.

And he concluded by saying that the prosperity that the United States had up to that time-and it was borne out by the history of the United States-had been brought about by the high tariff imposed. It is the same thing to-day, Mr. Speaker. We are told the United States is prosperous. We are not prosperous to the extent the United States is, and I submit the reason is that we have not enough tariff protection. Only a short time ago, through the kindness of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) there was distributed to us a memorandum showing that there had been imported into this country during the last twelve months $208,000,000 worth of farm products, brought in to compete with the products of our Canadian farmers. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that if I had the opportunity I would make it perfectly certain that any taxes which the United States imposed upon farm products going into the United States from Canada *would be imposed by Canada upon that $208,000,000 worth of products that came into this country, and I would make it abundantly plain that any man who wanted grapefruit for breakfast would know he was paying for it, and that he could get a Northern Spy apple at much less cost than he could obtain grape fruit or foreign fruit from the southern parts of the United States. I do not see why that argument is not sound, and I believe the course I suggest is in keeping with our selfrespect. Why should we as a people admit produce from the United States amounting to more than one-fourth of our total imports and not tax as freely as we are taxed? That is the self-respecting course in dealings between man and man. You are not going to allow one man "to put it all over you," as the saying is, and so I say that much of these ills that we have suffered, much of the deficits that we have to meet by taxes levied upon ourselves, could be taken care of by a proper tax upon the $208,000,000 worth of the products of the farm, because it includes food and all products as well.

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

Harold Putnam

Liberal

Mr. PUTNAM:

Does that include all fruits?

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

Edmond Baird Ryckman

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

I would think so. I have no doubt the hon. member received the same memorandum, and the item will be found in the first two lines of the memorandum. We have $208,000,000 of farm products, one-fourth of all our imports, brought into Canada from the United States. I submit if we provided for an item of that kind by adequate taxation, and if we met the difficulties of the western provinces with regard to transportation-and I believe there is a difficulty there-we could without trouble, without great sacrifice, with the money derived from such a source, pay something like $20,000,000, which would mean 5 cents a bushel to the farmers, when they transport 400,000,000 bushels of grain. If there were a nationalpolicy inaugurated for the farmers at this time, founded upon the necessities of the farmers, and in order to meet their difficulties, there would be great sympathy in this House and in the country. But at the present time, when our friends to my left are railing against a protective tariff, and when, as I say, it seems that the opportunity will not come to them very soon of converting anybody they ought to cease worrying us with attacks on the tariff, if they think otherwise, I would advise them to commence operations on the two members who recently left them, and have now joined the party which stands for a high tariff as some people put it. But let us forget about that and struggle to alleviate the conditions which are certainly oppressing our western farmers.

In regard to the reciprocity resolution I take an altogether different view from the one propounded by the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. King). I think these resolutions do not comport with the dignity of this country. I think they are also unseemly. It is something like the lady proposing and when the lady proposes the person to whom she proposes generally cools off a little 'bit anyway. It often results in a very distinct and lasting coolness. There was a failure in 1911 to obtain reciprocity, and I have heard our respect-

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman

ed and honoured friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) speak of this on three or four different occasions. On two occasions he has said-

There is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at 'the flood leads On to fortune.

The day before yesterday the Finance Minister, before the Banking committee, described as a crime the fact that the reciprocity pact of 1911 did not become law. I think that it never should have become law in 1911, and it did not, and that it should not become law in 1923, and it will not. I know that the Finance Minister is absolutely sincere about that; there is no doubt about it.

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

Harold Putnam

Liberal

Mr. PUTNAM:

Should it have become law in 1854?

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

Edmond Baird Ryckman

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

That was before I was born, and I cannot answer the question.

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

Harold Putnam

Liberal

Mr. PUTNAM:

It is a short time in the history of a nation. I asked if the hon. member thought reciprocity should have become law in 1854.

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

Edmond Baird Ryckman

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

I feel satisfied that I could not answer that question to my hon. friend's satisfaction, because I am not familiar with the facts. My first connection with political life was when this country suffered by reason of the United States doing as it could do in 1911 and afterwards, and as it could do n 1923, namely, disrupt the pact and throw .his country upon its own resources absolutely, when it had been accustomed to deal with the United States. It would be all very well if proper safeguards were provided which would properly care for trade relations in reciprocity agreements with the United States. But that is the point I was coming to. I have had a large experience with the United States.

I have been interested in business there.

I have spent a good deal of my time in the United States. I think I have been in the capital city of the United States as much as any member of the House. I have sat in clubs of the United States for twenty years and have heard these questions discussed. I have come to the conclusion-and I say this with all seriousness; do not let anyone think that I am girding at the United States-that the United States, as regards their patriotic view, are the real Sein Feiners of the world -for themselves alone. The United States would enter into a reciprocal pact with Canada at any time that this was to the advantage of the United States. The United States would crash through any reciprocity pact with Canada at any time that this was for the advantage of the United States. Do hon.

I Mr. Ryckman.]

members not think that is so? What is the lesson of the late war? Remember I am not in any way saying that the United States has done one thing that, as a nation, it was not entitled to do. Nations as individuals must take care of themselves, and the United States certainly does so. What did they do in the late vvar? We were in that war, Great Britain was in that war for two years and eight months before the United States came in. The United States came into the war, and they say they won the war. It was, therefore, their war, and from the beginning during the two years and eight months, they took, as they had every right to take, this gold which is in their coffers to-day. Then the question arose of settling up the debts of the war, the war which they will tell you frankly they have won. I have heard a general in the army, officers in the executive offices at Washington, and army officers argue with me to a demonstration, as they thought, that the United States won the war. When the war was over, Great Britain offered to forego the debts which the Allies owed to her. When the proposition was made to the United States, the United States declined. The United States had a perfect right to ask Great Britain to pay her debt. Great Britain is not complaining; Great Britain will pay it. But there is nothing that. I am surer of on earth than that if the reciprocity pact or any other international agreement were made with the United States, and it became of interest to the United States, of vital national interest for the prosperity of its people, to crash through that agreement, the United States would do so. That being my view, I certainly cannot feel that this country suffered anything by not accepting the reciprocity pact of 1911, and I think this country as a self-respecting contracting nation has lowered its standing as such by putting before the * face of the whole world that it is offering to deal with the United States, the United States having taken the stand that it has taken with regard to the late war and back again, as more closely related to ourselves, when it dosed out the trade agreement that we had in years gone by, which action put this country on its back, so that for a long time it could not recover until the National Policy of Sir John A. Macdonald gave this country an opportunity to breathe and live again.

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

Harold Putnam

Liberal

Mr. PUTNAM:

Would the hon. gentleman cite any agreement that the United States ever crashed through? He used that harsh term twice.

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

Edmond Baird Ryckman

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

I want to be absolutely fair in my statement to the House. By the

The Budget-Mr. Hughes

term, "crashed through," I do not want my hon. friend to understand that I was speaking of a breach of agreement. A more felicitous expression would be to say that they would put an end to it whenever it suited their purpose to do so. To my mind it is a great pity that this country has not the same opinion of itself that the United States has of itself; that this country does not determine that what it shall do shall be for the benefit of Canada first, because that is the duty, I submit, of this parliament. We are walking around, making overtures to the United States, and the wire comes back hot from Washington on the 16th May that a proposal of this kind will not be entertained now. What would have happened supposing we had had reciprocity in 1911 and that this farmer bloc, which is the reason that the Fordney-McCumber bill is law in the United States to-day, came into existence; supposing that reciprocity had existed and it was contrary to the interests of those farmers in the United States that Canadian farmers should have a benefit, do you mean to say for one moment that they would not have insisted on their rights? Certainly they would; they would have asked that this reciprocity agreement inaugurated in 1911 should be cancelled. The United States will be very glad to deal with us as long as we can offer her a consideration and as long as everything is flowing freely her way. But just the moment that boot is on the other foot, there is a distinct change of attitude on the part of the United States. They want to retire from any obligations that would in any way mean loss to them.

In conclusion, I was put in mind by the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. King) referring to ancient Rome and what was going to happen to us, of what we all used to read in our history books of the days of ancient Rome in the time of Marcus Cato; Cato, the censor. Whenever Cato addressed the Roman senate, no matter what the topic was, he concluded every speech, without regard to the relevancy of the remark, with "Delenda cst Carthago"- "Carthage must be destroyed." Scipio Nasica his rival on the opposite side of the senate then got the habit of concluding his speech with the statement: "In my opinion I think that Carthage should be left standing." I would that I could conclude this speech with an injunction that would have the success that Cato's had, because his advocacy won the destruction of Carthage; the Romans finally determined upon that, and Carthage was destroyed. If I could lay an injunction upon this House, it would be this, that we must practise economy; and

|

if ever the day comes-and I believe it will

come because I think the people of this country will insist upon it-when that injunction will be met and satisfaction given to the people of Canada by economy, real and earnest, put into practice, I for one will feel that I have not spoken altogether in vain in urging in an imperfect way that the expense of this country could, if a determined effort were made, be cut down to a figure that would surprise even the members of the House themselves.

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

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. J. J. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.):

Mr. Speaker, some years ago, in fact a good many years ago, when I was learning to write in a country school, the teacher in those days set headlines for the pupils who were learning that craft, and our teacher rather prided himself upon the number of aphorisms that he could use on such occasions. One of them that came under the letter "M" ran as follows:

Many men of many minds,

Many birds of various kinds.

As I have listened to the speeches in this debate, in fact as I have listened i\o all the speeches in parliament, I have been driven to the conclusion that there was a good deal of truth in the first part of that aphorism, because there is certainly great divergence of opinion as regards the budget and nearly everything discussed under it. I read somewhere that in a multiplicity of counsel there is wisdom and I thought that was a very wise saying. But I have changed my mind in that respect. I have also read that much speaking dark-eneth wisdom, and I think there is something like that in the book of Job. Well,jl have come to the conclusion that there is a good deal of wisdom in that statement. But notwithstanding that fact I may be a sinner to some extent to-night. I trust however that what I say will not have the effect of darkening the vision of parliament because I would not fall into the same error that some others have fallen into.

Unfortunately, I did not hear the budget as delivered by the Minister of Finance, but I had the privilege of listening to the speech of the chief critic of the opposition, the hon. member for West York and ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and I read it afterwards besides. If I were to judge from that mild criticism that he indulged in, a criticism in fractions of fractions, I would conclude that the budget was unanswerable, because he made no real attack upon it. And that hon. gentleman is the chief critic of the opposition. I might almost say the same thing of the speech

The Budget-Mr. Hughes

delivered by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke).

There is an assumption running through the speeches of the Conservatives in this House that some one is responsible for the tremendous taxation and the enormous public debt under which the people of this country are staggering at the present time, and the assumption seems to come from our friends opposite that they are not responsible, that they are the men who can wash their hands of this condition and place upon some other party in the House the necessity of providing the funds to meet these enormous obligations. I totally dissent from that assumption. I see the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) in his seat; he is an intelligent man and he knows that there is no foundation for it. He knows that when the party of which he is now leader came into power there was hardly any public debt and practically speaking we did not know what taxation was. Immediately after his party assumed office the expenditure under the consolidated fund began to go up by $10,000,000 and $15,000,000 a year. But when the war started, then the floodgates were opened wide; all restrictions were removed. I know quite well, and I am willing to admit, that under war conditions enormous expenditures will be incurred, because prices will be two or three times the worth of the article, and everything will be expensive under such circumstances.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF 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:

The hon. gentleman

appeals to me; perhaps he would like to have my opinion of his statement. It is absolutely wrong.

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

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES:

What part of it?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF 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:

The first two years of

the government of Sir Robert Borden there was an enormous diminution of the national debt, the first year by almost a million dollars and the second year nearly $26,000,000.

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

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES:

I spoke of the e.penditure under the consolidated fund. The condition of the country was so good after fifteen years of Liberal administration, the revenues were so buoyant, that the expenditure could go on mounting up by $10,000,000 and $15,000,000 a year, and yet the public debt had not yet greatly increased.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF 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:

There was an item of

$15,000,000, but it was a loan to that precious creation of my hon. friend's party, the Grand Trunk Pacific.

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

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES:

Since my hon. friend and I have come into conflict on this point, I can give him a few items in regard to which the government could have exercised control. I

[Mr. Huglies.l

heard my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr Ryckman) speak of economy a few moments ago. Well, the Conservative party were hardly in office before some 12,000 civil servants-I am giving the round numbers,-were dismissed from office and upwards of 25,000 were appointed to take their places.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF 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:

That is not right.

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

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES:

The public records will

prove it.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF 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:

Get them now.

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

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES:

The returns were brought down to the House at the time.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

May 18, 1923