May 12, 1926

LIB

Roch Lanctôt

Liberal

Mr. LANCTOT:

It is too costly.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

It is too costly, but my proposition is to stop this unnecessary expense.

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

Roch Lanctôt

Liberal

Mr. LANCTOT:

The Canadian Pacific Railway should have it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

I do not agree with that; the people of Canada will not stand for it, particularly the 4 p.m. people of the west. But they are looking for some arangement which will stop this enormous extravagance. The Canadian Pacific Railway ought to be glad to enter into such an arrangement, because they cannot stand the competition of the Canadian National. It is too much for them, because the Canadian National has 70 per cent of the strategy, which they got in the early days when the old Great Western, the Canadian Northern and the other early railways were built. The greatest piece of strategy they got was through Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when he built the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. They have all the strategy through western Canada; competition is growing; the Canadian Pacific Railway is feeling the effects of it, and notwithstanding Mr. Beatty's statements to the contrary I believe he would like to enter into an arrangement which would make this great saving to the nation and would be better for the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Not only is public ownership growing, but I want to tell the House something else which may be of interest. Five years ago the province of Ontario under Mr. Drury, then head of the farmer government, established a savings bank. It could not be called a bank, but was officially named the Province of Ontario Savings Branch. Eventually he got it going, under an agreement with one able young man, a good organizer, to whom he gave this pledge. He told this young man that if he established this Savings branch he would not be interfered with. He gave him a free hand, and this new departure is the greatest instance of public ownership in Canada to-day with the exception of the National railways. The people have their own bank, and it is a great success. The banking interests of Montreal did not like it and tried their best to destroy it when the Drury government went out of office. They appealed to the Ferguson government, which

at last decided to reduce the rate of interest from 4 per cent to 3 per cent. But notwithstanding that reduction the deposits in that Savings branch total $25,000,000; it is the best bank in Ontario to-day and enjoys the confidence of the people.

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

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

Do they discount notes?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

No, but they deposit in other banks and I think get four per cent interest.

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

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

Someone has to discount

notes, or business cannot be carried on.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

The province

of Ontario could come to this House and ask for full banking powers under the Bank Act, but in the meantime the province has this amount of money on deposit which they can either use or deposit in other banks. This is the greatest experiment in national banking being carried on in America to-day. Other provinces have followed the lead of Ontario, I believe, but without the same measure of success. I have not seen a word in the papers of what took place in Toronto the other day. The provincial treasurer, Colonel Price, has come to see what a great asset this bank is; he has taken new premises for it at the corner of Adelaide and Bay streets, and it is the busiest bank in Toronto today. All the poor people of Toronto go there with their savings; the bank is open earlier in the morning and closes later in the afternoon than do the others; they areout to do business and to serve the public.The result is that, notwithstanding the opposition of the greater banks and the

efforts made to squelch it, this new venture in banking is the surprising thing in Canada to-day. It is a great success; it will continue to grow, and I believe it will in the near future receive all the powers of a chartered bank.

Ontario has not only this bank; it has

public ownership of its hydro-electric development and of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, which was the first to open up the mining country of northern Ontario. All the mining development which has taken place in Ontario has been the result of the policy of Sir James Whitney in building this railway. If Quebec has anybody to thank for the discovery of its great mineral wealth in the Rouyn district, it is the enterprise of the province of Ontario in opening up that north country by the construction of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. That railway will doubtless play a prominent part in the development of the mines of northern Quebec. To

3338 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Maclean (York)

that railway is due the fact that there has been great mining development in northern Ontario, and we may see similar development in northern Quebec. The province of Manitoba is now looking to the National railway to provide a railway service to its mining districts. All these developments have come or are coming as a result of public ownership.

In this connection may I point out that a new bank has been instituted in Toronto. You hear nothing about it, the papers will not even note the fact that it has come into existence, but I want hon. members who are opposed to public ownership-and especially the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lanctot) who questioned me a moment or two ago-to go to Toronto and see the new bank, and they will come back prepared to recommend the opening of branches of that bank in their own province. It marks the advent of the greatest banking system that has yet been established in Canada, and the noteworthy fact about it is that it is publicly owned. Yet certain hon. gentlemen opposite seem to entertain the opinion -that the public cannot succeed in any enterprise which it owns. Surely that idea ought to have been dispelled by the success which the publicly owned system of National railways in this country has encountered. I cannot but believe that my hon. friend opposite can see the trend of the movement. Certainly Mr. Beatty and the directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway do. They seem to be getting apprehensive of the competition which the Canadian National Railway gives, and they are getting reac^y to favour amalgamation.

I want to tell my hon. friends opposite another thing. The United States to-day do not own a railway, they do not even own a bank share.

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

Roch Lanctôt

Liberal

Mr. LANCTOT:

What policy did they

.pursue during the war?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN (Y'ork):

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

If agricultural implements were manufactured in Winnipeg, what would happen to Toronto and Brantford?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

Toronto would

be able to take care of itself. We probably would get cheaper goods, on the same principle that the farmers get more for their grain by co-operation.

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

Robert Rogers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROGERS:

Where is the proof that

the farmers are getting more?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

They _ say so

themselves, and we know the price is much better.

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

Robert Rogers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROGERS:

Does the hon. gentleman

know that?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

I know a great

deal about it. Perhaps my hon. friend knows, and if so he might tell us. I will leave it to the farmers to say whether or not co-operation is a success. The English papers are stating that the astonishing thing in the world to-day is the success of the pooling of the grain of the west, resulting in the getting of better prices therefor. That is a great change, but it shows how our ideas are progressing and how new ideas are coming to be adopted. If we do not take advantage of these things we miss our opportunities.

I should like to see the Canadian National Railways give better freight rates. Our farmers in the west are organizing and cooperating-and the farmers in the United States are organizing in much the same manner, except that they have approached congress in a different way. They are not satisfied with the prices they are getting for their grain, but the main thing is that they are organizing. The farmers desire to see more local banks established in the west with local capital, so that they will have a better banking service, without of course injuring the present service. This must be done by organization and legislation. Rather than adhere to the insane idea of having two great systems of railways in competition with each other, a consolidation should be effected so that the Canadian National Railway would be able not only to meet all its commitments. but also to make a reduction of freight rates.

I propose to vote for the amendment because the government have failed to give the people what they pledged themselves to give, namely, an opportunity to the men who work in the factories and those who own the factories to be heard before any decision should be arrived at in regard to the tariff.

The Budget-Mr. Gervais

They did not give them that opportunity. I come from a constituency in which two of these factories are located, and although there may be a reason for the change, the people in my constituency think that there should have been a hearing before the tariff board before any conclusion was arrived at. Later on in the session I will direct the attention of the House further to some questions connected with the budget, and I have no doubt that there will be ample opportunity to discuss them.

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

Joseph-Charles-Théodore Gervais

Liberal

Mr. THEODORE GERVAIS (Berthier-Maskinonge) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I do not propose nor could I hope to introduce many new arguments before this House. We have witnessed, since the opening of Parliament, a constant interchange of conflicting opinions. Not only days but months have been taken up in denouncing on the one hand, a political system, and in vindicating it, on the other, without much care for or much consideration being given to the actual facts. I have heard and listened with much interest to the different speeches pronounced by the succeeding orators, from the representatives of the Maritime provinces to those of the western provinces, and hon. gentlemen opposite have been almost unanimous in condemning the present government and in opposing the proposal of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) moving that the House should go into committee of ways and means to consider certain resolutions.

Every hon. member opposite, whether from Prince Edward Island, through the Maritime provinces, Quebec, or Ontario, but especially those from this latter province, taking part in this debate, has stood up strongly in defence of the old protectionist principle. Their story of grievances did not say much about Quebec. In their view, the Maritime provinces have serious grievances against the government. Those hon. gentlemen have even evolved out of these grievances a kind of policy entitled "The Maritime Rights"; and, of course, the sole remedy to such a situation lies, according to the hon. gentlemen, in a protective tariff. Our friends from Ontario told us practically the same thing. Protection was the predominant idea in every speech delivered in this House by the hon. members. Though they dealt with every conceivable matter, their fundamental and constant theme reverted invariably to the lack of protection and the lowering of duties by this government. Long was the wail, especially from the Ontario members. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec is not a

free trade province but that contrary to the Martimes and Ontario she has no reason to complain of this government.

Matters of interest on the hustings and

questions relevant to this House, that we have to decide, are different. It seems to me that in this House, hon. members should look carefuly into public matters, scrutinize and criticize earnestly, in order to be in a position to co-operate, as they should, with the government in the best interest of the country. How different are those recriminations from the praises sometimes heard! I was pleased to hear some hon. members opposite refer to the hand of Providence. Forced to look into the budget speech, these gentlemen could not but admit that the financial statement, the year's financial review, as submitted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in his budget speech, was most gratifying, and so they credited Providence for so much Allow me to repeat that old saying of the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier: "If Providence is on our side, what reason have the Conservative party and, presently, the hon. members opposite, to be against us?" If Providence favours the Liberals, why does that apostle of co-operation, the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) not give his support to the government. That would bring him in line with Providence.

About ten years ago, when I entered this House, I heard for the first time the budget speech being delivered. Sir Thomas White was then Minister of Finance, and I remember the impression of anxiety .that budget left on my mind. How different is the situation to-day! What improvement in our finances, in the general business conditions! If our friends opposite would only refer to the public records of that time, look over the statistics, they would realize what improvement has taken place, especially since the advent of the Liberal government.

Allow me to outline briefly the financial situation of that day. When the Liberal party went out of office in 1911, the country's debt was insignificant. The public debt amounted to $335,000,000, and so what we had to pay in interest was not very much. When we came back, we the Liberals, in 1921, the debt had reached two billions and some four or five hundred millions of dollars; and the interest due alone, for the first year, exceeded the total sum of expenditure under the Liberal administration of 1911, and amounted to $142,000.000. I know there were many justifiable disbursements resulting from the war, and I do not want to enter upon that ground already gone over; but on how many improvident ventures they engaged during that

The Budget-Mr. Gervais

period. Carried, I should say, on the wave of war extravagances, the Conservative, Unionist and after war governments plunged themselves into most reprehensible expenditures. For instance, and speaking from memory, the merchant marine, a sorry remembrance, the building of those merchant ships at a cost of $72,000,000 to $73,000,000. And if the Liberals have some responsibility to share for the unfortunate railway situation the Unionist government had to face, they certainly have none as to the building of that merchant marine when the country was burdened to the utmost. That waste of $73,000,000 of the public money at a time when Canada was so much in need of funds was probably forced upon the government of the day by some private interests. And what have been the results? The deficits in the administration of the merchant marine have been added to those of the Canadian National Railways.

At the same time, the government was supplying money for the labour housing plan which has had more or less satisfactory results; they were helping enterprises of all kinds; they were subsidizing the construction of roads in the different provinces. Quebec had given the example for the building of good roads; the other provinces were somewhat envious of it, and probably under the pressure of particular interests of those provinces, enormous sums of money were granted for the public roads. Quebec has taken advantage of it like the other provinces and 1 am happy to say that so far as the public services are concerned the province where I come from has been one of the pioneers of the whole Dominion.

Having 'heard the recriminations of the Maritime provinces and of Ontario, let me tell you a few words about the province of Quebec. I heard yesterday the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) give us a summary of the financial situation of the province of Ontario and show us the amount of its expenses and the regular and annual increase of the public debt which would amount to $275,000,000 or $280,000,000. In the province of Quebec, in spite of the large subsidies that we give for the encouragement of the public services, public instruction and colonization, the debt does not exceed $60,000,000. We do not deny to hon. gentlemen opposite the right to complain of their province especially those of Ontario, but after all, we Liberal members of Quebec, are satisfied and happy to come from that province, and we have nothing to beg to-day from the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, all the public statistics have been searched, analysed, explained in some fashion or other by hon. gentlemen opposite, so as to be in a position to ask for more and more protection for the industries. We must not lose our senses over this tariff issue. Every tariff question is a business question and we must examine it in the light of reason and actual facts and judge it on its merits. The tariff is a tax. It may be a necessary one; it can be very useful if it is handled with care, but I am opposed to protection, especially when it is applied to every commodity as a matter of course. Protection, according to our friends across the floor, would be a universal panacea. It would seem that every ill can be cured by protection. Industries would grow and develop under protection. The farmer would also see much better days. Moreover, they have requested more protection even for eggs; hens would lay more if that policy were applied on a larger scale. Protection would be a cure for every ill. I believe that they have gone too far and that this tariff question should be considered more judicially in t'he light of the plainest economic data, provided that we set aside the spirit of partisanship and that we discuss it in a broadminded way, because the people take less interest in the questions which are discussed in the House of Commons of Canada, owing to the fact that we give too much time to academic discussions. In 1922 and 1923, the government reduced the duty on agricultural implements. I have listened to all the grievances and the pessimism of our friends on the other side about the future of the industry of agricultural implements. There had been much said on that subject that one day that I happened to be in my county when an employee of one of the greatest manufacturers of agricultural implements was putting up a binder, I asked the local agent what was the price of the binder that year, and if there was not a difference in price as compared with that of the previous year. Looking at his price-list, he answered that there was a difference - of $12 and, without me questioning the mechanic, he added, being so much imbued with the idea of protection: "The tariff is not to be blamed for that." But I think that it has very much affected the cost of the agricultural implements, in the same way that the cut in the tariff will presently greatly influence the price of motor cars.

You cannot realize, Mr. Speaker, what arguments were used during the last election, by the candidates of hon. gentlemen opposite. I heard one of them shifting his ground', resorting to a chain of fallacies to show

The Budget-Mr. Gervais

what would bs the effect of a tariff similar ' to the American duty on hay, eggs, butter, cheese, potatoes, in one word on anything. With all sorts of false arguments he tried to show that if the Canadian tariff were $4 a ton that would mean some 50 cents a ton to the producer of hay. I never understood his reasoning and I will not undertake to repeat it; he did not understand it himself; neither did the voters who heard him. I represent a riding which produces large quantities of hay; and even if the government were to put a tariff of 810 a ton on hay it would have no effect in the counties that I represent. Even with no Canadian tariff a,t all on hay, things would be the same; whether the tariff be one cent a ton or 810 a ton, no American hay will ever be imported into Berthier-Maskinonge in competition with the local product. The tariff has nothing to do with it. Of course in certain localities, certain exceptional conditions may happen when, the price of hay being high, the people near the American border, might import a quantity of hay; but all they will have to pay is a duty of 82 per ton. Do you know what it costs to move a ton of hay -from my counties to Halifax? It costs 87.50. The cost is the same when the hay is shipped to St. John, N.B., Portland, Boston and New York. It is evident that in these districts if the harvest be poor the people are right to import American hay when they are near the border instead of ordering it from Berthier-Maskinonge and paying freight charges of 87.50 a ton.

The transportation problem goes to the root of all our trade difficulties and of nearly every question we discuss in this House. I have just said that the counties I represent produce a great quantity of hay. This year we exported, in spite of the tariff barrier of $4 a ton, not to .the Western States but to the Southern States, the Carolinas, Maryland, Virginia, through the firm of Bunting, who bought their hay from us, the county of Berthier, I say, shipped to that market, within three months, over 21100 cars of hay, and that was only one quarter of the crop. And do you know what -that hay cost when it was unloaded? It cost 815 freight and S4 duty before any allowance was made for its own value. When the government puts a tax of 84 a ton on hay the tax is paid by the American consumer. I said a moment ago that the transportation problem is at the bottom of all our trade relations in this country. It is at the bottom of the trade in hay of which I am speaking just now. There is much room for improvement there. I re-

quested the railway board to explain the situation fully; here is what we find: For carrying hay from Berthier county to Maryland and the Carolinas the Canadian Pacific charges 77 cents per cwt; and 36 cents per cwt -for shipment to Boston. When the Canadian Pacific moves hay for a hundred miles, say, to the boundary, the charge is 13 cents per cwt if the hay is consigned to Boston, and 25 cents a cwt when it is consigned to the southern states; the balance of the freight charges are collected by the American railways. Please note that the Canadian Pacific charges 25 cents per cwt when the hay is shipped to the southern states and 13 cents per cwt. when it is shipped to the Boston and New York markets. You will say that that is discrimination, that the rates are not properly balanced. I appealed to the railway board; and it appears that this state of things is unavoidable. I did not succeed in having the matter remedied; and we still had some 2,000 cars of hay to ship.

During the election campaign and in this House I have heard hon. members claim on more than one occasion that the tariff on eggs was not high enough. They complained about the Australian duty. I must tell you. Mr. Speaker, that during the campaign -these gentlemen made a good many complaints, not about the treaties that the Canadian government had negotiated with France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, but about the treaty with Australia, the effects of which were entirely unkown to them at the time. Australian eggs were to be dumped into Canada and the description was so striking-I can still see the magnificent, sweeping gestures of my opponents-that we could almost see those eggs overrunning the continent, coming here in serried ranks and ousting our own eggs from the Canadian market. The problem is a peculiar one: except in British Columbia, perhaps, we do not produce sufficient eggs for home consumption. During the summer we export eggs; but in the winter months our production falls below our needs.

Because of the law of supply and demand and the consumption being pretty regular, the price of eggs rises when winter comes along, and when the price is high enough, buyers turn to American eggs. That is because we cannot produce eggs during the winter. It is a thing the Canadian farmer has not yet learned. The various branches of agriculture are so numerous that he has not yet turned his attention to the production of eggs in winter.

I may say, and I do say it because I am sure of what I state, that egg production is the

The Budget-Mr. Gervais

most paying industry; it brings much more than hay raising or even the dairy industry. There is no industry bringing such high returns and the only question is to establish it among our Canadian farmers. Speaking of agriculture I might use Lafontaine's words at the beginning of one of his fables; "The farmer's patient tare and toil are oftenerwanting than the soil" and I say: "The farmer's patient tare and toil are oftener

wanting than the hen."

When the hon. members of the opposition show us a vivid and interesting picture in support of the idea of erecting a tariff barrier the question suggests itself: "Why not erect a tariff wall, why not raise the tariff?" We have the dumping clause to protect us against goods feeing dumped in our markets and, on the other hand, we must have some protection against the greediness of the producer, so that the consumer is not left to his tender mercy. If we have too high a barrier it is quite evident that it will not cause our hens to lay, because the price is even now remunerative but the price of eggs would become exorbitant. We must put a check to low prices as well as to high prices. It is the duty of competent authorities to check the scale of prices and a high tariff leaves the consumer entirely in the hands of the producer. That is why we should not adopt the high tariff asked for toy our friends of the opposition.

I often heard the question of coal discussed in this House and I believe a commission was appointed to investigate that subject. Allow me to tell you that I will be pleased to see the government take the matter in hand and if it is necessary, grant bonuses to the railroads so that they may carry coal from the Maritime provinces and Alberta into central Canada. Our country must be independent of the United States; we must not depend on our neighbours for our coal supply, either for factory or home purposes and it is with great pleasure that I will see the government grant subsidies to the railways, whenever necessary, so as to supply our factories and our homes with Canadian coal. There is another thing that I would like to see accomplished by the government. I would be happy to see the government take all possible means to oppose the diversion of traffic taking place from the west towards the United States. I know that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) who spoke a few moments ago would like the building of deep water harbours on lake Erie, lake Huron and lake Ontario. He favours co-operation provided the traffic goes through the province he represents. I would be pleased to see the governmentemploy all possible means to stop that diversion, so that the traffic may be directed to Canadian -ports without going through the United States and I ask on this question the co-operation of my hon. friend from South York and of all the members from the province of Ontario. Every year we complain that a large part of the traffic is sent through the United States. We have made great sacrifices to equip our ports, build our railroads and, perhaps because private interests are at the bottom of this, we let our traffic take the way of the United States.

I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would welcome on this question the co-operation of the member from South York and of all the members from Ontario, but before he spoke about cooperation the hon, member took good care in the beginning of his speech, to declare that he holds protection as a principle and that even his father before him, held protection as a principle. So that he will co-operate provided he finds it to his advantage. There is but one co-operation which he does not care for. He praised the province of Ontario, he even praised the Drury administration for creating a system of rural credits, but there is a cooperation which he does not like and that is the co-operation of Progressives and Liberals in this House.

At the very outset of his speech and as a term of comparison, the hon .member for South York made a review of facts, comparing Canada with the United States and he said: "The United States have progressed under a policy of protection." Think of comparing Canada with the United States! Are there two countries absolutely alike in the world? Are the geographical, topographical and climatic conditions the same in Chnada as in the United States? It seems to me that one is hardly justified in comparing Canada with the United States in order to build up a case in defence of his faith in protection. And the hon. member's deductions from that comparison are absolutely wrong.

If the party of the hon. member for South York had submitted the budget which the Liberal party presented this year, I think I would have heard my hon. friend along with every member of the opposition, say: "See what our party did, see what Canada is now, see how we found it in 1921 and its present condition".

We have restored our finances after four or five years, we have been able to reduce the burden of taxation by over $50,000,000 and when I glance at our trade, I find that Canada holds the fourth or the fifth rank among all the countries of the world. Canada

The Budget-Mr. Murphy

comes after Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States, but it is ahead of Italy, whose population is 40,000,000, ahead of Russia, Poland, Spain, India, Japan, one of the most interesting countries. In view of those facts, the hon. member no doubt would say: I want the economic system which the Liberal party gave us.

I think that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) in spite of his long experience and his independent actions is prejudiced by the idea of protection and does not view the situation properly. I believe he was somewhat influenced-if he can be influenced-by the complaints of his friends from the Maritime provinces, Ontario and other parts of the country and he did not realize what the situation actually was.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to tell you how pleased I was to hear the budget speech of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). For there is in this budget something over which any Canadian, any public man may well rejoice. We have corrected the blunders committed during the inefficient Tory administration. Canada has taken the right direction and with the kind co-operation of the Progressive party, our country is following again the path of progress. We understood what Providence expected from us, but we understood also that we must help ourselves. I trust that in the best interest of this country, and for its future welfare, this government will continue to administer its affairs and that much later on, when the present generation will be gone, the opponents shall be heard talking of this period as they are talking now of the prosperous time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and warmly acclaiming the administration of the Right Hon., Mackenzie King, that of the Liberal party.

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

Thomas Gerow Murphy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. G. MURPHY (Neepawa):

Mr. Speaker, in common with other members of the House I awaited with some degree of eagerness the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). The annual budget of Canada has always held more interest for the people than any other matter dealt with by parliament, and of late years that interest has been accentuated in a marked degree by the enormous additions to our national debt and our ever-increasing burden of taxation. While I am unable to congratulate the minister for the reasons advanced by his supporters I feel that I can congratulate him upon his presentation of a difficult subject.

On this subject I desire to make certain observations which I will endeavour to make as concise as possible. As an outcome of the [M,r. Gervais.]

year's business the minister estimates a decrease of debt of $22,353,000. This is very gratifying, but how has the result been attained? On account of economy practised by the government? I am afraid not, as the following comparison will show.

In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925, the total expenditure as shown by the Public Accounts was $340,619,936.48, while for the year 1926 it is $356,590,000, or an increase of $15,970,063.52. I am afraid we cannot give any credit to this government for economy in expenditure. Let us on the other hand compare the revenues for the two years 1925 and 1926. For the year 1925 the total revenue was $352,232,552.97 and for the year 1926, $378,943,000, or an increase of revenue for 1926 of $26,710,447.03. An examination of these figures clearly shows that the reason the government has been able to produce a surplus is because the revenue has increased and not because the government has been * economizing.

I have shown that the government expended in round figures $15,970,000 more in

1926 than in 1925, while for the coming year,. 1927, the estimated expenditure, including $30,000,000 to be advanced to the railways, is $381,871,351, or an estimated increase for

1927 of $25,281,351 over 1926. How any man can say that this government has done anything by reason of its policies to reduce the national debt passes my comprehension, when expenditures are increasing every year and the only reason we have any reduction in debt is because this government has taken more money out of the people of Canada.

I have heard it argued in this House that the government has reduced taxation.

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

THE ROYAL ASSENT SUSPENSION OF SITTING


A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows: Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this 'honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate. Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate. And having returned, Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills: An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Gertrude Grr. An Act for the relief of Melville James Andrews. The Royal Assent An Act for t'he relief of Hairry Reginald Oddy. An Act for t-he relief of Mildred Roxie Horner. An Act for the relief of Frances Muriel Burnet. An Act for the relief of Ada Toms. An Act for the relief of Vera Sanderson. An Act for the relief of Noel Leslie Deuxbury. An Act for the relief of Lillian May O'Reilly. An Act for the relief of Jean Victoria DM lane. An Act for the relief of Ethel Alberta Barker. An Act for the relief of Annie Hazel McCausland. An Act for the re'Jief of Sterling LeRoy Spicer. An Act for the relief of Amy Bell Comey. An Act for the relief of David Frank Crosier. An Act for the relief of Ethel Gildea Nye Brown. An Act for the relief of Edward Thomas Faragher. An Act for the relief of Bertha Viola Lidkea. An Act for (the relief of Mike Ayoulb* (otherwise known as Michael Ayoub). An Act for the relief of Alice Marion McGinley. An Act for the relief of Harold Edgar PeriocMef. An Act for the relief of Hendel Tuerner Lubrinetsky. An Act for the relief of Paul Hugh Tumibull. An Act for the relief of Helen Eliby Pollington. An Act for the relief of Alexander Stewart. An Act for the relief of William Melville Moore. An Act for the relief of John Samuel Milligan. An Act for the relief of Marion Richardson. An Act for the relief of Isadore Boadmer. An Act for the relief of William Albert Thomas. An Act for the relief of Gertrude Isabel Clerk. An Act for the relief of Helen Seymour O'Connor. An Act for the relief of Yetta Selma Trachsell. An Act for the relief of Alexander Dewar. An Act for the relief of Florence Burrell. An Act for the relief of Edith Marion Byarn. An Act for the relief otf Charles Davidson. An Act for the relief of Doris Selina Irvin. An Act for the relief of Frank John Davis. An Act for the relief of John Norman Smith Me Murray. An Act for the relief of Archie Claire McIntyre. An Act for the relief of Mabel Elizabeth Harcourt.An Act for the relief of Louise Gordon Pook.An Act for the relief of Ez-illah Harriet Cole. An Act for the relief of Gertrude Burnside. An Act for the relief of Cora Mae Murray. An Act for the relief of Janet Thornhill Gorrie. An Act for the .relief of Lillian DuBord Bulloch. An Act for the relief of Henrietta Schierholtz.An Act for the relief of Maude Elizabeth Gilroy.An Act for (the relief of Richard Howard Buckley.An Act for the relief of William George Darlington. An Aot for the relief of Arthur Watson. An Act for the relief of Frances Marporie Warren. An Act for the relief of Charles Douglas Palmer.An Aot for the relief of Beatrice Isabel Lamontagne. An Act for the relief of Jane Johnston Mitchell Wells. An Act for the relief of Jeremiah Gibbs. An Act for the relief of Caroline Elizabeth Riisbridger. An Act for the relief of Cassie Woodley.An Act foT the relief of Isabella Freeman. An Aot for the relief of George Guthrie. An Act for the relief of Lily Stead. An Act for the relief of Alice Grace Hopkins. An Act for the relief of Vera Catherine Searle. An Act for the relief of Charles Frost. An Act to change the name of the Dominion Express Company to "Canadian Pacific Express Company." An Act for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1927.


May 12, 1926