February 28, 1928

UFA

George Gibson Coote

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. COOTE:

It is too bad Cartwright is dead.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss MACPHAIL:

Yes, it is too bad he is dead but in any case he was ruined before he died. Let me quote from him again:

My objection to this scheme goes deep. I object to it not merely on the ground of the increase of taxes that it involves, or of its complicated details, but on much higher ground than that. I deny entirely the justice of the principle that it is the duty of the government to enable certain sections of the community to tax the rest of the people for their private gain.

I think he puts the principle very clearly. I want to quote an extract from a speech by Sir Wilfrid Laurier given on page 380 of Edward Porritt's Sixty Years of Protection in Canada. This is a famous quotation which we have often heard. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking at Winnipeg as reported in the Free Press, said:

We stand for freedom. I denounce the policy of protection as bondage-yea, bondage; and I refer to bondage in the same manner in which American slavery was bondage. Not in the same degree, perhaps, but in the same manner.

The Budget-Miss Macphail

That was before 1896. Lovely speeches those! They went to the country, and the people, tired of special privilege in high places, sent back the Liberals with a majority. In 1897 the Liberals brought down their first budget, and I suppose that the low tariff people of Canada never looked forward with as great hope to any other budget. In speaking of the time following the bringing down of the budget and subsequently, Mr. Porritt has this to say at page 362:

The policy of the Laurier government with regard to protection has been characterised as a betrayal of Canadian Liberalism. Betrayal is a strong word. But an examination of the fiscal and bounty legislation at Ottawa since 1897 abundantly justifies its use.

And again, at page 366:

When I come to examine the bounty policy of the Laurier government, the amendments to the Railway Subsidy Act and the patent laws, the legislation against dumping, the new regulations intended to reduce the circulation of American trade advertising, the tariff war with Germany, and the readiness with which the tariff question was reopened at the bidding of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and the many new concessions that were made to the protected interests in the revision of 1906-07, it will become apparent, I am convinced, that the Liberal government has not only adopted the national policy of the Conservatives, but has greatly strengthened and extended it, and has fastened it more securely on the people of Canada.

Again, at page 385, he says:

It is one of the ironies of Canadian history that responsibility for the full recognition of this new privileged order and for nearly a score of enactments continuing, extending and guaranteeing its existence, should lie with the Liberal party.

Speaking of the farmers having no further representation through the Liberal party, he says at page 456:

Since 1897 the privileged order of manufacturers has held captive both political parties, and the farmers have had no representation in parliament on this question.

One is moved to ask, were there no Liberals who really believed in Liberal principles? Did nobody protest against the betrayal of 1897? Porritt, at page 5 of The Revolt in Canada, says:

While at first there were liberals in the House of Commons who bitterly resented the betrayal of 1897, these men were appeased in the usual Ottawa fashion-by appointment to office or the promise of an appointment, or they dropped out in 1900, in disgust at the cynical abandonment in 1897 of all that Liberalism had stood for in Canada from the days of William Lyon Mackenzie

Not King.

Following rather sketchily the history subsequent to 1897, we find the Liberals still claiming, indeed they do yet, but they did

it with a little more vigour in the years immediately follpwing 1897, to be low tariff. It is quite true that they had the honesty to see that they could not have educational reform clubs or young men's Liberal clubs after such a betrayal, and very comfortably for themselves they dropped them. Sir Wilfrid Laurier did tour the west in 1910, and there he met organized agriculture, and if anybody likes to read the story of it he will find it in the Revolt of Canada. It is very interesting to note that John Evans was one of the men who appeared before Sir Wilfrid Laurier; that is the faon. member for Rose-town in this house, and his speeches then read very much like the last one he made in this house. Others who appeared before Sir Wilfrid Laurier were Roderick McKenzie, father of Donald McKenzie now on the tariff board, J. W. Scallion and J. W. Speakman, father of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman); so some of our men have run true to form.

In 1911 the Laurier government was defeated, and from that time on they never did to any great extent regain the confidence of the low tariff farmers in Canada. Some indeed were such good Liberals that they remained Liberals rather than farmers, but for the most part the confidence of the farmers in the low tariff principles of Liberalism was broken never to be mended again. This sank very deeply into the minds of the farmers, and was really one of the causes of revolt which brought in the sixty-five Independents who came into this house in 1921. The farming people in the constituencies had voted for honest party men, of their own dass, men who spoke well in the constituencies, saying they would come to Ottawa and be true to the agricultural industry. But when these men came to Ottawa they were true to their party, and not to their industry; they were farmers, but they were Conservatives or Liberals first, last and all the time, except at election time, and so the farming people decided they would have to find a new method of representation. They had up until that time sent such men here as the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan), a man who understands the rural problem, who knows what the farmers need, who knows now that this budget is no good to his constituency, but who because of affiliation with the Liberal party will vote for it, and go back to his constituency and justify it.

Mr. MoMILLAN: I do not know that it

is not a benefit to my constituency.

The Budget-Miss Maephail

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss MACPHAIL:

Then the hon. gentleman is not as intelligent as I thought he was. As I was going on to say, agriculture 6aid: This kind of thing is no good; we are going to organize ourselves as an industry. They said to themselves: Our politics is our business, and we have been foolish in letting other people look after our business; we will never do well that way; we will send people to Ottawa; we will choose them, finance and elect them; we will control them. These ideas were not as clearly defined in their minds perhaps as I have now stated them, but they were more or less clearly in the minds of the people who voted to send the sixty-five independents to the house in 1921. The idea was that these members would vote on issues as they found them in the house, that they would be attached neither to the Liberal nor the Conservative party, nor indeed be antagonistic to either, but be here to look after the interests of agriculture and be an agricultural group in the house. I want to review the comparative failure of the working out of that splendid idea.

In 1921, the sixty-five came to this house- and we must, in recalling what has happened since then, remember that the sixty-five were for the most part men who up until then had been either very ardent Conservatives or ardent Liberals. They were party people with a party bias-a very difficult mind to work independently with. We had not been here long till it became evident to everybody in our group, and I should think to everybody else, that there was dissension among us. I should say that three of the sixty-five were Labour members, and there was no dissension among them, nor between them and us. But from within our own group we lost two to the Liberal party. The dissension among the remaining members, arose on principle, not on legislation. On the legislation we wanted, we all agreed; but on method and in outlook we were two different groups, two schools of political thought, trying to function as one, and it could not possibly go on. The larger number believed in party politics. While they condemned parties, they sought to perpetuate a new party. We, a small group, did not believe in party politics. We believed in an altogether new psychology, which I shall try to make plain to you in a moment. If you think of the personnel of the sixty-five in 1921 and the personnel that are here to-day, you will see quite clearly that those who represent the new school of thought, have been returned while those who perpetuated parties while denouncing them with words were driven by the logic of events either into'private life

or into the Liberal party. Others again, as suits them better, are being driven a step at a time, which the government no doubt considers a step in the right direction. If I took my whole forty minutes I could not tell you what we suffered in 1921 and on down to 1925. The government secured two of our men, and thus gave themselves a party majority, and having done so the issues did not have to be debated on their merits. The legislative programs which the government brought down between 1921 and 1925 do not take long to enumerate. We got almost nothing out of them-the Crowsnest pass rates legislation excepted, we got nothing at all. We went to the country in 1925 because the Liberals had not lived up to their promises, because our farm group had not clearly understood what they were, because we lacked aggressive action and leadership. We were both very much discredited in the country, and only those of the new school and those who sit with our hon. friends opposite came back.

At that time it will be recalled that the government found themselves in a position where they had to do the will of the House of Commons-the will of the people of Canada. No doubt most uncomfortable for the government, but excellent for the people. In 1926 we got a legislative program from the government which was not their program, but the program that had been introduced into this house by the independent group by resolution during the four sessions between 1921 and 1925. Anyone who cares to go over the legislation of that time will find that I am telling the truth. We got a reduction in the tariff-the only real reduction the Liberal party has ever been guilty of; we got rural credits; we got old age pensions-not as good as it might have been, but certainly something worth while; we got the Hudson Bay railway. In fact we got very many things, and this legislative program captured the imagination of the people, with the result that the electorate sent back the Liberal government as you see it to-day. And they sent back the independent, group that sits in this quarter of the house.

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

Henry Elvins Spencer

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. SPENCER:

In increased numbers.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss MACPHAIL:

Yes. The Liberal party benefited very much from having brought down for the consideration of the house legislation which met the approval of the countiy. That is what accounts for the Liberal majority in the house to-day. I do not need to tell them; I do not think they can deny this.

Before I proceed further let me say something about our idea. We are here not to

The Budget-Miss Macphail

work as a party. In that awful session of 1926 we were accused every day of being Grits or Tories although as a matter of fact we were neither. We are not interested either in Liberals or Conservatives, except, personally; as a party we are interested in neither. We want such amendments in the rules and usages of the house as will enable new groups to function; that is, we want to come closer to having representative government than we have had it before. WTe believe that questions should be debated on their merits, that private members should be free to vote on legislation on its merits; and more than that, that private members should be able to introduce legislation and that this house should be free^ to vote on the merits of such legislation. As it is now, legislation is all cornered by the government, and only the legislation which the government approves of stands any chance of getting through this house.

A very considerable number of people in the country believe what we believe. They believe that our present system [DOT] of government is outworn, that it possibly served its day, but that day is over, and they want such amendments in the rules and usages of parliament as will cause it more closely to resemble a representative institution. For instance, take the budget which the Minister of Finance has brought down. Whose budget is it? Is it the budget of the House of Commons?

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

No.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss MACPHAIL:

Who planned the budget? Did the Minister of Finance take the members of the Liberal party into consultation, did he have their cooperative help, did he get the help of the Progressive-Liberals, or the Liberal-Progressives-I always forget their correct title-did he? No, he did not,

I am sure of that. He brings the budget down, but it is not representative of the opinion of the House of Commons nor of the Liberal party. If the Minister of Finance is to bring down budgets in this way, well, the rest of us had better go home or go down to Keith's theatre. It looks to me as if the time must come when the government will have to be representative of the people In a word, it is a Robb budget.

The time will come when the cabinet will be a committee of the House of Commons. The cabinet will be chosen from the house and be responsible to it. I look to that day with hope. I do not look for it soon, but I do think it is coming. Once more I want to quote from a leading Canadian to show that others than the few of us who sit in this corner of the chamber believe, that the

two old parties as at present constituted are simply the cover under which class interests operate in this country. Sir Andrew Macphail in his Essays in Politics, published in 1909, said:

We are living under the government of an interested class, who find a party in power and keep it there until it becomes too corrupt to be kept any longer; when it seizes upon the other party and proceeds to corrupt it.

Sir Andrew Macphail is not a man who makes rash statements. That statement should sicken any good Canadian, and yet I believe it is absolutely true. Of course, I think they pick the finest looking men for the cabinet; the privileged classes like to dress their windows to the best advantage. But, after all, the forces which operate through any cabinet are exactly the same. They are not the forces which look to the interests of the people of Canada; they are the forces which look to the interests of certain well-organized and wealthy classes in this country.

Now I come for a moment or two to the budget. At last we have a "stable" government, the government that the Prime Minister wanted. He made very entreating, very convincing speeches to the country that he must have a majority in the house before he could bring down legislation that was good for all the people, that he must not be hampered by having to submit proposed legislation to the house and be humiliated possibly by having it turned down. So he came back from the last election with a majority. He was joined by our Liberal-Progressive friends, lead by the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) who thought-and possibly still thinks-that the Prime Minister needed greater numbers to bring good government to Canada. I want here to say that my heart aches for the Minister of Immigration. He is an honest, but a deluded man. So the Prime Minister comes back to the house with a majority, and now we are going to get legislation that is in the interests of all the people. We are going to get this thing that he has been desiring to give us since 1921. Last year, his first session, one could say that he had hardly begun, and the budget then brought down was not much; but we can overlook that. Now we come to the second year of his administration, and we get another budget. Well, if this budget is in the interests of the common people, then I certainly am not capable of representing their interests. We had the income tax reduced 10 per cent last session, and now there is another 10 per cent reduction, and we had the spectacle yesterday of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) getting up and entreating the rich men

The Budget-Miss Macphail

of the Dominion to make anonymous donations to wipe out the national debt. I do not understand why there should be all this modest anonymity. Since we have started to quote Scripture in this chamber, let me cite the following words which I think describe the effect of the budget very accurately: "For he that hath, to him shall be given; and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath." The budget plays with the tariff just as a boy plays with marbles to see how many he can catch when he throws them in the air. There is no real reduction in the tariff. No one knows that better than the Minister of Finance. If there is any reduction at all it is on things bought by people who could very well afford to pay higher prices. On the lower grade of cottons there is no reduction. Surely the Minister of Finance does know that the stretching of the percentage of labour and material that is to go into goods which enter under the British preference from 25 per cent to 50 per cent undermines the British preference. He does not think it was patriotic, does he? He does not believe it was in the interests of the common people, does he? I think not. I think the economic classes that control governments whisper very convincingly in the ear of the Minister of Finance, and he kept himself clear from the enlightenment that might have come to him from his western men. By listening to his own supporters and his stepchildren he might have heard the truth regarding this matter. But he shut himself securely away and so hearkened unto those highly organized >

and exceedingly wealthy groups who whispered to him what would look like a reduction in the tariff but would not hurt them in the least. I hope that my Conservative friends will not be further exercised about the manufacturers: I have no doubt they will pull through this year.

The history of the whole attitude of the Liberal party to the new groups since 1921 has been one of protestations of friendship which, if accepted, have proven to the honest the graveyard of their hopes and to the others a fulfillment of their treacherous plans. Speaking for myself, I would rather have the bitter, uncompromising, unfriendly and snobbish attitude of the Conservative party. At least it was honest and we knew where we stood. I often wonder why these Conservatives think they are so much better than other people.

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

Leslie Gordon Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL (Hamilton):

They look at the Liberals.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss MACPHAIL:

I never could understand it. Certainly, however, if they are ever to get into power they need to lose that characteristic as rapidly as they can.

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

You said that at least they were honest.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss MACPHAIL:

They were honest in their bitterness towards us. Now, a very great deal of criticism is directed to myself and others any time we try to point out that economic groups do function under parties, and that the only thing for us to do is to come out as an economic unit and find a place in this house, striving to have the rules and usages amended in order that our people may be given real representation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) the other day quoted in the house an article from the Atlantic Monthly which was reproduced in MacLean's Magazine of August 15, 1927. In that article, under the title "Money dominant in politics," the following sentences appear:

These interest-groups, as we may call them, work for the most part within fhe ranks of the party organization. Indeed,-

This is an enlightening sentence.

-the chief function of the party organization is to furnish a cover or screen for the political activities of groups which desire to keep their true objectives invisible.

This is perfectly true, and we say therefore that the only thing for us to do is to come out as an economic group-a class group, if you like, for I am not afraid of the word-and seek representation in the House of Commons -a genuine representation of the needs of our industry. Politics is a business, and agriculture being the basic industry in Canada, the most important single industry in the country, has a perfect right to find for itself honest and above-board representation in this house. I should not like to say that only functional or occupational groups should come to this house, but I do think that the two parties are simply that. I would not say that others should not come, but I do say that we live in an age of functional organization: * and since political life is only a reflection of economic life it is only reasonable that these new class, or economic, or occupational groups in the country should seek reflection in the House of Commons and should not find it necessary-certainly I do not-to apologise for their place here.

When we have electoral reform, when the Canadian people grasp the idea more clearly, particularly when they know that the old parties are simply systems under which class groups operate we shall see an increase in

The Budget-Miss Macphail

groups. The day will come when the members of our group, the members of the Labour group will increase, and when other groups not now named will appear and find representation in this chamber. When that happens the new groups will be too strong for either of the old parties to command a majority and carry on the government of the country in the old way. Modifications will have to be made and a new method found. It does seem to me exceedingly reasonable that the House of Commons and not the Prime Minister should decide when there should be a dissolution. Why should power be put into the hands of one man to determine when there shall be a dissolution of parliament and when the people of the country shall be called upon to bear the expenses of a general election? I know that some people have the idea that those of us who say these things are cranks. We are not. 1 am not saying, of course, that I am not, but I certainly say emphatically that the Canad'an people are thinking new thoughts and that to them it does not seem at all reasonable that things should be as they are. Our institutions, whether educational or political, will change to meet the needs of changing times. That is only natural. I see no reason why we should not have a change in the form of our governmental institution to meet the changing views of the people, and in conclusion I would quote a great authority on this subject. Follett speaking of politics and of the old idea giving way to the new sentiment of co-operation, says:

What we must get away from is "the hell of rigid things." This is a living life of the people and it must flow directly through our government and our institutions. We are not fossils-

Sometimes one would question that.

-petrified in our social strata. We are alive. All is growing; we must realize this and free the way for growth.

It seems to me that the groups in the house are nothing but an indication of growth in the country. I should hate to bear upon my shoulders the responsibility which rests to-day upon the shoulders of the Liberal-Progressive group in this house. They have done much to discourage progressive thought in Canada: they have, to my mind, a great deal to answer [DOT] for. Indeed, I should not care to be the Liberal party: I should not care to bear the responsibility-I am not sure whether it is parliamentary-of false friendship such as they have shown towards the new groups in this house, from 1921 to this day. But speaking personally, I say it is better for them to realize that we are not people who will one day be Liberals: we have no such ambition. We represent agriculture. We are not Conservatives; we are agricultural representatives, and (Miss Macphail.]

the sooner this house knows that, the sooner they quit wondering whether we are Tories or Liberals, the better it will be for everyone concerned.

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

James Malcolm (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

In spite of the remarks of my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), in which she expresses an unfavourable opinion of this year's budget, I am glad to be able to compliment my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on the statement of Canada's business which he has presented for this year. It is but a reflection of favourable editorial comment which has appeared in the Canadian press from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I believe, in spite of everything that has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite, that every man in this house realizes that we in Canada have readjusted our finances and re-established our national credit in a manner more satisfactory and more complimentary to us, since the war, than has any other nation in the world. What percentage of this credit is due to the self-reliance and industry of our people, what percentage to the acts of a benign Providence and what to the actions of the government seems, however, to be a matter for debate. But I think that anyone who has read the statements of leaders of finance and industry, or who has studied the Canadian figures of production, both agricultural and industrial, will admit that we in Canada since the war have as a people done some very remarkable things.

Some hon. gentlemen, speaking on the budget, appear to be unable to comprehend the national sentiment that prevails in this country. Probably they are too close to the accomplishments of the last five years; they are like the men who cannot see the woods for the trees. Let me place on record a comment made by a disinterested observer, a man with a great deal of knowledge of the affairs of the world. Mr. Marcosson, writing in the Saturday Evening Post, used the following words: *

Equally provocative of comment is the existing Canadian prosperity; the tides of Dominion internal and external trade were never quite so high or the national bank roll of Canada so securely entrenched. All the costly economic hangover of war is completely out of the Canadian system; the country faces an era of unprecedented development.

That comment coming from such a disinterested observer is worthy of a great deal of consideration in this Dominion.

It is a remarkable fact, Mr. Speaker, that each successive budget since 1922 has been met by hon. gentlemen opposite with the statement

The Budget-Mr. Malcolm

that the industrial life of Canada is facing ruin and that the budget under discussion will complete that ruin. Unemployment has always been cited in this house as an evidence of the lack of appreciation of industry by the government-this government always has been accused by hon. gentlemen opposite of being unwilling to consider the unemployment of labour in Canada. To me it is very difficult to explain, except for one particular reason. Our estimated population in 1914 was about 7,693,000; fourteen years later, in 1928, our estimated population is about 9,519,000, or an increase of practically 2,000,000 in the population of this country during a period of fourteen years. Yet we are told that Canada is not growing.

That population has been absorbed, Mr. Speaker. The figures of employment in industry show a remarkable increase, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite are quite honest in their expressions of opinion, and those expressions of opinion can find some unemployment figures to support them. In this Dominion we have at the present time tens of thousands of artisans and sailors who are out of work, and who are not worrying about it. They expected to be out of work; they made provision for it, and now they are getting ready to resume their spring operations. These men are not now and never have been a problem of employment in Canada. I come from a district in western Ontario where every town has its full quota of sailors who are now enjoying our Canadian winter sports, having fully expected to take a two months' holiday in the winter before starting work again in the spring. In addition to these men, however, we always have the newcomer; we always have had him and always will have him. He is a man who in many cases has not adjusted himself to the fact that in Canada many occupations are seasonal, and he is an ever present problem for municipal and provincial governments. Until such time as he realizes that his occupation is seasonal and that during nine or ten months of work he must make provision for the remainder of the year he will always say that Canada cannot produce enough jobs to take up the entire twelve months. That is something which we must admit in this country.

Now I want to speak of this question of unemployment from another angle, and first I would like to read a statement from the industrial employment bureau;

There was a very noticeable decrease in employment in the textile industry. A seasonal curtailment was reported in the boot and shoe industry and many of these factories are operating on part-time schedules. Operations in several lumbering sections of the country were

greatly curtailed during the past thirty days, and a large surplus of this class of labour was reported.

Hon. gentlemen might consider that a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and probably it is, but this statement does not deal with conditions in Canada; it is issued from Washington and covers conditions in the great republic to our south. They also suffer there from this same problem of seasonal employment. While hon. gentlemen opposite may discuss unemployment in Canada, as they have a perfect right to do and in connection with which they have reasonable figures, and while it must be admitted t-hat there is a certain amount of unemployment in cities like Toronto, Winnipeg and Montreal, yet one has but to read the industrial press of the United States to learn that of the 42,000,000 workers in that country to-day 4,000,000 are unemployed, or 10 per cent of the total. That is admitted by the statisticians at Washington and by the leaders of the trades unions. The condition in Canada is entirely due to seasonal employment, and does not in any way reflect a condition comparable with that existing in the United States.

In this connection I would like to place a few figures on record. In 1921 the unemployment in the Dominion of Canada, not from the figures of the government but from those of the trades and labour coucils, represented 12.7 per cent of their total membership. By 1927, however, we find that we have absorbed those newcomers to our country so well that the percentage has gone down to 4.9.

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

Richard Burpee Hanson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HANSON:

They have gone away to

the United States.

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

James Malcolm (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. MALCOLM:

Just a moment; I will

answer that point very quickly. On the other hand, in the United States the unemployment this year represents 10 per cent of their total workers. My hon. friend says that the Canadian unemployed have gone to the United States. Let me read the employment of industries, and we will see:

The year 1927 was characterized by steady advances in manufacturing, in which activity was greater than in any other year since 1920; on December 1, the index was, in fact, higher than on the corresponding date in all other years of the record, including 1920. Statistics were received from some 3,875 manufacturers, employing, on the average, 472,286 operatives, as compared with 452,392 in 1926-

That showed an increase of the operatives of the reporting firms themselves, on their own figures, of 20,000 in the one year.

-while the mean index, standing at 95.6, compared satisfactorily with an average of 92.1 in

The Budget-Mr. Malcolm

the preceding year. Practically all divisions of manufacturing shared in the generally favourable movement. Especially noteworthy were the gains in the iron and steel, pulp and paper, food, rubber and textile groups, which together employ a large proportion of the workers engaged in manufacturing processes.

My hon. friend can have that statement verified by the figures of production in Canada, which I would like to give him. In the year 1926 the total value of the products of Canadian industry reached the enormous total of $3,250,000,000. That represented exactly a million dollars a day more industrial production in Canada than in the year 1927, and the increase of 4 per cent in employment in 1927 over 1926 indicates that the industrial production in this country in the year just dosed will reach the enormous total of something around $3,450,000,000. The figures of actual production supplied to the statistical department by the industries themselves and the figures of employment supplied by the industries both tally with the figures of the labour organizations of Canada, and show irrefutably that Canada in the past fourteen years has absorbed practically two million people who have come to her shores, and that unemployment other than seasonal does not exist in this Dominion. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting fact that we never hear of unemployment in Canada between May and December, it is never a question of discussion anywhere in thiscountry. It so happens however that thishouse meets iust at the time of the yearwhen seasonal unemployment exists, therefore statements made on this side as to employment and statements made on the other side as to unemployment can both be

substantiated.

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

John William Bell

Mr. DELL (Hamilton) :

Has my hon.

friend not been informed that people who had been working three days a week in their thousands are now working two days a week in order to spread out the employment?

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

James Malcolm (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. MALCOLM:

That does not agree with the figures of total production. There may have been part time employment in some industries, but when the figures of total production for the manufacturing industries of the Dominion are compared and found to be in direct ratio to the employment figures and the increase therein then there can be no sound basis for the argument my hon. friend advances.

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

Abraham Albert Heaps

Labour

Mr. HEAPS:

I wonder if the minister

would care to answer a question?

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

James Malcolm (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. MALCOLM:

Yes.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

No, no.

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

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

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

February 28, 1928