March 13, 1929

CON

Thomas Langton Church

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):

May I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether the government has any plan for providing useful employment to the great number of unemployed in the large cities of Canada?

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT IN CITIES
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Up to the present, Mr. Speaker, the government has not given consideration to the matter to which my hon. friend refers.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT IN CITIES
Permalink

THE BUDGET

CONTINUATION OF OF.RATF. ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE


The house resumed from Tuesday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Hugh Guthrie.


CON

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):

Mr. Speaker, I desire first to pay a tribute to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for his able, concise and clear budget statement. I desire also to pay a tribute to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) for his masterly review of the budget and for the manner in which he pointed out the fallacies and analysed the consequences of the minister's proposals.

Before entering upon the main theme of my remarks this afternoon, I wish to say a few words in connection with old age pensions. Hon. members will recall how in 1925 and 1926 the King government made a very strong appeal to the people of Canada to support their proposals with respect to old age pensions. They took the opportunity to claim full credit for having introduced that legislation. But having been elected to power, 78504-58i

we now see certain doubts cast on the constitutionality of the Old Age Pensions Act, and those who are raising such doubts appear to have the sympathy of the Liberal government as well as of other Liberal forces throughout the Dominion. We have lately read in the press a statement by the Premier of Quebec that he had obtained the opinion of three eminent counsel to the effect that the old age pensions legislation is unconstitutional, and that the Dominion government has no authority to make contributions to the provinces for that purpose. At the time, sir, I did not pay any special attention to Mr. Taschereau's observation. We know that the province of Ontario is about to adopt the old age pension scheme. British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have already adopted it.

But something still more significant was the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a few days ago when we were discussing the question of federal grants to the provinces for highway construction. Referring to that system of federal assistance to the provincial governments, the Prime Minister stated: -

It is a bad system, a thoroughly vicious system, and that is the reason why the present administration has been seeking to put an end to a system that gTew up at a time when the country was in the throes of war or had to meet a post war situation.

I asked the Prime Minister:

What about old age pensions?

He replied:

I am glad my hon. friend speaks of that. There is another case where we are giving to the provinces a lot of money in addition to what they are raising.

Mr. Ladner: Is that vicious?

Mr. Mackenzie King: I think it is, yes; 1 have come to the conclusion that it is a thoroughly vicious principle.

Mr. Ladner: Why doesn't the government provide for old age pensions itself instead of shifting it to the provinces?

Mr. Mackenzie King: It is the province's obligation, and so far as this government is concerned we have sought to safeguard the public treasury to the extent at least of one half of the required expenditure whereas hon. gentlemen opposite claimed they were prepared to duplicate what we are doing by assuming the entire obligation. What has been already paid in old age pensions in the province from which my hon. friend comes? We have given to the province of British Columbia $423,105.84; to the province of Manitoba $122,332.42; and to the province of Saskatchewan $76,417.62; or a total to these three provinces, thus far, of $621,855.88.

And the Prime Minister proceeded to state that hon. members would live to see the day when the annual payment will be something like twelve million dollars, which I think is

The Budget-Mr. Ladner

an extravagant guess. What struck me as being very significant was the fact that in the midst of a debate on federal aid to the provinces for the construction of highways the Prime Minister should happen to have lying on his desk detailed information with respect to the contribution by the Dominion government to the provinces in respect to old age pensions, a subject that has very little relationship to highways. I refer to this, Mr. Speaker, because to some of us it is a question of far-reaching importance to this country. The old age pensions system in my judgment is sound from an economic point of view. It is not only a humanitarian act to alleviate the distress of our old folks in their closing days, but it is the just and right thing to do in the best interests of the Dominion. If it is the fact, Mr. Speaker, to me it is inconceivable that this government and the Liberal forces throughout Canada should be parties to a scheme to submarine their old age pension legislation after it has served their purpose before the electorate. It seems to me that the suggestion to test the constitutionality of the Old Age Pensions Act by a reference to the supreme court is an indirect method of destroying the effectiveness of the legislation, resorted to by certain forces in the Liberal party that do not approve of old age pensions and would like to shift the whole burden upon the provinces.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the attention of the house to certain phases of the budget and to the fiscal policy of the government. The financial picture as disclosed by the Minister of Finance reveals, briefly, that we have this year a revenue of approximately $455,000,000, and expenditure of $385,000,000, and that this expenditure is $22,000,000 more than the expenditure last year. There is a surplus of approximately $70,000,000. The deadweight debt as of March 31 this year is $2,330,835,000. Our funded and bonded debt has increased by $28,000,000. But, sir, it is a source of pride that 71 per cent of the funded debt is held by the people of this country.

I wish to commend to the government the Suggestion of my leader (Mr. Bennett), which suggestion was repeated the other day by the hon. member for South Wellington, with regard to adopting a policy for the reduction and ultimate extinction of the national debt. That suggestion was a sound constructive one. My leader pointed out that by providing a fund of $15,000,000 per annum with interest at four per cent, the debt would be extinguished in a period of fifty years. The hon. member for South Wellington also recalled to our minds that notwithstanding the method in

JMr. Ladner.]

which the budget was presented to the house, during the five years prior to 1922, under the Conservative government, the average surpluses were $66,700,000 per year, while under the present government, which has enjoyed the advantage of prosperous conditions, those surpluses were $69,700,000 a year, or a difference of only $3,000,000. I repeat those figures because I think it is well for hon. members to keep them in mind.

The fiscal policy of this government is a very indefinite one. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our fiscal policy must be judged by its results on the masses of the people and upon the economic prosperity of the country. Throughout the world we are witnessing great economic prosperity-in North America, in South America, and in the European countries. When we analyze the returns in the report of the Minister of Labour we find this astounding situation, that due to our low tariff our working men are at the mercy of the cheap labour of foreign countries, and that comparing 1928 with the preceding years back to 1922, the average wages paid have decreased in all lines of industry; but while the wages have decreased the cost of living, based upon the family budget of twenty-nine staple articles, has gone up from five to ten per cent. So far as the manufacturers are concerned, raw or partly manufactured materials have advanced since 1922 between 7 and 10 per cent. But while the cost of raw material has gone up, the price of the manufactured articles as sold by the manufacturer has gone down. This report given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) discloses that the manufactured articles have decreased in price about 9 per cent. So that the industries in our country are placed between the millstones of an increase in the cost of raw materials and a decrease in the selling price of the product. In other words, the fiscal policy of this government is destroying our industrial life while it is not assisting agriculture. On page 7 of the minister's report it will be seen that carpenters, electrical workers, plasters, sheet metal workers, stone cutters, boiler makers and machinists have had no advance in wages during the six years of Liberal rule, although the cost of living has gone up from 5 to 10 per cent. That summary, with the authenticity of the data upon which it is based, should effectively dispose of the attitude of the government, that the best interests of this country will be served by a lower and ever lower tariff until the free trade stage is reached

The Budget-Mr. Ladner

In His budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) states very specifically, at

page 595 of Hansard:

The policy of this administration is not a high tariff policy; it is a low tariff policy.

In contrast with this we have the policy of the Conservative party, strongly held to and enunciated again in the amendment to this budget, that we believe in safeguarding and protecting our agricultural and industrial life. The positions of these two great parties are in striking contrast; and their relationship to each other and to the welfare of the country is brought forcibly to our attention by the attitude of the United States with respect to that country's tariff proposals, with which it is intended to deal at the special session of congress in April. I, for one, am of the opinion that we should deal with this matter in a spirit of good will, in a spirit of respect, in a spirit of tolerance, knowing that the question of the tariff in the United States is one of their own concern; it is their business. But in so far as it relates to their export trade, in so far as it relates to the $850,000,000, mostly of manufactured goods, which Canada purchases from the United States, then we in turn should give some attention to our own situation and our own welfare. I direct the attention of the house to some significant words of President Hoover spoken during his good will tour through the South American republics. Speaking in the republic of San Salvador he said:

Our international and economic relations can have but one real foundation: They can grow only out of the prosperity of each of us. They cannot flourish in the poverty or degeneration of any of us. Our economic progress is mutual: It is not competitive.

These are splendid words, but when we read the remarks of the leaders of the party in congress we learn their real intent. Not that 1 complain about it, but it is a fact of which we should be possessed. Mr. Wallace Hawley, chairman of the ways and means committee of the United States, as reported in the local press, stated the situation in congress in rather significant words. Addressing a meeting in Boston on Saturday last, he said:

The protective tariff is a domestic question. Foreign interests have no inherent right to trade in our markets. The admission of imports is an act of comity between nations, and we have the right to prescribe the conditions of which they shall enter our market.

I cannot see that the people of this country can have any complaint against that stand, but I can see where the government of this country can take notice of it and shape this country's course in a manner that

will serve the best interests of the people of Canada. The United States has in the neighbourhood of $3,300,000,000 invested in this country while Great Britain has $2,200,000,000. We have important business with the United States and we want to keep their good will; Big business can be done with our friends to the south, and we hope it will be done. But it is folly in the extreme for them to exclude, if they intend to do so, the comparatively small quantity of goods, mostly raw materials, which we are sending to the United States and expect us to buy nearly a billion dollars' worth of goods from them a year. If they expect that, they are expecting too much and they should not be disappointed if we endeavour to trade in some other portions of the world.

The people of Canada have too much pride to approach this problem in the spirit of a mendicant or of a dependent; we must have courage, self-reliance and confidence in our nation as well as in our people. Now the question presents itself: just what should we do? I propose to offer a suggestion, which is somewhat different from some of the suggestions that have already been submitted to parliament. The government's course is a negative one; they have been drifting for years. The Liberal tariff airship has been gradually floating southward. This is not good for this country. If I were the leader of this government I would ask parliament, in the face of this impending crisis, to give authority to my government to make such variation in the tariff as might be in the interests of Canada, having regard to the action which the United States will take in April next. Then, sir, the day on which that action became effective under the laws of the United States, tariff adjustments based upon the safeguarding and protecting of our agricultural and industrial interests should likewise be made effective in Canada. I submit that if we wait until next session, or until a special session of parliament is called, irreparable damage will have been done to the agricultural and industrial life of this country, and more particularly to the great masses of our people who depend upon their wages for their living. But it is very unlikely that the King government will take this course. They have never shown any real courage and backbone in handling either the tariff question or any other problem in relation to the United States, and in my judgment Canada would gain the admiration and respect of the people of the United States if we displayed a little more courage and confidence in our own country and looked after our own interests to the advantage of our own people.

The Budget-Mr. Ladner

The tariff question is something which is discussed annually in parliament; it has been discussed for years. Read speeches delivered in the past; read budget debates as far back as you like to go, and you will find that there have been always two schools of thought on the question. In the past we have had an actual experiment to show the effect upon the people of this country of the increase of our tariff. There is a fallacy, shared to a large extent by members of the government and by some of our Progressive friends from the prairies, that an increase in duties necessarily involves an increase in price. That is an economic fallacy. I would commend to hon. members a study of the budget* speech delivered by Sir Leonard Tilley in 1882. A very exhaustive and careful inquiry had been made of the consequences and the effects of the national policy of 1878, and Sir Leonard Tilley uttered the following words, to which I will ask hon. members to pay particular attention, inasmuch as they apply with equal

force to-day and no doubt are frequently quoted:

What our manufacturers say is "We can manufacture as cheaply here as in the United States, but we want the market. We are prepared for the sharpest competition, and we do not fear our friends on the other side of the line, _ if we have the home market, and competition among ourselves will keep the prices down to the consumer."

The basis and accuracy of the inquiry is evidenced in these words of Tilley;

I wish reliable data, not data that could be shaken by any statement of fact that could be produced in the house, because we want nothing but the facts, and if the manufacturers are getting larger profits, it would be just as well that -we should know of it, and deal with the facts as we found them.

Then he quotes a number of articles showing the variations in prices as a result of the increase in duty. I have copied them from the budget speech of 1882, and with the permission of the house I would ask that this short table be placed on Hansard:

Article

Etoffes 1

Tweeds 1

Fabrics j

Grey and white cotton and brown sheetings..

Medium and fine woollen fabrics

Woollen goods

Flannels 1

Blankets J

Coarse woollen caps and felt hats

Underclothing

Wagons

Carriages

Covered buggies

Ploughs

All agricultural implements

Organs

Sewing machines (with business trebled).. .. Boots and shoes and leather goods, hand made.. Boots and shoes and leather goods, factory made

Furniture, best class

Furniture, ordinary class

Stoves

Iron castings

Tools and files

Cut nails

Finished nails

Pressed spikes

Railway spikes

Nuts and bolts

Horse shoes

Tea

Sugar

Molasses

Rice

Spices

Soap

Variation in price

Average price lower than during previous 10 years.

10 per cent lower.

Lower than any time in history.

Average price lower than for 10 years prior to 1878.

As low as any period in 10 years.

Lower.

Lower.

Lower (from $62 to $60).

Lower (from $105 to $100).

Lower (from $160 to $150).

15 per cent lower.

5 per cent to 20 per cent lower.

15 per cent lower.

$10 each cheaper.

15 per cent higher.

10 per cent to 25 per cent less.

Higher.

Lower.

A little higher.

9 per cent higher (equivalent to increased cost of pig iron and labour).

Cheaper.

5 per cent lower.

9 per cent lower.

12 per cent lower.

$2 per ton lower.

Cheaper.

8 per cent higher.

5 cents to 6 cents per pound cheaper.

50 cents per 100 pounds cheaper.

10 per cent cheaper.

10 per cent cheaper.

Duty and price unchanged.

12 per cent higher, owring to increase in raw material entering duty free.

The effect of the increase in the tariff duties was this: There was an actual reduction in the cost of living of from 5 per cent

to 10 per cent on the articles named. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this was an experiment; the conditions of 1878 were not the conditions

The Budget-Mr. Ladner

of 1928, but generally speaking the economic conditions of 1878 with relation to 1882 were very much the same, and from this experiment we may obtain facts of great significance and benefit to those studying this problem to-day. when we are about to be faced with a high tariff wall in the United States.

What were the consequences of the application of the national policy with regard to an increased tariff? During those three years 95 new factories were established employing over 7,000 men; cotton factories to be completed before the end of 1882 would employ an additional 3,000 men. Of the 440 factories investigated and in operation in 1878, less the 95 factories mentioned, there was an increase in the number of men employed of from 5 per cent to 30 per cent, or an average of 17 per cent in 350 factories. In other words, in that three year period there was an increase of 24,875 men employed.

A more exhaustive examination was made in the city of Hamilton, and the results are extremely instructive. By the application of the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald we find that the value of buildings occupied as factories in Hamilton was $705,200 in 1878, and by 1881 this had increased by $369,000, an increase of 51 per cent. The value of buildings had increased 113 per cent; the value of goods manufactured by 94 per cent; the number of employees by 117 per cent, and the average rate of wages per head showed an increase of 9i per cent. There was a further effect with respect to the activity of those factories which had not been operating full time. In 1878, thirty-three workshops were running full time and 24 were running short time; in 1881 fifty-six shops were running full time, one was running short time and 21 were working overtime. The rate of wages generally throughout the Dominion had greatly increased. These benefits were received not only by the industrial life of the country; our agricultural life received a great impetus as well. This report shows that there was an increased home market, an increase in the consuming power of the people, providing better home markets, and ability on the part of the farmers to obtain higher prices for vegetables, fruit, poultry, lamb, all kinds of meat, butter, cheese, oats and corn. In addition, the coal industry made a tremendous advance. A prominent Liberal manufacturer of Montreal named Green was asked this question: " If wages are higher how could the prices of commodities be lower? " Mr. Green's reply to Sir Leonard Tilley was, "Now we have doubled our production; we have orders ahead

and our expenses of mangement have not increased, so we can sell at lower prices than we could before." The national revenue was greatly benefited and a deficit of $200,000 was turned into a surplus of $4,000,000. I refer to these matters, Mr. Speaker, because a careful study of the results of the application of a protective tariff in order to safeguard the agricultural and industrial life of this country shows that the cost of living does not as a result go higher, but that wages increase and that the volume of business becomes much larger.

This phase of our national life, in connection with the prospective attitude of the United States, is of great importance to British Columbia, where we have a population of

625,000 people. From our ports we export one-ninth of Canada's total annual exports. In 1928 the value of our forest products was approximately $94,000,000; of our mineral wealth, $65,000,000; of our agricultural production, $58,00,000; of our fisheries, $26,000,000, while the value of our manufactured goods was $300,000,000. In other words, in British Columbia we have diversified employment. More ships entered the port of Vancouver in 1927 and 1928 than entered any other Canadian harbour, something over 22,000, and we have some sixty steamship lines plying from Vancouver. As I say, in British Columbia we have diversified employment and activity; we have lumbering, mining, farming, fishing, transportation and the production of hydroelectric power, and with us the question of tariff is a matter of life and death. Eighty-five per cent of our lumber and shingle exports find a market in the United States; that is one of our greatest industries, and you can see the probable consequences of what would ,be an almost complete elimination of that market if the tariff duties of the United States were increased. We would have to readjust ourselves and find new markets, and that would be a difficult thing to do. So, where British Columbia is concerned, they scrutinize carefully the conduct of this government, and I can assure hon. gentlemen opposite that unless a sure and careful course is pursued, British Columbia, together with the rest of Canada, will express it resentment at the next election and will return to power a government which will put into effect a policy which will safeguard and protect the industrial and agricultural life of this country.

In our province the Australian trade treaty is a matter of considerable importance, and I desire to say a few words in that connection because we believe that a great deal of benefit could be obtained from that treaty. In making

The Budget-Mr. Ladner

these observations, however, I wish to point out to the government that the trouble in which they now find themselves because of the harm done the agricultural industry of Canada, and particularly the dairy industry, is of their own making. They could have avoided that situation in the first place, and had they done so they would not find themselves in their present awkward position. When that treaty was originally negotiated it was worked out on what I might call a protective basis, to which the government of Australia were quite agreed. In order to give preference to Australia in the items contained in the treaty it was proposed to raise the general tariff with respect to other countries but to leave it as it stood with respect to Australia. In other words, the protective duty on butter and other agricultural products coming into this country from Australia would have remained as it was and Australia would have had the full benefit of the terms of the treaty; our industries would have been protected and we would have had no trouble. Instead of following that course, however, the Minister of Finance sent a representative to Australia, I suggest at the instance of the free trade members from the prairie provinces who raised some objection in the matter of raisins -and by the way, I believe that no quantity of raisins of any consequence has come to Canada under this treaty-and this representative brought 'back an alternative proposal from the government of Australia. Under that proposal the treaty was modified on a lower tariff or free trade basis. They allowed the existing duty under the general tariff to remain but in order to give Australia a preference, the duties on those items so far as Australia was concerned, were lowered. In that way they established preferences upon a free trade basis which caused unnecessary injury to the dairy business of this country. I must repeat the words of the Finance minister when he spoke the other day: "the policy of this administration is a low tariff policy."

I would like to refer to the matter of state health insurance. In my judgment the time will soon come, having regard to the surpluses we are enjoying and to the healthy condition of this country, when steps could very well be taken with regard to the question of medical assistance to the poorer people by means of some form of state health insurance. This system of aiding the masses of the people in medical and maternity benefits has been in operation in Great Britain and in other European countries since 1912, and has worked to the tremendous advantage of the masses of the people.

A matter of local importance to Vancouver is the question of an airport. Communications have been exchanged between the municipal authorities and the government of Canada, and some of us down here also have been in communication with the government. The government has announced its policy as that of being unwilling to assist in the establishment of airports, except to the extent of assisting the provision of beacon lights and making a fifty per cent contribution towards certain standard lighting equipment. I think the government should reconsider this matter. Canada has contributed vast sums of money toward the development of railway transportation systems. Aeroplanes and airships constitute a new system of transportation, and I think this is a matter of national policy which the government should consider. Aerial transportation is of great assistance to the Postmaster General in the transportation of mail, and it also is of no inconsiderable consequence in the matter of national defence.

A further matter of local importance is the harbour of the north arm of the Fraser river. That portion of the Fraser river is adjacent to the southern boundary of the city of Vancouver and constitutes the fresh-water harbour of the city. In the past, and particularly under Conservative governments, the importance of this arm for transportation and industrial purposes was realized, and approximately $900,000 was spent on the river. A jetty was built out to salt water, but at present that jetty is in a state of disrepair, and other works upon the river are urgently required. Our communications with the government in regard to this matter have not been entirely successful. There is a steady movement of industry from in and around the city of Vancouver to the north arm of the Fraser river, and these works are very necessary.

Another question of interest to the province of British Columbia is the matter of national highways. This matter was the subject of discussion in the house a few days ago, but the province of British Columbia stands in a special position in that respect. One of the terms under which we joined with the rest of Canada at the time of confederation was that in addition to a railway there would be constructed what was called in those days a wagon road through British Columbia to connect with the prairies. Certain concessions were made by our province in consideration of that arrangement. A dispute arose, and the government sent out a representative to make an investigation. The province offered, and the government of Canada accepted the

The Budget-Mr. Veniot

offer, to abide by the decision of the Earl of Carnarvon, who was to investigate the matters in dispute, the government of Canada agreed that his award, would be carried out. The Earl of Carnarvon investigated the whole matter and made an award to the effect that the government of Canada should construct that road. That however, has never been done, and I would urge upon the government that they discharge their solemn obligation in that respect. The highway to which I refer is absolutely justifiable and necessary so far as our province is concerned, and in my judgment a national highway is justifiable in the best interests of Canada as a whole.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I hope the government, in considering the problems which face this country, will forget the pledges of a political nature which have been made in the past, whenever such pledges are found to be unsound. The Prime Minister has told us that the platform of 1919 was merely a chart to guide him. That same reasoning should apply to-day when we are faced with possible action by the United States with respect to the tariff. I hope the government of this country, be it Liberal or Conservative, will have sufficient courage and determination and such pride in this country that they will give their best attention to the real interests of the people of Canada; that no matter what action the United States may take on this tariff question, their conduct shall be of such a dignified nature as to redound to the benefit of this country; that it will be characterized by good-will and tolerance, but also by a firmness of decision that the interests of Canada must come first.

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

Peter John Veniot (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on the budget I am not going to take up the time of the house in congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb); because congratulations have been so heartily extended to him by every member of the opposition who has spoken that it is not necessary for us on this side of the house to repeat them.

Before touching on the main points which I wish to discuss, and to which I have given some thought, I should like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), who has just taken his seat. In order to prove to the house that an increased tariff did not increase the price of goods at home, he went back as far as 1882 and quoted Sir Leonard Tilley, one of the ablest men the province of New Brunswick has ever produced. If the hon. member wished to be convinced he was in error in making the statement he did, he need not

have gone back to 1882; he had only to refer to the stand taken by the financial critic of the opposition, the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who in 1917 felt that he had proved absolutely to the house that an increased tariff did increase the cost of goods for home consumption. There is no need, I say, for my hon. friend to go back as far as 1882.

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

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

Does the hon. gentleman

mean-

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

Peter John Veniot (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

Now, I did not interrupt

the hon. gentleman. I kept very quiet while he was speaking.

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

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

The hon. gentleman has

made a mistake, that is all.

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

Peter John Veniot (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

I do not intend to allow

the hon. gentleman to throw me off my argument, or take up my time.

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

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

I rise to a question of

privilege. The minister is misquoting my statement. I said that the increase in duties did not increase the price of goods; I did not say consumption.

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

Peter John Veniot (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

That is what I said. If

I am not able to make myself sufficiently clear in English to the hon. gentleman, perhaps I can do so in French.

Let me refer to another point made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. When he discussed the Australian treaty, I rather thought he would have defended the Minister of Finance for his bringing about that treaty. The hon. gentleman says that now he feels he should condemn the Australian treaty because of the injury it has done to the dairy industry of Canada. The hon. gentleman had ample proof of what the Australian treaty could do and was doing when, during the by-election in Vancouver, he addressed a public meeting on November 28 last and took credit for almost compelling the Minister of Finance to bring that treaty in. This is how he tells the story; I am going to give it in his own way. He says:

I saw Mr. Robb later-

I am not going to read the whole of his speech.

-and he assured me he would reintroduce the treaty, which was done the next day.

Everybody knows how the Minister of Finance called the bluff of the opposition and withdrew his motion touching the treaty, but at the solicitation of the hon. member for Vancouver South, who had such influence with the Minister of Finance, he reintro-

The Budget-Mr. Veniot

duced the motion the next day in connection with the treaty. The hon. member takes credit for that. He goes on to say:

The records show that the first speakers to follow with support of the treaty were Doctor Manion and myself.

I noticed the other day that the hon. gentleman whom my hon. friend mentions as having followed him in influencing the Minister of Finance was one of those who applauded the loudest the financial critic of the opposition when in unmeasured terms he condemned the Australian treaty.

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

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

My hon. friend is imagining things.

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

Peter John Veniot (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

I thought my hon. friend would rise at this. What is the spectacle we have in the house to-day? We have members of the Conservative party applauding their temporary leader when he condemns the Australian treaty, and others, when they go out into the country, claiming credit for having forced the government to put the treaty on the statute books. That is the situation. But we have a worse situation than that in the house. AVe have our friends discussing the tariff and pleading for higher duties, claiming that it is the only way to bring about prosperity in Canada, but perhaps, according to them, to continue the prosperity that we as Liberals have given to Canada under a low tariff. We have these hon. gentlemen on the one hand pleading for higher tariffs; but if you touch hard coal or bituminous coal for steel purposes in Ontario, if you add a duty to it, Ontario will go wild. On the other hand, we have our friends down in the maritime provinces, especially from Nova Scotia, asking for a duty on coal and more encouragement for the steel industry in the way of duty because, after all, the bonus amounts to that. We have the Conservative party representing Ontario at loggerheads with the Conservative party representing Nova Scotia.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF OF.RATF. ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

No.

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

Peter John Veniot (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

My hon. friends say "No," because they are driven to the wall now. I am laying down the situation as it exists.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF OF.RATF. ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

The minister does not know the situation in Ontario.

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

Peter John Veniot (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

I know that the Steel Company of Canada and other steel works and industries in Ontario will not be satisfied until they have obtained a drawback on United States bituminous coal to help those industries. That is equal to free entry.

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

Finlay MacDonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):

They have it now.

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

March 13, 1929