March 19, 1929


Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski) moved the third reading of Bill No. 16, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I will not take very long to explain my views in connection with this bill as the amendment which has been made is satisfactory, but I do not think I should fail to present to the house what was said at a public function in the province of Quebec with respect to the way this bill was dealt with last year. The remarks to which I refer were made at a public dinner held in Quebec on June 8, 1928. and may be found in the proceedings of the third annual convention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, held at the Chateau Frontenac, Quebec city. With regard to this bill the following words were used: The west must understand the problems of the east and the east must understand the problems of the west. That is elementary; no one can object to that. They are not the same problems. That is true and it is also elementary. It must be a matter of give and take.


CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Mostly give.

Topic:   SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I think there is nothing so good as a fair understanding.

Some times I read in the papers some things that do not sound well-and when I see, not in our parliament but in the federal house, that westerners object to some bills-

Sun Life Assurance Company

Perhaps in speaking of members from the west he was thinking of the 'hem. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett).

-in which they are not interested, but they object precisely because they are not interested, I am afraid they create a bad feeling in the east. Let me quote an instance. Last year at the interprovincial conference at Ottawa the west came to us and said, we want now the .return of our natural resources. Ontario and Quebec, for the first time, said, we have no objection at all, and the return of your natural resources is absolutely agreeable to us. In the past, Outario and Quebec had objected. Some days ago-

This was last June.

-two important bills came before the Dominion parliament, the Sun Life and the Bell Telephone bill, and I am told that these two bills are going to be talked out by 'westerners.

These are not my words; I am quoting from the remarks of a prominent man in Quebec.

I hope that they won't (hear, hear) and I may say to those gentlemen of the west who wish to talk them out, that if they want to create a bad feeling in the east against the west and call for retaliation-I don't say that they will get it, but I say they are courting it.

I hope my hon. friends in the far corner of the house notice those words.

Topic:   SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
Permalink
PRO

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

What is the title of the book from which my hon. friend is reading?

Topic:   SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I am reading from the proceedings .of the third annual convention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; I am sure my bon. friend has a copy also. I do not make these words mine; I want the house to understand that clearly, because I do not share these views at all. I believe in the freedom of this parliament; I believe that no one can interfere with free speech here, especially an outsider, and no one outside of this house can dictate any policy to members of this house. That is my understanding of Dominion politics. I exercise my privilege of free speech to quiite an extent; it is the greatest privilege we have in this country.

Topic:   SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

May I ask my hon.

riend a question? I suppose he remembers that two distinguished members of this house exercised their privilege of free speech to such an extent that one became Minister of National Revenue and the other Canadian Minister to Japan. Is my hon. friend emulating them?

Topic:   SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I believe both were good

appointments; the Minister of National Revenue is doing very well and I do not complain because the Minister to Japan has left this country for Japan. This is free [Mr. Pouliot.l

speech again; I could not get accustomed in this house to his snobbish way of speaking when he was a member here; I remember that the second part of his speech used to contradict the first part.

Topic:   SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

But to continue-and I

will be very brief:-I would like to tell my hon. friends in the far corner that they need not be afraid because the worst they could receive from the gentleman who made this speech to which I refer would be the cracker which he found on his door step in Quebec and which did not explode. This is another instance of those crazy utterances of the Premier of Quebec, who quite often does not know the first thing about the matters of which he speaks. The members of this house have no lesson to learn from anyone outside of this house; here we come to an understanding; members are free to express their views and they can say what they like. They use dignified language when they speak to each other or when they address the house, and I have never heard before of an outsider coming and trying to impress his views by ' threats upon independent members of the House of Commons. I protested against this very thing at a committee meeting this morning. I asked the officers of the Bell Telephone Company' who were appearing there if they were ready to take all responsibility for the remarks made by that gentleman, and I received the answer from the attorney of the company in the negative.

I do not intend to occupy the time of the house any longer, but I desired to express my views on this subject. I believe our greatest privilege, as members of this house, is to use the language we think fits the circumstances, and I think this will be a lesson to that gentleman and he will mind his own business in the future, and observe "de Con-rart Ie silence prudent," at least with regard to federal matters.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Topic:   SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
Permalink

THE BUDGET

CONTINATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE


The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) for committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer. The Budget-Mr. MacLaren


LIB

Peter Heenan (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, I understand that

about three minutes of my time still remain, and I should like to place on record a few figures which will Show that the railroad activities can be taken as a barometer of the progress the country is making. I wish to give the tonnage of revenue freight since 1921

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

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. member's time

had elapsed before the house rose.

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

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I understand the hon.

gentleman's time has elapsed.

Mr, MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert): Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of hearing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) this afternoon, and if he will be good enough to listen to me this evening I shall a tale unfold which will go a long way toward assisting him in improving the employment situation in this country. However, to do that he must be diligent; he must prevail upon his colleagues to adopt certain measures which I hope to place before the -house this evening. I propose discussing the question of trade as it relates to the welfare of this country. The terms "trade" and "oommerce" are somewhat similar, and it is very difficult to differentiate exactly between the two words.

There is a general consensus of opinion that the word "commerce" has a greater scope and wider application than the word "trade". But we hear the term "foreign trade," and surely that is wide enough. There is also the phrase "overseas trade," which is equally wide in its scope. I intend to deal particularly with overseas trade as it concerns Canada.

Overseas trade is divided into two groups, the first of which is the imports into Canada. As we all know, these imports enter Canada either through Canadian ports or through ports of the United States. I have before me a table prepared by the Bureau of Statistics which illustrates the progress which has been made during the past years in this respect. Imports which entered Canada through Canadian ports during the year 1928 were valued at $377,402,000, or 96.6 per cent of the total imports. The imports entering via United States ports in the same year amounted to $12,118,000, or 3.1 per cent of the total. These figures show a satisfactory improvement in the use of our own ports and rails. There has been a steady increase in the use of the Canadian ports. For instance, the imports through United States ports in 1921 were valued at $25,936,000 while last year they had decreased to $12,118,000. The statement in detail is as follows:

Dominion Bureau of Statistics-External Trade Branch

Trade with Overseas Countries via Canadian Sea or River Ports and United States

Ports

(Taken from Canadian Sources)

"Overseas Countries" includes all countries, except the United States

(1) Imports into Canada from overseas countries

Canada's

Note:-The expression

Years ended March 31

1919..

1920..

1921..

1922..

1923..

1924..

1925..

1926..

1927..

1928..

(a) via Canadian ports

Value Proportion of

of imports total imports

$ %

146.521,000 86.4

238,296,000 90.5

358,046,000 93.3

219.749,000 94.8

248.730,000 95.1

278,221.000 95.3

275,536,000 95.8

304,492,000 95.5

331,109.000 96.3

377,402,000 96.9

(b) via United States ports

Value Proportion of

of imports total imports

$ %

22,988.000 13.6

25,135,000 9.5

25,936,000 6.7

12,097,000 5.2

12.859.000 4.9

13,890,000 4.7

11,616,000 4.2

14,219,000 4.5

12,761.000 3.7

12,118,000 3.1

This improvement has taken place partly by drawing the public attention to the importance of using our own ports and our own rails. I do not think that is a large factor. The main reason is that there have been various preferences, such as the small preference that was added a few years ago, which have brought it about. There can be no doubt about this, because those who recall the instance of the West Indian trade will remember that at that time a small preference was added for direct importation and the improvement followed so soon after that there could be no other explanation. The various trade agreements and treaties that have been passed by parliament in the last few years contain a clause that the preference shall apply when direct importation is made. This, too, has assisted in the improvement. I do not wish to convey the impression as to the

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren

treaties and trade agreements that I approve 'those measures except solely as regards the one point of the mode of import. The merits and demerits of the treaties that we have passed must stand in a separate category and at the present moment I do not deal with them. So far as that goes credit is due to the government for the legislation that has been passed. In like manner equal credit is due to those on this side of the house who have persistently and steadfastly urged that the legislation be brought into effect and who have supported the measures when introduced.

I should like to point out, in reference to the West Indian trade, that not long ago a duty was imposed on bananas coming through the United States and that they were admitted free when imported directly. The United Fruit Company of the United States, a very large, wealthy and powerful organization, which has hitherto been importing through Boston practically all the bananas used in this country, has this year, owing to the duty, arranged to ship bananas from Jamaica to St. John and Halifax. It is doing that because it finds that this fruit can be introduced into Canada two or three days sooner than by shipping it via the St. Lawrence route.

The second great group is that of exports from Canada to overseas countries, and "now is the winter of our discontent," our disappointments and our remonstrances. In the period from 1919 to 1928 exports were as follows:

Tears ended March 31 1919. .

1920..

1921..

1922.. 1923. .

1921..

1925..

1926..

1927.. 1928 .

(2) Exports from Canada to overseas countries

(a) via Canadian ports

Value Proportion of

of exports total exports

a %

609,459,000 80.0

606,808,000 78.2

470,861,000 72.8

300,225,000 67.1

330,052,000 58.7

390,965,000 63.8

394,290,000 60.7

510.417,000 60.8

475,449.000 60.5

458,594,000 61.1

(b) via United States ports

Value Proportion of

of exports total exports

$ %

152,112,000 20.0

168,656,000 21.8

175,980,000 27.2

147,427,000 32.9

232,319,000 41.3

223,678,000 36.2

257,360,000 39.3

329.952,000 39.2

310.285.000 39.5

291,607,000 38.9

The house will note the large percentage of trade that passes through the United States to the seaboard for shipment overseas. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), in an interesting speech referred, as an illustration of what he regarded as indicative of a distinct distribution of wealth, to the records of car loadings as representing the movement of tonnage and the business which is carried on within the nation. I ask the houses to mark the words "within a nation." He said that the increase in tonnage had helped employment in the transportation systems. This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) also referred to car loadings and he was followed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). This is the time when I think the Minister of Labour might, with some advantage, consider another viewpoint of the question of car loadings. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said: See the increase in car loadings in Canada and how from that follow the distribution of wealth and the emplo3Tment that is offered by the railway people. But the minister failed to trace the course of many of these cars. He made no mention of the $291,607,000 worth of tonnage which was carried into

another country for transshipment overseas. He made no mention of the loss at Canadian ports, nor of the loss of railway mileage cn goods passing through the United States, nor -and I would ask the Minister of Labour to listen to this-of the loss of employment both on the railways and at ocean ports. I think I can fairly assume that about as much labour is required for unloading cars as for loading them. Many of the figures which the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave should be cut in half because those cars are unloaded in another country and consequently the employment that should come to our railway operatives, the additional mileage that our railways should have and the employment that should be available at our seaports, are lost because of this S291,000,000 worth of goods being shipped through the United States. The index number of employment would do some oscillation if these facts were plainly and fairly placed before the indicator. Some time we will be interested in learning just what is the number of freight cars that are loaded in Canada and unloaded in the United States. It would be most instructive and impressive to know just what is the number of cars that would be required to handle the freight to the value I have just men-

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren

tioned. I do not for a moment say that there should or could be no transshipment through the United States, but I do strongly assert that the amount now being transshipped should be greatly curtailed, and that our own people, our own railways and ports, should have the benefits of that traffic.

I desire to dTaw the attention of the house to a report recently issued by the United States government, dated January 28, 1929.

It is a report of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, in response to a senate resolution relative to the diversion of commerce from ports in the United States to Canadian ports. This inquiry was held at the instance of two American ports which complained that their trade was being diverted to Canada. The phrase "diversion of trade'' means to us in Canada the "reversion" or the recovery of our trade, because the principal part of the trade in question is in Canadian goods. Whether or not these two cities Were correct in complaining of the loss of trade, the loss certainly was not due to' Canada securing that trade. The report itself states that there has been no diversion to Canada, and that on the whole the United States is well maintaining its trade overseas.

I commend this extensive report to the attention of the members of the house. It was made after a thorough investigation, and it is always well to get another viewpoint and to learn how our neighbours are regarding questions of trade. I should like to read a few extracts from the report. On page 4 it says:

On the basis of the value of Canadian commerce handled by American ports and the share of the total commerce of Canada obtained by ports of the United States in the years 1919 to 1928, it appears that the position of American ports has materially improved during this period. [DOT] Not only is their position in 1928 superior to that in 1919, both on the basis of the absolute value and the proportion that Canada's commerce obtained, but taking the period as a whole there is a perceptible_ tendency towards improvement in their position.

Again:

A comparison of the percentages of the total commerce of each country handed by the ports of the other show's that in the year ending March 31, 1928, Canadian ports obtained only 4.8 per cent of the total trade of the United States with countries other than Canada, while American ports obtained 26.6 per cent of the trade of Canada with countries other than the United States.

These are rather striking figures. Again:

On the whole, available data as set forth in the preceding pages with respect to the movement of traffic through the ports of Canada and the United States do not seem to afford ground for apprehension concerning the welfare _ of American ports and transportation agencies.

Here is a similar quotation:

In view of the year to year fluctuation aDd the lack of any pronounced trend, there appears to be no adequate basis for concluding that there has been any material change either favourable or adverse in the position of American ports with respect to the handling _ of American export traffic during the above period.

According to the tables given in this report, it appears that there is all the way from $60,000,000 to $100,000,000 more in value of Canadian exports passing through the United States than of United States exports passing through Canada. One table gives the figure as $60,000,000 more, and other estimates place it at $100,000,000. As I have said, the percentage is 26.6 as contrasted with 4.8 per cent.

The separate report which is attached, and which was made by the United States shipping board, is not so positive in tone as the ieport from which I have quoted, and yet there is no important divergence from the extracts which I have just given. I submit to the house that here is a clear indication that Canada, represented by its government, should be up and doing in this matter. We have heard what the American viewpoint is. They think that they are gradually improving their ocean export trade as compared with Canada. The trend is favourable, they say, and it is for us, and for the government above all others, to set about and see what can be done, not in any antagonistic attitude towards the United States, but with a view to recovering our own Canadian business and securing the employment and returns that will develop therefrom for all our people.

What is to be done to improve the Canadian overseas export trade through Canadian ports? Certainly the action of the government is a large and important factor in this case. It is for the government to have regard for the interests of our country and our people. It is true that port facilities are being improved, and that is important, and in the direction of recovering our trade.

If there be the impression that the Atlantic ports are destined to carry on only a moderate amount of business, and that only in the winter months, that impression can be promptly and completely set aside. The Atlantic ports expect to secure, and will secure, a large overseas trade throughout the year, and gain what should have been theirs years ago. About half of our Canadian grain is exported through Canadian and about half through United States ports. Had the Crowsnest pass rates been made to apply only when transhipments were -made through Canada, those rates would have borne more of a national character. Our

The Budget-Mr. MacLaren

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

Martin James Maloney

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. M. J. MALONEY (South Renfrew):

Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this already lengthy debate other than to do my plain duty as a member of the House of Commons. If there is one occasion on which a member should state his views, I believe it to be in the discussion of the budget. The budget is really an auditor's report, coupled with a statement of present and future fiscal policies. As our oath of office binds us to support in every manner possible those acts of government which we believe to be in the interests of the country, and with equal vigour to condemn those which we believe to be the opposite, I for one have no hesitation as the representative of a very important section of this country in standing here and discussing the matters before the house.

The budget, as I say, is the auditor's report. Suppose one of our great banking institutions, one of our great insurance companies, or any other of our great financial corporations, were holding its annual meeting, and the shareholders were obliged to sit down and listen to such a lean and unsatisfactory statement as this government has handed out to the shareholders-the people of Canada-what would the shareholders in any of those corporations say? My belief is that they wcrald readily make up their minds to change the management; and, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm conviction that at the very first opportunity the people of Canada- the shareholders-will change their board of management.

The Budget-Mr. Maloney

I sympathize with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). He made the best of a very bad case. He used in profusion the grand old battle cry of the Liberal party-lower taxation and economy. And those of us who sat face to face with the Minister of Finance could hardly think it possible that he would mention the words lower taxation when in another very important part of his official statement he observed that last year he collected from the people of Canada almost $430,000,000, while this year he intends to take out of them more than $455,000,000. In other words, he intends to wring out of the people of Canada this year $25,000,000 more than he took last year. Economy 1 He extolled economy. They are the greatest savers on the face of the earth. Well, what have they done? Last year he told you we spent almost $363,000,000 and this year we are spending $385,000,000; in other words, we practise economy to the extent of spending $22,000,000 more this year than last year. That is certainly economy with a vengeance; it is a very peculiar species of economy, a species which we do not very often see to-day. It reminds us of the old shell game which we used to see at fall fairs in the days gone by. Here we have a government who lower taxation and collect more taxes, extol economy and spend more money. What a singularly wonderful combination of men, a combination of men equalled only by the old sleight of hand artist we saw years ago on the stage, who could deftly flip the cards over and turn them back again. These claims of economy and lower taxation, Mr. Speaker, are really no more fantastic than are the claims which are being circulated throughout the country in the government's propaganda in an endeavour to make the people of Canada believe that we are all prosperous. The only measure of true prosperity lies in the distribution of wealth, and if we follow the arguments advanced, if we follow the full page advertisements in the newspapers for which we are paying and which tell us that we are a prosperous people, if we allow our minds to run along this channel long enough, we shall finally reach that state of mind in which we shall become obsessed with the idea that we are all millionaires. And what a rude awakening there will be for many and many in this country.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance this question: Is he really sincere when he makes the statement that we are indeed prosperous? I would ask him to look a little deeply into that question. Let him go out and face conditions as they are. Let him go out for

example among the great wage earning class; let him go into the workshops and, if you will, into the bread line where many a workman is to-day and has been for the last few months; let 'ham go into the humble home of that workman, sit down side by side with him, and ask him whether he feels more prosperous to-day than he did six or eight or ten years ago. And what will the answer be? " No; I am not more prosperous, As a matter of fact I am finding it more difficult all the time to make both ends meet. I am having a hard time to support my family. But that is not all; I am worried because, in the event of my being cut down before this family has become self-supporting. I am in the unfortunate position of being unable to provide insurance to take care of them when I am gone." Not only will the labour man tell him that. Let him go among the farmers of the country; let him go into the beautiful farming sections of this Dominion, and what will he find? He will find farm after farm abandoned; he will find areas once abundantly productive now waste places. If he goes into the homes of those who still live on the fend he will find debt there; he will find worry; he will find farmer after farmer with a mortgage on his land, farmer after farmer unable to secure the money to meet the taxes on his land. This, Mr. Speaker, should not be the case in such a wonderfully productive land as we have. These men are left in this position because their markets have 'been all stolen; they have no hope for the future. Yet the Minister of Finance would try to make us believe that we are indeed a very prosperous nation. Talk about prosperity! The balance of trade is mentioned with great jubilation by this government. But they forget that at least three-quarters of the exports of the country are in the raw or semi-raw state; they forget that they are shipping out Of Canada the very things that should make Canada wealthy, handing them over to some foreign nation for the enrichment of its people. In addition to the raw and semi-raw products they are exporting, they might as well include a very highly manufactured article, the product of this country, the fifty or sixty thousand boys and girls who are exported year after year, boys and girls who are compelled to leave this land to earn an honest living abroad. And if each one of these boys and girls has a potential value of $10,000, you can easily see how the government can to a still greater extent increase the favourable balance of trade.

I would ask the minister what this budget will do to lighten the burden and make easier

The Budget-Mr. Maloney

the way of the ordinary citizen of this Dominion. It is true that when the Ontario farmer pays his annua! visit to the province of Nova Scotia he will save possibly a quarter on his railway ticket and an equal amount on sleeping car accommodation; and when the ooor fisherman, after drawinsr that yearly $300 in Nova Scotia, takes his annual holiday at the coast, he will find that he has saved possibly 50 cents on his. railway fare. That is a wonderful boon and I am sure the fisherman and the Ontario farmer and all of us are delighted that the minister has seen fit to make our lives so much easier by reducing the tax on railway and sleeping car tickets. Again, to take another item: When the workingman who labours six days out of seven draws his princely cheque of $15 on Saturday night and finds it necessary to buy a suit of clothes for his son, he will go into a store and discover that $5 is the lowest he can pay: so three hearty cheers the poor old labourer will give for the Minister of Finance when he finds that he has saved five cents on that suit of clothes for his son. That is one of the great benefits accruing from the budget which has been brought down by the minister.

Had the government of the day been really sincere in their endeavour to aid the people of the country generally, that sales tax would not be in existence now. Had they followed the resolution proposed. I think, by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) not one but two years ago, they would have abolished the sales tax on articles of wearing apparel and on boots and shoes, and thus would have shown that they were indeed endeavouring to do something for the ordinary citizen of the country. But this budget is a worthy successor to several of its predecessors from the same source. There is no relief for the farmer; there is no relief for the labourer other than the old time worn injunction, work harder, spend less, and pay more taxes.

This government claim to be the friend of the farmers, and why? True, they have reduced the duty on agricultural implements, but to-day the farmer is paying more for his implements than he paid before that reduction was made. To that extent they have benefited the farmer. Not only is that the case, but they have reduced the tariff on woollens and on certain grades of yarns, and by that act they have driven out of business many textile plants throughout Canada; they have so tied up the textile business in this country that what was once a prosperous industry is now barely hanging on by its finger nails. As a direct result of that policy, CMr. Maloney.]

to my knowledge in this Ottawa valley at least seven woollen mills have closed their doors. In addition to that, many farmers in this district and throughout the whole country who found the raising of sheep a profitable industry have gone out of that business because when wool went down they could not make any money. Mutton was allowed to enter Canada to compete with our own product, and that made the situation so much worse. The Prime Minister of Canada has had some experience in raising sheep and chickens; a few years ago he launched a bold scheme and became a sheep farmer. He procured the land and bought a flock of . high grade sheep, which he placed in charge of a shepherd; things went well for a time but eventually, after this act of his own government, he was obliged to abandon the project and to-day while he still has the land, the sheep and the shepherd have disappeared. He still has the chickens, but if the government allow eggs to pour into Canada as they have done in the past few years eventually he will abandon the chicken game also.

What else have hon. gentlemen opposite done to show their wonderful friendship for the farmers of this country? They negotiated a treaty with New Zealand and point to it as the greatest aid our farmers ever were given. How has it worked out? Last year we imported from Australia and New Zealand 2,000,000 pounds of beef and mutton and 16,000,000 pounds of butter. Is that encouraging home production? Is that encouraging the farmers of Canada? I represent a county very well suited for the raising of stock of all kinds, well adapted for dairying and for poultry raising. A few years ago the farmers were going in for dairying and sheep raising quite extensively but to-day, because of the acts of this government, they fear to move, and our dairy and sheep industries are falling off. In that great inland county, thousands of miles from New Zealand, today we are eating New Zealand meat and butter and American eggs. Why should that condition exist? How does that encourage the farmers of this country? If those products were, shut out completely or if those countries were compelled to trade with us on a fifty-fifty basis our farmers would be encouraged, they would be more content and happier than they are to-day. But this government encourages production at home. Why, Mr. Speaker, there never was a government in the history of this country which did less to encourage production at home and in fact did more to prevent it, yet they are the friends of the farmers and of the people gen-

The Budget-Mr. Maloney

erally throughout Canada. How any farmer in this country can support the present government is an unsolved mystery to me, yet quite a few of them even in this house will continue to stick as long as the sticking is good.

In addition to being the friend of the farmer and encouraging home production this government are the champion spenders of all governments of this country. They let money float around like chaff, but the funny part of it is that some of the most laudable projects are turned aside while others of less value are readily accepted. Quite recently this house considered the question of a grant to the provinces in aid of technical education; that request was rudely turned down, yet with great alacrity this same government handed over to Vincent Massey more than $700,000. What has Vincent Massey done to cost this country that amount of money? He has done nothing so far as I know. Oh, yes, he did one thing; he arranged a passage for the Prime Minister of this country on a French boat sailing from an American port when the Prime Minister left to attend the peace pact conference in Paris. Our Prime Minister and Mr. Kellogg did their work nobly, but I fail to see where Vincent earned his $700,000. While we were all behind the Prime Minister in his magnificent efforts overseas I might tell him that we would have felt much better and that the honour of Canada would have been upheld to a much greater extent if he had sailed from a Canadian port on board a Canadian vessel.

Technical education is absolutely essential in Canada to-day. Our whole system of education is of an academic kind. Once we enter the lower grades of the public schools our system heads us straight for the university; our system of teaching is based on no other idea, and we forget that a very large percentage of the people of Canada never see a university. We overlook the fact that our boys and girls who do not intend to take advantage of the opportunity to go to university should be trained in some vocation which will be of use to them when they go out into the world to earn their own living; they should be taught carpentry, book-keeping or some other trade or vocation which will make them useful citizens of Canada. That is the idea of technical education, and with that idea in mind the various provinces to-day are advocating more and more a system of technical training. Our hon. friends opposite, however, prefer Vincent Massey to the education of our children, so what are we to do?

Is this a spending government? It is. They spend millions of dollars to destroy perfectly good buildings in Ottawa but they have not a five-cent piece for a national highway. That is a project which would give employment to thousands of our citizens from coast to coast; it would link up the east with the west and would allow a resident of Prince Edward Island to cross Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the great provinces of Quebec and Ontario, on through Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia to the coast without setting foot on foreign soil. That is the great advantage of a national highway, and in addition it would bring to this country an untold tourist traffic from all over the world. But our friends on the government side prefer to tear down buildings in the heart of Ottawa rather than to build a trans-Canada highway. They are destructive rather than constructive.

Then we have the tariff board. This board has been in existence two years and even the chairman of it does not know the first thing about its operations. Here is what he said on page 5 of his report to the Minister of Finance:

Difficulty exists as to determining the nature of the advice we are presumed to tender to the minister. Applications in regard to customs invariably contain submission of evidence with the object of obtaining relief, whether by upward or downward revision of the tariff. Parliament alone can grant that relief. What then becomes the nature of the advice expected from the board?

Here is a tribunal which costs the Dominion of Canada many thousands of dollars each year, and the open confession of the chairman of that board practically amounts to an admission that the only thing he knows with certainty about the operations of the board is the fact that he and two fellow commissioners draw a fine, fat cheque at the end of each month.

The .money which is used in maintaining this board could well be spent in many other ways. I would advise the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) to get his claws on that money. He can use it, because his department is supposed to be operated for service and not for profit. The people from end to end of this country are crying out for improved rural mail facilities, and I leave it to the good judgment of the Postmaster General if it would not be wiser to close up the shop of the tariff board and spend the money in extending the rural mail system.

While I am on the subject of the Post Office department, I would like to mention a matter which is operating to the disadvantage

The Budget-Mr. Maloney

of a great number of our people. I refer to the special privilege which is given to the large mail order houses of this country. The mail order houses are expanding slowly but surely, and the day is bound to come sooner or later when the old time general merchant will be forced out of business and the merchandising of our country will be in the hands of a few. The Postmaster General is aiding those mail order houses by allowing the use of the mail at a sacrifice price. About two or three times a year these great mail order houses send out many hundreds of thousands of catalogues, the great silent salesmen. Every time an article is ordered from these catalogues it works to the disadvantage of the general merchant. Every transaction with a mail order house must be on a cash basis, while the general merchant carries the settler for from one to three years. The Post Office department is aiding and abetting these large firms in going in and taking the bread out of the mouths of the country merchants. I know of one town in my riding where nearly a carload of these catalogues came into the post office and were distributed to the settlers within a radius of twenty miles at a cost of seven cents apiece. Had these catalogues been obliged to pay the regular mail rate of one cent for every two ounces it would have meant that the Post Office department would have received eighteen cents on every catalogue. That would have totalled about half a million dollars which could have gone to the treasury of this country, and at the same time an unfair advantage would not have been taken of the country merchants. I ask the Postmaster General to look into this matter and if possible to give some relief. The Postmaster General might use that extra money in extending the rural mail system, taking it along with the money which is being wasted by the operation of the tariff board. He could start many rural mail routes, but I suppose he would rather have the tariff board, which is helping the big corporations, and let the poor fellow out in the country walk from one to five miles to get his mail. As I said before, the Post Office department is operated for service without profit, but it is a service to the great plutocrats, in the same way this government has been rendering service to the rich men of the country ever since it became a factor in the affairs of Canada.

The budget is a rich man's budget. It helps the man who travels a great deal or the man who sends many telegrams; it helps the man who is purchasing large articles; and it helps the man who deals in high-priced min-

ing stocks at the expense of the man who deals in the penny stocks. It is generally the poor man who deals in the penny stocks, and they are being penalized while the high-priced stocks are allowed to go practically free. I would like to call to the attention of the Minister of Finance the fact that some of our greatest mining institutions in Canada were once listed on the market as penny stocks. Had this unfortunate tax then been in effect we might not have had the opportunity of developing those rich properties.

I would like to touch for a few moments upon the question of the exporting of raw materials. We have no conception of the amount of money we are handing over to the United States by permitting our raw products to be exported as they are at present. In the county town of my county there is a factory engaged in the manufacture of matches. They utilize poplar wood very largely in the manufacture of those matches. Every winter the farmers cut a considerable amount of poplar pulpwood and they sell that wood to the buyers at a price of from $6 to $8 per cord. It is then loaded on the train and shipped to the United States, and our railways get possibly $2 per cord. In other words, we derive from $8 to $10 per cord from the sale of that wood. Let us see what happens when a cord of poplar wood is used in the manufacture of matches. From the time it leaves the stump until it is turned out in the finished product, a cord of wood represents the distribution of $60. Compare that with the price received for the wood we ship to the United States. There is a difference of $50. Where is that $50? It is down in the pockets of the boys and girls of the United States when it should be in Canada to be spent among our own people. But these matters have been so long urged upon and consistently brought to the attention of the government without result that I fear for the future of this country if the present government is allowed to remain in power any longer.

We have a Minister of Immigration, and a good one, but as a matter of fact we should not have a minister of immigration at all; we should not need one. As everyone will admit, we have the finest country in the whole w'ide world. We have resources without end; we are economically independent of the whole world; we are self-supporting from every angle, and if our affairs were run properly, we would require no minister of immigration; we would have no reason to go out among foreign nations and seek for people to come to our shores. A proper system of immigration is this: Let us make Canada

a country worth living in, and who will come

The Budget-Mr. Stinson

back within our borders? Our own boys and girls who are to-day across the line longing to come back to their old homes but who cannot do so because they are unable to make a living here. Make Canada a country fit to live in and these boys and girls will return. What we need to make this country worth living in is a government which will give confidence not only to our people but to the foreign investor. Both outside of and within Canada are millions of dollars awaiting a favourable opportunity for investment, millions of dollars awaiting their chance to be used in the development of our great natural resources; but the capitalists fear, and they have reason to fear, an inactive, wavering, insincere and compromising government, and they are afraid to invest their capital. With a strong, stable government in power, with money flowing in on every hand, factories which are to-day locked up tightly will again swing open their doors; plants which are now masses of rust and ruin will start up again; our boys and girls will flock back to Canada and our country will once more be prosperous as it should be. When our own boys and girls come back I would suggest this as a policy of immigration: Go throughout the length and breadth of the wide world and pick the best class of men, no matter from where. Coming from the county of Renfrew I can testify to the singular ability of the German and Polish immigrants as settlers on the land. We have in that county a large Polish population and no better people than these ever lived on any land. If we had a million or two or three millions of these Poles in Canada along with Germans, who are equally good, they would help to build up a great country for us.

I would like to touch for a few minutes on the railway situation. I was amused a short time ago when I heard the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) complain about the railway facilities in his constituency. He stated that they were the worst in the world, and I believe he brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). A day or two afterwards the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) stood up and went him one better. He said that he had the very worst railway in the whole country and he urged the Minister of Railways to take it over and amalgamate it with the Canadian National. I would ask the hon. member for Cumberland to hesitate, because I want to say both to him and to the hon. member for Inverness that if they visited the county of Renfrew and saw the railway situation as it exists under the name 78594-70^

of the Canadian National, they would return home and, travelling on their own railways, would imagine they were on a Chicago flier. There are two points in my county which are sixty miles apart, and hon. members will be surprised to learn that it takes four days to make the trip one way on a passenger train. That is in the county of Renfrew, one of the finest counties in the whole Dominion of Canada, and it has occurred under the unfortunate management of the Canadian National railways.

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

Thomas Hubert Stinson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Ont.):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) on the splendid address which she delivered in this chamber this afternoon. I believe that after two or three more sessions of parliament, she will be content to leave her farmer friends in the hands of the Conservative party.

The budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) grows in importance to the people of Canada year by year, and for the last seven years it has been awaited with anticipation and concern by increasing numbers by reason of radical tariff changes or suggested or mooted changes therein. I congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the clear, concise statement that he has given us this year, but my congratulation is much deeper and much more sincere by reason of the fact that this year no radical changes in the tariff are suggested. The government is [DOT] apparently settling down to a policy of tariff stability. The problem of the tariff has been one of the most persistent and controversial in Canadian history, affecting as it does either directly or indirectly the well-being and prosperity of every citizen in Canada. The government has tinkered with the tariff every year since 1922, with the result that there was nothing but uncertainty in our industrial life for the workers and for the manufacturers, and this had a depressing effect upon the whole life of Canada. If this budget spells stability in tariff-and I hope it does-then we have gone a long way towards creating and fostering an era of prosperity for this country. Let us proclaim to the world once again that the settled policy of Canada is that of reasonable protection.

I congratulate the Minister of Finance further upon his timely reference to our neighbour to the south. Although timid indeed, yet it states that in case the United States should implement by legislation its tariff proposals directed in the interest of their farmers against the products of the Canadian farmer, measures will be taken to

The Budget-Mr. Stinson

protect the interest of our Canadian farmer. I would let the United States understand clearly and without equivocation that their citizens cannot have their own market and ours too, save only on the basis of fairness to our people. The policy of the government of this country should be to protect our farmers and to give them the full benefit of our home market.. The farmer in Canada is competing with his fellow farmers in other countries under conditions of absolute unfairness. The product of the foreign farmer is brought into this country under a relatively low tariff or, in some cases, under none at all, while our farmer is forbidden access to other countries save over a tariff wall. Our neighbour to the south has excluded from that market more and more of the products of the Canadian farmer. The Hoover election was fought on the ground of more relief to the American farmer by higher tariffs and the retaining of the American market wholly and unreservedly for the American farmer. What have we to gain by giving our home market in vegetables, vegetable products, fruits, grains, meats, eggs, cheese and butter to the American and other farmers? If the American wants our market, let him compete in it on terms of fairness to our manufacturers and farmers who desire to compete in the American market. What are the terms of competition at present? This is a table of compartive duties on farm products:

American Duty Wheat, 42c. per bushel. Corn, 15c. per bushel.

Alsike clover, $4 p. 100 lb*. Bay, $4 per ton.

Butter, 12c. per lb.

Cheese, 5c. per lb.

Eggs, 8c. per doz.

Potatoes, 50c. per 100 lbs. Peas, 60e. per bushel.

Canadian Duty 12c. per bushel. Free.

$1.50 p. 100 lbs. $2 per ton.

4c. per lb.

3c. per lb.

3c. per doz. Free.

15c. per bushel.

Is it not time that we attempted to play fair with our farmers and give them the same degree of protection as the United States government gives its farmers? Keep for our own people the home market, which is the most profitable, and free from all the complicated and vexed problems that relate to the foreign market. Peas from Japan and Belgium are right now replacing Canadian peas in our own market. Potato flour is being shipped in from Belgium, and our farmers cannot get a decent price for their potatoes.

No country in the world seems to be so alive to the retention of its home market as the United States, with the result that they consume 87 per cent of all their products both grown and manufactured, and export only 13 per cent. They check and follow

importations a great deal more closely than we do. Let me give you an instance in the milling trade. Buffalo in the last seven or eight years has built up the largest milling industry in the world. Under the Tariff Act of 1922, section 311, Canadian wheat can be shipped into the United States in bond for milling, and thus escapes the duty of 42 cents per bushel. The wheat is milled there, and shipped out lo compete with Canadian flour in the world market, thus giving the American labourers a payroll of 81,950,000, in which Canadian workmen can participate only by leaving Canada and making their homes in the United States. There is also lost to our Canadian railways the freight on the movement of the wheat to the mills and the flour to the seaboard, which amounts to upwards of 81,500,000, and a further loss on the offal of about $650,000. Here again the American railway man is getting the payroll instead of our good Canadians. At the present time the American mills are importing in bond about 17,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat for the export flour trade. The American farmer now objects to this, and the matter has recently been submitted to the ways and means committee at Washington, and a merry fight is being waged. The Buffalo millers, in their brief, point out, as I did a year ago in this house, that if the practice was stopped it would not affect either the American farmer or the Canadian farmer, as this Canadian wheat is ground for the export market. The export market is there just the same to be supplied with 16,000,000 barrels of flour made from Canadian wheat, no matter whether it is ground in the United States or in Canada. The Buffalo millers further point out that if the administrative features of the present American tariff were abrogated or made more rigorous to the miller grinding in bond, the advantages in milling possessed by Canada would without question draw United States milling-in-bond trade to Canada, and thus give us a payroll for our labourers, and increased freight for our railroads with increased man power to handle it.

It should be the purpose of government to direct and mould the business policy of our country for the development of our natural resources, and thus give employment to our citizens. A nation cannot exist without people, people cannot exist without homes, homes cannot be maintained without money, and money can only be obtained by the multitude by work, and by labour. Therefore if a government fails in its duty so to direct its policy as to foster and provide work and labour at a fair remuneration, it fails in its duty to the people. The test of a good budget should then

The Budget-Mr. Stinson

be: What does it contain to create industry in order that the foundation of the nation may be maintained in the building up of happy and contented homes? Does the present budget contain one tariff change that will develoip a new job capable of employing an additional Canadian boy in Canada? I have failed to find such a change, and the most that can be said for it is that it is, in the words of the Financial Post, "an innocuous budget."

After the budget speech of the finance minister had been delivered, I wrote to a friend of mine who is engaged in the manufacture of woollens, and who has been a supporter of the present administration, and here is what he has to say:

The evidence brought out before the tariff commission in Ottawa by the textile mills showed that the importations of blankets and rugs, from Great Britain is increasing each year. Our mills are specially equipped for the manufacture of blankets. Each year our trade has continued to fall away as the competition has grown keener.

The large dealers, such as departmental stores and jobbers can purchase blankets in England and Scotland, and lay them down in Canada for a lower price than it costs us to make them. This is due to the lower cost of labour and coal. The standard of living is so much higher in Ontario than it is in Europe that we cannot get work done on the same basis.

Textile machinery is not made in Canada, but up to a year ago it was brought in subject to from 10 to 27Jr per cent duty. The government, a year ago, changed this and allowed machinery from Great Britain to come in free, but this is no benefit to us as there is now more textile machinery in Canada than can be used. The government also allowed free yarns, but this is no benefit to woollen mills as they all make their own yarns.

The importations from Germany and France into Great Britain, free, undersell the British manufacturers, who in turn ship the products of their mills into Canada at such low prices they claim they cannot continue to exist, and they are now asking the British government to safeguard their industries against this invasion of their livelihood.

In the past few years wollen mills that made blankets have closed their doors and nailed up their windows or are being dismantled. One at Chatham, one at Mitchell, two at Renfrew, one at Carleton Place, Midland, Rockwood, Glen Williams, Bullock Corners, Dundas, and many others.

Unless the government restores the duty which was taken off a few years ago, at a very early date other mills will be compelled to cease operations, thus throwing more workmen out of employment. This has a serious effect on towns and villages where these mills are situated, and makes the matter of unemployment a real problem.

That letter comes from a supporter of the present administration. Every effort is being made by the farmers growing wool in Canada

to increase the quality and volume of their product. The wool growers, the manufacturers, the agricultural colleges, and the National Research Council are all cooperating in research work in the growing and the use of Canadian wool. Canadian grown wool is particularly adapted for making blankets and woollen cloth such as tweeds. Blankets and woollen cloths made from Canadian wools are better wearing, warmer, and of superior quality to those made from wools in any other country, and yet the woollen schedule of this government gives practically no protection to this important industry, and thus damages the industry and the farmer who produces wool.

In nine months ending December, 1928, there were $751,010 worth of household blankets imported as against $652,768 worth in the same nine months of 1927. I was sufficiently interested to obtain the December, 1928, figures of imports, and I found that there were blankets coming in from Czechoslovakia at 99 cents a pair; from Belgium at $1.10 a pair; from the Netherlands at $1.62 a pair; from Germany at $2.15 a pair; from the United States at $2.03 a pair, and from Great Britain at $3.69 a pair. These low average prices indicated by the import figures do not seem to be reflected in the prices at which blankets are bought by the consumers in Canada, and I submit that an increase in the duty would therefore have no effect on the retail prices of blankets, but would result in more blankets being made in Canada by Canadian labourers and from wool produced in Canada, which would benefit the farmer, the labourer, and the manufacturer, and make more jobs in Canada for our boys and girls.

Canadian wool is particularly adapted to making the bulk of woollen cloths used in Canada. For nine months ending December, 1928, under the heading "worsteds and serges including coatings," there was imported into Canada 19,642,572 worth. The British government figures for twelve months ending December, 1928, show that they exported to Canada 17,473,000 square yards of woollen cloth valued at $12,743,525-and this is to the detriment of Canadian grown wool, which is particularly suited to the making of woollen cloth. It is the duty of this parliament to see that adequate protection is given to the blanket and woollen cloth mills in Canada which make the types of cloth for which Canadian wool is particularly adapted.

It is stated on all sides that our great need is population. If that is the case the government must find ways and means of employing the population we have and making new

The Budget-Mr. Stinson

jobs for those we desire to add to our population. Consequently the efforts of the government should be bent to the task of creating work in Canada; and our efforts should be directed toward the work of building up a balanced population. The farmer says: If you bring in more farmers and settle them on the land you are intensifying competition for me, and this will help to lower the price of my product. The labourer says: If you bring in additional labourers there will be more competition for the available jobs in Canada. Therefore it is necessary to build up a balanced population in terms of occupation to a point where Canada will present a fairly harmonious economic unit; where the burden of taxation may be so distributed over more shoulders that it will bear lightly upon all; where our transportation machine may be operated efficiently and economically, and where the local consumption of industrial products may be large enough to give industry and the consumer the benefit of savings incidental to quantity production. We cannot overlook the fact that the first duty of a young nation is to make itself economically secure.

It is time Canada took stock of herself, of her resources and her institutions, and commenced to formulate national policies in keeping with her peculiar conditions and limitations. We should strive to reach our effective minimum population and always endeavour to maintain a fairly balanced population in terms of occupation. Build up agriculture and industry side by side. What Canada and many other countries have suffered from during recent years and what has given rise to general unemployment is not necessarily overpopulation, but unbalanced production, and there should foe no widespread unemployment in Canada if corrective methods were employed by our government.

In considering th* social value of the citizen we must not overlook his performance as a consumer of the products produced within the state. This has an important bearing on employment and general prosperity. Every man, woman and child added to our population is a potential consumer to the extent of $243.30 of manufactured goods, and of farm products to the extent of $87.50.

Mass production is the essential element in successful modern industry. Canadian agriculture will suffer by reason of inflated prices

leading to a higher production cost until our general consuming population reaches a point where our industries can function more effectively, and thus reduce commodity prices, resulting in a lower cost of farm operation and of living all round. Until we can bring about a spectacular increase in population the present handicap of high commodity and operating costs cannot be removed. Increasing our imports cannot do this, for imports give the job to the foreigner and not to our own citizens. The farmer is sending his product to the export market, to maintain the workman there to manufacture the goods we are importing, instead of bringing the workman to Canada to make his goods and articles here and thus consume our farm products here.

The importation of 20,000,000 pounds of New Zealand butter is unfair to our farmers. This is the result of the Australian treaty. The bonus given by the Australian government to its farmers on all butter exported permits the Australian to carry his butter to Vancouver without cost, as the bonus pays the transportation charges. Australian and New Zealand butter can be shipped on a through rate from Vancouver to Montreal at $2.30 per 100 pounds. The rate for the British Columbia producer to Montreal is $3,581 per 100 pounds. So the Australian can ship his butter to Montreal, pay the freight and 1 cent per pound for duty and lay it down for 281 cents per 100 pounds less than our British Columbia producer. Saskatchewan and Alberta are similarly affected by this unfair competition as well as Ontario. The Saskatchewan producers are now of the opinion that there should be a general tariff on butter which would give our Canadian farmer protection in his home market, which is the proper solution of the problem. Twenty million pounds of butter imported in one year would keep 100,000 cows busy the year around in Canada, and would give employment to a large number of people in caring for the cows and handling the product. If we kept our home market for butter for our own farmers an additional ten thousand farms could be occupied in Canada. The competition which affects our farmers most is from New Zealand, and New Zealand gives us no benefits in return.

And what of the egg situation? Last autumn at the most critical time for our egg men fifty carloads of 500 cases to the car

The Budget-Mr. Stinson

were brought in from the United States, to the great detriment of our market, as eggs collected in April, May and June are put on the market in October, November and December of the same year, and large importations at that time seriously prejudice our poultry industry. Under the new government grading of eggs large quantities not up to the grade of extras or firsts, owing to size, soiled shells, and so forth, must be marketed as seconds. These together with cracked eggs are broken into cans, frozen, and supplied to the bakers the year round. Approximately four million pounds of this product are used in Canada. This frozen egg industry is a very valuable asset to the poultry industry, because if all the frozen eggs consumed in Canada were Canadian eggs it would relieve the market of approximately four million dozen of the grade of eggs which it is most difficult to sell. If there is no protection to the egg buyers from these importations it means that our farmers must necessarily take a much lower price for their supply during the collecting season of April, May and June. Our tariff is three cents a dozen against the American tariff of eight cents a dozen. Last year's tinkering with the egg tariff is going to have the effect of a very much decreased price to our farmers this year, as huge losses were sustained by the packers in 1928 on the eggs they purchased from the farmers in April, May and June of 1928. Frozen eggs imported from China to the extent of upwards of two million pounds per year should not be allowed to come here and compete with our own eggs, nor should they be allowed to be used by our bakers and restaurant keepers if the statement made by a member of the deputation which

waited on the government in the spring of 1928, in reference to the repeal of the dumping clause is true, as to the sanitary conditions under which they are put up in China. He said they were put up under conditions that were absolutely unsanitary.

All this tariff trouble has been brought about by reason of the fact that our Liberal friends have been successful in making a section of our farmers and others believe that a tariff is an invidious thing and should be discarded. In the platform of the Liberal party in 1921 we find the following words:

Whereas the protective tariff is the most wasteful and costly method ever designed for raising national revenue because for every dollar obtained thereby for the public treasury at least three dollars pass into the pockets of the protected interests, thereby building up a privileged class at the expense of the masses.

And yet in spite of that declaration this government has collected in the last year- after having had eight years in which to change the method-$185,000,000 from customs dues-the largest amount ever collected from customs dues in Canada, in any one year. If they believed what they preached to the electorate in 1921-1925 and 1926, and for many years prior thereto, then they should have wiped out the tariff and made good their declaration that the system is wrong. When you go into the figures carefully the fact is revealed that the farmer is not affected to any great extent by the tariff, and if he were given protection for his farm products then the account would be balanced. Let me work out the account for you. If a farmer purchases a complete line of implements costing $2,267.25, the net duty he would pay is $54.31, as follows:

Selling Dutiable Tariff NetImplements price value rate duty8 ft. binder .. .. $ 275 00 $170 00 6 % $10 206 ft. mower .. .. 110 00 55 00 71% 4 1312 ft. hay rake .. .. 63 75 38 00 71% 2 8516 x 16 disc harrow .. .. 76 50 45 00 71% 3 3820 dble. disc drill 243 25 150 00 71% 11 251-3 furrow engine gang plough ... 155 00 100 00 10 % 10 005 section drag harrow. .. .. 32 75 20 00 10 % 2 0031 x 3 wagon (complete) ... 166 00 105 00 10 % 10 501 15 x 27 tractor .. .. 1,145 00 nil nil nil

The Budget-Mr. Stinson

The average life of the implements mentioned in this table is from eight to ten years, and if you put it at the lesser figure of eight years the duty on his machinery is $6.79 annually.

Now then, let us treat the farmer's food products in the same way, leaving out the non-dutiable articles. We find he pays in duty on food products annually $21.01, made up as follows:

Amounts

SOn lbs. sugar

25 lbs. coffee

25 lbs. , tea

25 lbs. raisins

25 lbs. currants

50 lbs. rice

50 lbs macaroni

5 bbls. apples

50 doz. oranges

10 doz. lemons

5 doz. grapefruit

1 bunch bananas

25 pineapples

100 lbs. evaporated prunes..

100 lbs. apricots

100 lbs. peaches

200 lbs. salt

100 lbs. pears

This is based on a family of five, which should be a fair average.

Next we come to the tariff on the family supply of clothing. There is no duty on cloth in the bolt entering Canada, nor is there any on raw cotton brought in for manufacturing or finishing in Canada; consequently the amount of duty paid by the average farmer on his clothing budget is very small, less than $15.

This gives us the complete burden imposed annually on the farmer with a family of five b}' reason of the tariff, amounting in all to $42.80. Of that amount only $6.79, the duty on machinery, is peculiar to the farmer alone, as the other two amounts are collected from every other household in Canada. What does the farmer get in return for the $42.80 which he pays? It is his main contribution toward the upkeep of the federal government. In return he gets a paid representative to Ottawa; government help in selling his commodities and in extending his markets; protection of life and property; experimental farms and research bureaus conducted in his interest; federal grants to highways, at least at times; payment to old age pensions, and many other advantages and assistance from the government. Is not the farmer amply repaid for his annual contribution of $42.80 as likewise every other citizen?

The farmer's share of the cost of provincial and municipal government is at least four times the cost to him of federal government. A little tariff protection will build up a home

Rate of duty Duty paid$1 50 per cwt. $ - 5003 per lb. 7510 per lb. 2 5003 per lb. 7503 per lb. 7575 per cwt. 37i1 25 per cwt. 02190 per bbl. 4 50nil nilnil nilnil nil50 50nil nil0666 per lb. 06ij50 per cwt. 501 00 per cwt. 1 0005 per cwt. 1050 per cwt. 50$21 011

market for both farmer and manufacturer, and no nation has ever become great and prosperous without a well balanced industrial and agricultural population. Let us strive for a balanced population in terms of occupation to develop one of the finest countries in the world, and build up a strong virile nation capable of taking care of itself.

The Minister of Finance at page 596 of Hansard states that:

The administration will refuse to support any extravagance in the spending of the taxpayers' money.

That no doubt is the basis for the government's refusal to renew the grant of $400,000 per annum to the province of Ontario and other provinces for agriculture; for its refusal to renew the grant to the provinces for technical education; for its refusal to renew the grant to the provinces for good roads. In view of the above declaration against extravagance, I would like to have the minister's explanation and his justification for spending $520,000 in one year for automobiles for the ministers of the crowm and others; for spending $3,000,000 on the beautification of Ottawa; $500,000 to buy a mansion in the United States for the Hon. Vincent Massey and $255,000 for the maintenance of embassies at Washington, Tokyo and Paris, and $231,178.91 on furnishings and repairs to Quebec citadel.

Let us end the weary years of fickleness and instability in financial and fiscal affairs; let us restore definitely and clearly the principle

The Budget-Mr. Mercier

of protection in the tariff of Canada, a principle and a practice upon which all can rely, upon which industry can depend, upon which workers and farmers can depend, but a principle and a practice which none should be permitted to abuse. Let us see that the great resources of this country are conserved for the development of our own nation and not of another, and for the multiplication of our own people and the retention in Canada of our own sons and daughters.

I heartily support the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie).

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

Joseph-Alexandre Mercier

Liberal

Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):

The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), speaking in this house last evening, said that in view of the immense territory which he represented he was entitled to more time than the average member. If that principle were applied, very little time would be allotted to me because I represent a constituency small in territory though high in the quality and large in the number of its inhabitants. Among those people who live in the division of Laurier-Outremont you, Mr. Speaker, have many friends who followed with delight and admiration the magnificent course of lectures which you gave at the Sorbonne at Paris this winter, and as an old pupil of yours at Laval university, Montreal, I add my congratulations to those of your numerous friends in the division I represent.

Even at his late hour I desire also to join with the members of the opposition in extending congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) upon the concise and able manner in which he brought down this, his sixth budget in the house. But unlike those members, I do not qualify my congratulations, and I assure the minister that we on this side of the house take his word for it when he says that prosperity reigns throughout the land. Our friends opposite criticize that statement and say that Canada is not prosperous, so it might be well to go outside the house and take unbiased authorities in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not Canada is prosperous. We might go to important organizations and bodies throughout this country but we could find none more reliable or more qualified to speak of the prosperity of Canada than our banks, and if I may be allowed to do so I would like to quote a few words from the annual statement of the Bank of Montreal as submitted by its president, Sir Charles Gordon, who said:

The statement of the year's operations shows that we have fully participated in the general prosperity while agricultural, commercial and industrial activities have been carried on in greater volume than ever before.

The general manager of the bank, following Sir Charles Gordon, said:

Canada as a whole has enjoyed more prosperity than ever before; our live stock industry has shown marked improvement. Cattle have been in better demand at better prices than for some years past. Between 1926 and 1927 there was an increase of about 25 per cent in the output of our dairy factories, and progress has continued in 1928. One of the happiest developments has been the definite revival of prosperity in the maritime provinces, coming into line with the rest of Canada in this respect. Canada is great in agriculture, but the glory of her heritage lies in the variety of her resources. Minerals are steadily growing in importance. The tourist trade is of the highest importance; according to government statistics tourists from abroad spent $275,000,000 in Canada in 1927. Reports from all provinces report an even larger number of tourists, and the amount spent has no doubt also been greater in 1928.

Looking at the annual statement of the Imperial Bank of Canada we find that the president, Mr. Peleg Howland, said:

This year has been most profitable to bankers. Our foreign trade has increased, particularly in imports, which would indicate increased spending ability on the part of the people. Our debt has been reduced; our revenues are increasing. Most of our industries will show satisfactory results from their operations this year. It cannot be said that mining activity is not prosperous. Building construction has been active in Canada, the confidence displayed in the continued growth of the city of Toronto particularly by those erecting lofty buildings being very marked. Savings have increased. The country's prospects are pleasing. Reasonable confidence in the immediate future is instilled.

In his turn the general manager of the Imperial Bank, Mr. A. E. Phipps, said that on his return from his western trip Mr. E. W. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, was quoted as follows;

I have never seen the country looking better, and in all my experience I have not previously found so general a feeling of complete confidence in this country and its possibilities.

Then the general manager of the bank continues :

This to some extent sums up my present feelings with regard to the future conditions in Canada which are largely governed by profits from iagriculture, which seems to he on an assured basis and given the continuance of the prosperity which the agriculturists have enjoyed for the past few years, I see nothing ahead to check the development of the country.

The annual report of the Bank of Toronto, as shown in the Financial Post of January 18, 1929, contains the following statement by Mr. W. G. Gooderham, the president:

My first word must be an expression of satisfaction and thankfulness. The rising tide of progress has continued during the year just passed and many new peaks have been established. Agriculture is now in excellent financial condition and it is good to see con-

The Bud (jet-Mr. Mercier

ditions for the farmer improving, not only financially but in all those things which add to the measure of comfort available to him. Manufacturing lines have enjoyed a good year. In construction there has been unusual activity, while the orders handled by the iron and steel companies, railway equipments and similar basic industries have also been large. Mining steadily makes new records.

Senator Dandurand, president of the Montreal City and District Savings Bank, said:

The year just closed has been one of great prosperity for Canada generally and for our city in particular. We have harvested a record crop, business generally has been very good and a wave of well-being has spread over the country generally.

Sir H. Laporte, president of the Provincial Bank of Canada, said:

The bounteous crops, as well as the sale of live stock at very satisfactory prices, were important sources of revenue for the agricultural class whose buying power has contributed to the speeding up of our industries. The rapid development of some of our natural resources, by the water-power developments and dependable labour. . . .have been factors which contributed to the general prosperity, speeded up the building trade, kept our great transportation companies active and provided employment for our working classes.

I now came to the report of the Royal Bank of Canada. In publishing this report the Montreal Gazette said:

The annual meeting of the Royal Bank is always followed with a good deal .of interest .... but yesterday's gathering was of particular importance, following as it did one of the most prosperous years in the history of this country and coming on the threshold of what appears to be an era of further and marked progress in the affairs of the Dominion.

In his address to the shareholders of the bank, Sir Herbert S. Holt, chairman of the board, said:

The growth of agricultural, mineral and industrial production has been reflected in growing assets. . . . There was extraordinary growth in the demand for Canadian products; in 1922 the total value of Canadian exports amounted to $740,000,000 and by 1926 this had increased to $1,315,000,000, or an increase of 78 per cent. . . . Exports in the fiscal year of 1928 were only 6 j per cent below those of the record year of 1926, and the last few months have witnessed the development of a new upward trend in foreign sales. I believe, however, at the moment it is no exaggeration to summarize the situation by saying that there is no other part of the world more prosperous than Canada.

Mr. C'has. E. Neill, the efficient and papular general manager of the bank, made the following statement:

To our farmers .... the record crop of 1928 has brought substantial prosperity. A pronounced shortage of cattle in the United States has brought alxiut a movement to purchase cattle in Canada.

So far commerce and industry have their feet on the ground and speaking generally, the publicly owned corporations have never been in a more sound or liquid position, with pros* perity general and prospects never before equalled in our history.

Almost all indications of Canadian production have shown a spectacular rise during the past four years. This is particularly true to those relating to manufacturing. The amount of electric energy generated daily in 1928 is double the amount in 1924 and this in itself is a valuable index of manufacturing activity. The accessibility of vast water-powers constitutes an outstanding benefit to manufacturing in Canada.

The directors' report to the shareholders of La Bunque Canadienne Rationale, as given by Senator Beique, its president, and Mr. Beaudry Leman, its general manager, reads as follows:

The progress of the bank during the year was naturally influenced by the business activity prevalent throughout Canada. Prosper it3r was not shared equally by all branches of industry but on the whole it was greater than ever before; as evidenced by official and private statistics, returns of the banks and railroads and the statements of the great number of industrial and commercial enterprises. Viewud as a whole. 1928 has undoubtedly been one of the most prosperous years in the history, of Canada.

Agriculture, which still ranks as our principal source of wealth, yielded a very high revenue this year, in spite of damages caused

in certain regions by premature frost

Farmers were compensated for the lower prices prevailing for wheat by the economies effected through more efficient machinery. The raising of live stock was stimulated by better prices and prospects in this branch are very encouraging. Agriculture has made great progress in the last few years. The use of more efficient agricultural implements, which are well adapted to the conditions on our western plains and the discovery of new varieties of wheat maturing more rapidly and consequently less subject to damage by frost, have rendered available to agriculture new territories.

For the third consecutive year mineral production has established a new high record. . . . Coal production was greater than ever and it is interesting to note that Canada is relying less every year upon imported steam and domestic coal.

Referring to forestry operations, the reiport says:

General prosperity in Canada and the United States has caused an increased demand for export as well as for home consumption with a consequent improvement in prices.

Power consumption is undoubtedly one of the most reliable indexes of industrial activity. . . . The water-power development in Canada shows total hydro-electric development in Canada to be 5,328,000 horse-power and that there is actually under construction and development an additional amount of 1,200,000 horse-pow'er.

Labour statistics give a fair idea of industrial

activity during the year the indexes

show that the ratio of employment was at a higher figure than in any previous year of record. The building trades have established a new high record.

The Budget-Mr. Mercier

Several industries have benefited by this great activity, particularly iron and steel. Both of the country's railways have more cars in commission, carried more freight and registered larger receipts than ever before.

According .to an article published in the Ottawa Journal of January 14, 1929, Mr. E. W. Beatty, chairman and president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, said:

There exists no surer criterion of national economies than is afforded by the condition and effectiveness of a country's transportation systems. I think there is no question of the fact that the railways of Canada have performed their duty well. It is evident that under ordinary circumstances the next few years wil record a notable forward step in our economic development. The past year has been one of marked progress. For four years in succession, Canada has had a series of big crops. This year all previous records have been broken. . . . Conditions such as these cannot fail to influence the business life of a country, and as the prosperity of the country has been based on the yields of earlier years, the present crop ensures a continuance of activity.

The general satisfactory nature of the country's business has, of course, been reflected in increased railway earnings. To the end of October, which are the last figures available at time of writing, Canadian Pacific gross receipts totalled $183,588,531, as against $160,384,749, an increase of 14.46 per cent, while net earnings increased 31.03.

Industrialism has made an impressive start in many of the western cities. One is used to speaking of western Canada as though that country were solely agricultural in its nature, but times are changed.

Subsequent to the issuance of that report, the following article appeared in one of the Ottawa papers:

Surplus of C.P.R. Nearly 15 Millions Report Showing the Net Revenue is Issued in Montreal

The Canadian Pacific Railway to-day reported that after payment of all dividends declared for [DOT]the year, the surplus from the earning3 of the railway, lake steamers, and special income for the year 1928 amounted to $14,892,257. The net revenue from the same sources available for dividends amounted to $48,313,437.

Gross earnings from the railway and the lake steamers amounted to $229,039,297, while the working expenses, including all taxes, were $177,344,845, thus leaving the net earnings from the railway and lake steamers at $51,694,452. The special income amounted to $12,677,683. The fixed charges and a contribution to the pension fund amounted to $15,308,698 and $750,000 respectively.

The next authority I would cite in favour of the existing prosperity in Canada is the report of the Canadian National lines. In an article published in the Ottawa Journal at the commencement of the year, Sir Henry Thornton makes certain observations. The article is headed as follows:

West is entering industrial field with oil and mining also prominent states president of national lines. Prairie provinces outgrown period when agriculture only industry-New records made by Canadian National Railways in 1928 -Extensions made and services improved.

The body of the article as given by Sir Henry Thornton, reads:

Canadians in every line of business, from the agriculturist to the manufacturer and the financier, seem to be firmly convinced that as we enter the year 1929 Canada is stepping firmly along the high road to further prosperity. To discuss Canada's progress with men in all walks of life in each of the nine provinces which go to make up this great Dominion of Canada, is to become confirmed in one's optimism concerning this country and its people.

During each year it is my privilege to visit each of the different provinces to talk "Canada" with men in every walk of life. In doing this, and in travelling over the 22,861 miles of line which go to make up the Canadian National Railways system, I think one gains a much more clearly defined picture of what Canada really holds than could be secured through study of many volumes of statistics. The wealth of Canada lies not only in the fertility of her soil, the wealth of mine and forest and the output of factory, it lies also in the determined spirit, the splendid character and the quiet optimism of her people.

Another organization which bears a large part in the industrial activity of Canada is the Montreal harbour commission. I have under my hand an article written in the Ottawa Journal by the Hon. Doctor W. L. McDougald, chairman of the Montreal harbour board, and I would like to cite to the house what he has to say as to the prosperity that exists in Canada at the present time. He says:

The harbour of Montreal, considered as an important operating unit of Canadian enterprise, possesses many faculties, notably those of a favourable nature. But, of all its characteristics, that one which it possesses in most striking degree is its ability to exceed anticipations.

For very many years has this been so. In the years 1907 and 1908, and subsequent years prior to the great war, the harbour commissioners were busily engaged in building and creating a modern harbour, which they anticipated would provide for the legitimate expansion of the port for a period of twenty-five years. This anticipation was exceeded, however, as by 1921 the business had so prospered and augmented that new facilities were necessary.

Accordingly in 1922 the present board of harbour commissioners undertook an elaborate scheme of development. The sum of $5,000,000 was expended on new wharves and additional grain handling facilities. And the port business grew faster than facilities could be provided. A new program was begun at the end of 1923, and oh this the sum of $10,000,000 was expended, including new sheds, further wharf extensions, and an increase of 1.500,000 bushels grain storage at elevator "B".

Still the business increased. Expectations were again exceeded, and in 1926 the harbour

The Budget-Mr. Mercier

commissioners applied to parliament for a further loan of $12,000,000 with which to provide additional sorely-needed equipment and facilities at Canada's national port. Work on the new program was begun in 1927 and continued in 1928. But in 1927, as if to lay emphasis on the fact that it was Canada's jubilee year, the port surpassed all previous efforts and new marks were reached in half a dozen lines of activity. Grain exports in that year reached 195,000,000 bushels, revenue increased to around $5,500,000, shipping tonnage increased, total tonnage of commodities increased to 11,921,000, tons, and coal imports grew to more than two million tons.

I skip over the greater part of this report, but before putting it aside I would like to cite the following from it:

The foregoing account will give a general impression of the activities of the year, without dwelling in too much detail on other important phases of harbour activities. It will be seen that the year under review has been one of exceptional achievement, but the commissioners are not yet satisfied that the harbour of Montreal has reached its limit of success. Future years are confidently awaited, and in preparation for the business they will bring, plans were laid during the season now closed for several important schemes of harbour development, which include new construction, rearrangement of many existing activities, and schemes for new undertakings. Of these, one in particular may be mentioned-the provision of an area in the harbour for creation of a new air-port for seaplanes and amphibians. Thus, side by side with the requirements of to-day, the interests of the future are protected at this most modern of Canadian public utilities.

It seems to me that a gentleman occupying the important position of president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce would know something about financial, industrial and other conditions in Canada and that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house would all the more readily accept his views when it might be remembered that the same gentleman was a Conservative candidate in St. Antoine division not so many years ago. Mr. W. M. Birks, writing likewise in the Ottawa Journal, says:

Judged by the basal factors which determine our mercantile situation, the year 1928 has been in the van of our entire economic progress. Whether it be cultivation, manufacturing, or the development of our natural resources, each tells the same story these past twelve months of an abounding prosperity, which per se indicates prosperous commercial conditions. Unless there were outlets for the products of the plough, the dynamo and the exploitations of nature, there could develop no commerce of proportions.

Canada has found itself in the fortunate situation, however, vdiere marketing opportunities of unusual dimensions, both at home and abroad, have absorbed the output of her farms, her factories and her harnessed and

natural wealth. More than that, the sinews of commerce have shown remarkable strength. Given the volume of output in Canada and the more than ordinary intake of imported merchandise, the transportation companies and the competing distributing agencies have all made the flow of commerce between our provinces and between Canada and outside countries particularly easy and vigorous.

And not the least important for this year of unprecedented commercial activity has been the sustained purchasing power of our own people and that of our customers abroad. We might conceivably have products to sell, internal and external markets where our goods were wanted, means of conveying and financing shipments, but had we all these and lacked consumers in a monetary position to buy not only our own merchandise, but that of a nondomestic character, our whole commercial life would be depressed.

Our people, however, generally are at least comfortably well off, and possess for the most part that wherewithal required for a no mean standard of living. Nor should we overlook the fact that the rehabilitation of European exchanges and the healthier tone of economic life abroad have reacted favourably on our export trade.

I have before me another extract from the same paper, the Ottawa Journal, in which Mr. O. W. Liberty, its financial editor, says, " Canada's advance is outstanding in present day economic history, while future is full of promise. Statistics prove achievements were not equalled by people of any other country-bumper crops one of chief factors in financial situation in which all classes shared-advances in mineral development. General anticipation is that present wave will continue during first six months of 1929 at least."

The automobile has become an important factor not only in the commercial but in the social life of Canada. I have before me an article taken from the Montreal Gazette, of February 24, 1929, in which Mr. J. D. Mansfield, of the Chrysler Corporation, is quoted as saying that he considers the Dominion is coming into its own, and that his company is expanding. It says, " First unit of new production plants will soon be erected. Output for 1928 up over 47 per cent," and goes on:

Expressing the opinion that all business in Canada is on a thoroughly sound basis. John D. Mansfield, president of the several divisional manufacturing companies of the Chrysler Corporation of Canada, Limited, said that the Dominion is not entering a boom period so much as an era of genuinely sound business, when interviewed yesterday morning at the Mount Royal hotel.

Having just come down from Windsor, Ont., where, he said, there is a general feeling of optimism as to the future of business, both in the west and east, Mr. Mansfield is in Montreal to attend the motor show being held this week ait the Stadium and to discuss conditions with the dealers in this part of the province.

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson

He feels that the position of the country is very satisfactory and can see^ nothing but very fair prospects lying before it. The general trend of business is as it has never been before, and he is positive in his assertion that "Canada is just coming into its own."

Turning to the public accounts of this country, a Canadian Press despatch in the Montreal Gazette, dated March 15, 1929, shows that there has been a revenue gain of $32,355,049 in eleven months, that $407,938,555 has been paid into the treasury up to February 28, that the net debt has decreased, showing a reduction of $64,130,157, as compared with February of last year. I shall not read the despatch, because these figures are available to all members of the house.

1 wish, however, to quote from the report of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, which shows a great increase in telephone business. According to the company's annual report, recently published, the total revenue of the company last year was $35,888,980, embracing $26,920,593 from exchange revenue and $8,968,387 from toll revenue, an increase of $3,157,850 over the total revenue of the previous year.

The Montreal Gazette of yesterday's date has an editorial to the effect that the Victoria Daily Colonist reports that exclusive of residences and minor alterations, buildings to the value of $3,253,000 are in course of construction in the city of Victoria, and now that cold weather is departing, contractors are planning still more structures, including public, commercial and other blocks.

I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker.

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

Frederick George Sanderson

Liberal

Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):

At this late hour, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to trespass on the time of the house. The arrangement was that another speaker was to be put up on the other side of the house, but he is indisposed and cannot proceed. I should like, however, to take a few minutes to-night to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), who brought down his budget in this house on March 1. Many eminent men have occupied the responsible position of Minister of Finance of Canada, eminent men of different shades of politics, some Liberals and some Conservatives, men who had the confidence of the great bulk of the people of this Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But I want to say that never perhaps in the history of the country have we had a Finance minister who has won his way into the confidence of the masses to the extent that the hon, gentleman has who now occupies this position. And I would add, Mr. Speaker, that none of his predecessors has had so many obstacles to surmount and so many difficulties

to combat. As I say, he has won his way into the confidence of the people to a marked degree and year after year continues to bring down budgets that meet with national approval. Any Finance minister who can reduce the national debt by about seventy million dollars, and at the same time reduce taxation to the extent of thirty million dollars, cannot be open to any severe criticism.

Very attentively, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech delivered by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) a few days ago. He made an excellent speech. He had a wonderful opportunity in the absence of his chief, and he rose fully to that opportunity. Not only that, but he enthused his followers sitting around him. But in that ispeech-and I do not agree with all that he said-he repudiated every speech as a Liberal he made from 1900 to 1917. I do not find any fault,, at all-and I say this in no offensive spirit-with the fact that he crossed over to the other side of the house, but, knowing as I do the political views of the people of Ontario, although my knowledge may be limited, I say that however much the speech of the hon. member may enthuse his new-found Conservative friends in the province, I do not think it will lead any Liberal seats into the Conservative column at the next general election.

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

Eccles James Gott

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOTT:

It is only a supposition.

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

March 19, 1929