June 11, 1929

CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

This is a motion to

bring the bill before the house to-night.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
LIB

John Frederick Johnston (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

No notice is

necessary.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Notice is necessary to

discuss it to-night.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
LIB

John Frederick Johnston (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I think the

motion is quite in order.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
CON

David Spence

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPENCE:

This bill was discussed for an hour in the private bills committee and a vote was taken. The majority objected to the bill being reported to the house and it was thrown out. As the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has said, the chief witness in this case is a man without a reputation, a man who worked a frame-up on the respondent in this case, hired rooms in the King Edward hotel, provided two women and booze, and they were all drinking together when he telephoned to his accomplice, to a man who has appeared in fifty-three cases of divorce before the House of Commons committee this year. This same witness has been co-respondent in two other cases I am told. This is a man who allows himself to be used as co-respondent and will take part in a frame-

Procedure Respecting Divorce

up against a man with whom he is friendly. He swore that he was a traveller and had to have these rooms in the King Edward hotel, but I know that he lives in Toronto and has a wife and family and he ought to be living with them. Then just before my friend the respondent-

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
CON

David Spence

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPENCE:

There is nothing to laugh about. Just before the respondent knew that he had been framed he met this witness at the bank. The latter wanted to cash a cheque and asked the respondent: "Will you identify me?" The bank manager said to the respondent, "The only thing you can do is to endorse the cheque." The witness issued a cheque on a bank in Chicago and later it came back marked "No account." That is the character of the witness whose evidence is being relied upon in this particular case. He had described himself to the respondent as a travelling salesman for a system of advertising with headquarters in Chicago. When the cheque came back as I have described the man. was arrested, and in the police court he stated that he was a private detective. So in one case he was a traveller, in the other a private detective. In. my opinion we should not grant a divorce on the evidence of such a man.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
CON

George Halsey Perley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that your ruling is not a correct one, and I stand by what my leader has said in regard to it. Personally, I do not like divorces, but as a rule when the private bills committee reports in favour of a divorce bill the house passes it. However, in this case that committee has reported that the preamble has not been proven and we should support the committee. Standing order 111, to be found at page 277 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, deals with such a case. In the comment on this rule contained in paragraph 890 I find the following:

Consequently the correct procedure in all analogous cases

That is, where the committee has reported that the preamble has not been proved:

[DOT]-is for the house to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.

The hon. gentleman has moved that this bill be considered by the committee of the whole this evening. The proper motion to make would be that the bill be referred back to the committee on private bills for further

[Mr. fipcnctbl

consideration. Therefore as it is not on the order paper to-day, I submit with all respect, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is out of order and cannot be proceeded with except by unanimous consent.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
LIB-PRO

James Allison Glen

Liberal Progressive

Mr. GLEN:

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any use my entering into discussion of the merits of this case. I am perfectly satisfied in my own opinion that an injustice has been done to the petitioner in view of the evidence submitted.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

But this is a point of order.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
LIB-PRO

James Allison Glen

Liberal Progressive

Mr. GLEN:

Just a moment. I leave it to anyone on the other side of the house who wishes to review the evidence dispassionately and without prejudice to say whether or not an injustice has been done to the petitioner. But in view of the fact that there has to be unanimous consent, and there is opposition to my motion, with the consent of the house I beg to withdraw the motion.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
LIB

John Frederick Johnston (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Shall the hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw his motion?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Carried.

Motion withdrawn.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   BILL FOB THE BELIEF OF BOTH ELIZABETH GBEENE.
Permalink

SUPPLY-FISCAL POLICY


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.


CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Minister of Finance made his original motion to go into committee of supply much has transpired on this continent that should give this parliament occasion to pause and consider the position of Canada, and I avail myself of the motion that has now been made to discuss the situation as I see it, hoping that we may be able to obtain some indication from the administration as to what it proposes to do to meet a crisis in our economic history.

That it is not seemly to discuss the domestic policies of another country goes without saying, but to that general rule there are two exceptions. The first exception is, that if we have treaty obligations that are affected we are bound to discuss them. The second is, that if the legislation which is in process of being passed, or has been passed, by a friendly nation does directly affect this country, and it has been pointed out during the discussions antecedent to the passing of the legislation that it was so intended, then obviously this parliament should discuss it.

Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett

I need hardly point out that with regard to the action of congress we have no treaty obligations to be respected or discussed; but with regard to the second proposition that I have submitted to those of us who have read the speeches of the public men of the United States delivered last fall, not only of those who were candidates for high office but of those who supported them in their political campaign, will recall that in many instances it was declared to be the intention of the Republican party if it came into power to enact such legislation as would have the effect of preventing the importation from Canada into the United States of certain of our products that would enter into competition with their own. Under the circumstances it is therefore quite clear that a discussion of the domestic policies of the great republic becomes important and essential because of the fact that they were intended to, and do in fact, adversely affect the interests of this Dominion.

Having regard to what I have referred to, may I point out that in 1921 when the emergency tariff was enacted by congress it had an immediate adverse effect upon the interests of Canada, and that when the Fordney-Me-Cumber tariff was put into force in 1922 its effects became apparent to every one. The emergency tariff very injuriously affected the interests of this country as a whole, particularly the farming interests, and if hon. members will look at the Commercial Intelligence Journal, published on the 25th of May of this year under the auspices of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, they will find set out exports from Canada to the United States of a number of commodities such as are produced on Canadian farms or manufactured directly from such farm products. The figures given are for the month of April, 1921, 1922, 1928 and 1929, and for seven months ended April for the same years, with the United States tariff rates in force on such dates. It will be bbserved that during the seven months ending April, 1921, this country sold to the United States cattle, horses, poultry and sheep, fruits, grains, grain products, meats, milk and milk products, seeds, vegetables, and miscellaneous products such as eggs, hay, maple sugar, tallow and wool, valued at $138,845,815. The next year, 1922, exports of the same class of live stock and farm products had fallen to a value of $32,000,000, in 1928 they rose to $39,000,000 and in 1929 they declined in value to $33,000,000, using round figures. It will therefore be observed that the direct result of the Fordney-McCumber tariff and the emergency tariff that preceded it was to decrease the value of our exports of farm 78594-224

products to the United States in a seven-months period by over $100,000,000. That is a tremendous sum iof money with respect to live stock and farm products, and the result is directly attributable to changes in tariffs by the United States. These changes will be found set out at page 785 of the journal to which I have referred, and iit will be observed there are a large number of free items; in the first column there are the emergency tariff rates on such exports and in another column the Fordney-McCumbe-r tariff as it now stands.

Now the loss of $100,000,000 worth of exports from the farms of this country was reflected in the increased prosperity of the farmers of the United States, who produced the products that had formerly been imported into that country. They were no longer subject to the competition of $100,000,000 of Canadian live stock and farm products, and to that extent they supplied the requirements of their own people which theretofore had been supplied by Canadian ranchers, farmers and artisans. That, I think, is abundantly clear. Need I point out that the Fordney-McCumber tariff also contained a provision whereby the President of the United States was enabled after inquiry to increase the existing tariff rates to any extent not exceeding 50 per cent; and if he found that this was not ample to protect the agricultural and other interests that were affected he had power to fix arbitrarily, after inquiry, the price of imported articles upon which duty should be computed, somewhat similar to the provision we made in our customs tariff, and to which I shall presently refer, in connection with fruit and vegetables and matters of that kind. Under these circumstances, we are confronted with the fact that this government, in power in 1922, as it still is, there having been an interim in which it was not, was called upon to meet a situation which imperilled Canadian trade with respect to agricultural products to the extent of over $100,000,000 per annum. I will not take up the time of the house this morning to review the imports and exports to the United States, but I will point out that during the last six or seven years we have been able by slow degrees to get back somewhat to the condition we were in before this tariff was enacted against us. But the adverse balance of trade between the United States and Canada still continues, and while for the year ended March 31 we bought nearly $900,000,000 worth of goods from the United States, we were able to sell them only $500,000,000; and that $500,000,000 worth of goods was made up largely of three items: First, paper and paper products;

Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISCAL POLICY
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISCAL POLICY
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

I am glad to hear that the policy enunciated by the minister in 1924 is, in this year of grace 1929, still the policy of the administration, and that the administration invites the abandonment by the Canadian people of their own markets in favour of our great and powerful neighbour to the south! If there is any doubt in this connection it will be dispelled by the observations that have been addressed to a long-suffering people 'by the Consumers' League of this country, about which I will have something to say presently, in which they point out,

Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett

doubtless on behalf of the administration, since the officers of that league so loyally support the administration, that there has been a continual lowering of the tariff by the administration.

That is how this government met the Fordney-McCumber tariff; that is how the government met the situation, which deprived Canadians of $100,000,000 of trade in a single year; that is how this government met a situation which destroyed cattle men in western. Canada who theretofore had free access to the markets of the United States and who were deprived of those markets by a duty ranging from a few cents a pound for cattle weighing less than 1,050 pounds to 30 per cent in some instances on horses, cattle, sheep, swine and various other varieties of live stock. I will not take the time of the house to go into the matter in detail, but that is how this government met the situation.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISCAL POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs; Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior)

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

My hon.

friend might mention what they got for their cattle last fall.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISCAL POLICY
Permalink

June 11, 1929