May 12, 1930

CON

Peter McGibbon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McGIBBON:

Before the house rose

at six o'clock I was pointing out the inconsistencies of the actions and policies of government members. I had brought to the attention of the house the fact that they had recanted on everything which they had advocated in the past and that they had purloined at least in part the policy of the Conservative party. Before the recess I had put on Hansard some statements made by different ministers of the crown and by Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had pointed out that in the past these hon. gentlemen had expressed opinions contrary to the policy outlined in the budget which is now before the house. Directly before the adjournment I was dealing with statements made by the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar). I had read his objection to the budget of Sir Thomas White in 1919, and the objection of the hon. gentleman at that time was that it was a protectionist budget. At this time I wish to put on Hansard a few more statements made by the Minister of Railways as they are reported in Hansard of 1919, page 3329:

When I joined the government I made it perfectly clear that I had not surrendered or given up any of the principles that I believed in and as to which I had endeavoured, in my small way, to educate this country prior to that event.

I shall also put on Hansard a record of what those principles were. For the edification of this house and of the country I have read the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. I would like to call to the attention of the house the action of the present Speaker of the house when in 1918 he asked the present Minister of Railways what he thought of that platform. At that time he rose in his place and said that he thought it was a good platform when it was adopted and that it was still good. If the hon. gentleman were in his place to-night I would ask him if he still held that view and if so what right he has to sit in tjie present government after the introduction of the present budget. On page 927 of Hansard, 1919, (second session) the present Minister of Railways is quoted as follows:

To me as a westerner and as a man who believed profoundly in reciprocity with the United States, and believes in it yet, the discussion has been decidedly interesting.

At page 2909 of Hansard of 1920 we have this statement from the present Minister of Railways:

If my hon. friends want a moderate tariff for revenue only, and if the government desire

/Mr McGibbon.]

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon

to wipe out special privilege ,in this direction, why did they not start on the tariff schedule in respect to cotton goods when arranging their budget? On the contrary, these cotton duties are maintained. And the same condition applies not only to the textile industry, but to many other industries as well.

If his objections were well founded at that time they are equally well founded to-day, because the same duties on textiles are maintained. At a later time when cross questioned by the then Minister of the Interior, Mr. Meighen, he said:

I -want to know what are the views of my hon. friend opposite on this question. I would like the Minister of the Interior, in his next speech, or the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, to state his views as to what duties should prevail on, say, agricultural implements, on textiles, and on iron and coal.

At that time the hon. minister was deriding the duties upon iron, coal, cottons and woollens; yet to-day he joins the government in bringing in a tariff which is doubling the duty on iron and coal. At a later time the hon. gentleman makes this statement:

I make the statement in all seriousness that the protective tariff has been the greatest agency for exploiting our people that was ever devised.

I wonder if he holds to-night the same opinion about the protective tariff; if he does I wonder what right he has to sit in this government. Then, again, on March 14, 1922, at page 55 of Hansard he expressed himself thus:

There are some changes forecast in the customs tariff .... I hope it forecasts a revision of duties downwards. I cannot conceive for a moment that the government would think of revising the tariff upwards. I hope that will not be done.

These are only a few of the many statements of the hon. gentlemen opposite wherein they expressed themselves in opposition to the principle of the tariff and budget which they have brought down this session and have asked parliament to adopt. Then in Hansard of March 4, 1920, we find the following at page 148:

What is the purpose of a tariff? It is designed to benefit a particular section of the people, it operates in no other -way, and consequently the operation of this protective system in our fiscal policy, which has obtained largely for the last forty years, has conferred upon a special class a privilege that in my judgment is not compatible with a true democracy. And I would point out to my hon. friend from Brantford and to other hon. gentlemen also who believe in a protective tariff, that protection is nothing more or less than a type of state socialism.

These are the opinions of the present Minister of Railways. I could multiply the quotations if time permitted, but I must hurry on.

For a minute or two I wish to deal with statements made by the Acting Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) who has held himself out to be the friend of the farmers in this country. I find that the hon. gentleman was sworn in on October 12, 1917, as Minister of Agriculture, and his very first act as a minister of the crown was to pass an order in council permitting -the manufacture of oleomargarine. Some hon. gentlemen opposite were anxious the other night to find out something about this, and I wonder why they did not direct their attention to the present Minister of Railways. He was the man who put that into force in this country. Not only that but his next act on behalf of the farmers was to buy all the screenings from the elevators at the head of the lakes. These screenings had been sold at an average price of $8 for some six years previously; the hon. gentleman bought them and sold them to the farmers at $35 a ton. There was a loss to the government of Canada of something like $96,000; that is an instance of the manner in which he looked after the interests of the farmers of Canada. Let us go a little further. He also permitted them, by an order in council which cancelled certain regulations, to mix with the foodstuffs of this country certain seeds from the west. The analyses of these seeds, which have been placed upon the records of this house, show a large percentage -of poisonous seeds which were detrimental to the health of the live stock of Canada.

What else do we find? In 1918, I believe it was, he confiscated all the butter in this country except that which was held by those who were manufacturing oleomargarine. Of course he could not touch the vested interests, but he could confiscate all the butter belonging to the farmers of Canada, while he protected his pets whom he had allowed to make oleomargarine with which the}- mixed the butter of the farmers so that it lost its identity.

Then there is another point to which I should like to direct attention. Before six o'clock I mentioned the fact that the hon. gentleman resigned the day before the budget was delivered, and by that budget the duty on agricultural implements was lowered in several instances. At that time the minister's company was in the implement business, and before the commission investigating the high cost of living his secretary. Rice Jones, stated that the company had not lost a dollar because their goods were in bond in Winnipeg. I should like to know where they got that

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon

information as to what took place in the cabinet council, information supposed to be kept secret?

Now, sir, I must hurry on because I have only a few minutes left. I should like to touch on the connection of the hon. gentleman with the Home bank, of which the minister was a director from about 1908 or 1910 until after he joined the government in 1918. From information which came to him as a director of that bank he knew as early as 1916 that the capital and the reserves of the bank had been wiped out, and that since 1916 they had not been earning their dividends. From 1916 to 1923 that bank did not earn its dividends; the capital and the reserves were gone; the stock was worthless, yet the minister sat around the council board of that institution and not only voted himself dividends but paid those dividends out of the money of the depositors, of whom I have 1,800 in my constituency. I claim that their savings were taken illegally to pay the interest on the stock, and the minister was one of the directors. It is true that be brought the matter to the attention of the then Minister of Finance, but, sir, I believe that if he had done as he should he would have used his position as director to force one of the other banking institutions to take over that company at that time. Had that been done at least the depositors would not have lost their money because, as you know, there is a double . liability provision and since then the auditors have told us that the amount raised in that way would have covered the amount of the deposits. That was not done. His company had S100.000 in the stock of that bank; he had some $6,000 or $7,000 worth of that stock and other members of his company had invested $4,000 or $5,000. Had he forced action not only would they have lost the money they put in; they would have had to go down into their pockets and pay out as much more money to protect the depositors. What did they do? They just sat around the council board and voted themselves money, which the depositors lost.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order; the hon. gentleman's time is up.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Peter McGibbon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McGIBBON:

One further word and

I am through. Not only that, but they sold their stock at one hundred cents on the dollar when, according to the report of the auditors, it was not worth anything. That is the position I feel bound to bring before parliament, because in my constituency I have 1,800 people who have been robbed in this way.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Fizalam-William Perras

Liberal

Mr. F. W. PERRAS (Wright):

Mr. Speaker, I am decidedly happy to have the opportunity of expressing to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) my heartiest congratulations on the budget which he has presented to the house and which reflects in an accurate manner the progress of Canada on both economic and national lines. This, his first budget, gives to the Canadian people further reasons why they should be confident in the future of this great country.

May I associate myself with those who have spoken of the matter previously in saying how deeply the people of this country regret the passing of the former Minister of Finance, but I must say that we are very fortunate in having to succeed him a man with the ability of the present Minister of Finance. For many years Canada has been particularly fortunate in having as ministers of finance men of outstanding ability, and now that the voice of the people is to 'be heard shortly it is a source of gratification to those who sit to the right of you, Mr. Speaker, to know that the administration of Canada's finances is in the hands of such a worthy successor to Fielding and Robb.

From the reports which are pouring in from the four corners of Canada and from the expressions of opinion heard on all sides the present budget has been received with the greatest of pleasure and satisfaction by the vast majority of the Canadian people, and only those few whose unfortunate duty it is always to criticize will endeavour, against their own convictions, to argue to the contrary. Indeed, Canada has reason to be proud of the administration of its national affairs at the hands of the present government. Every budget since 1921 has revealed an increasing state of prosperity within our borders, a yearly reduction of the national debt, a decrease in direct taxation and an improvement in the affairs of our national railways. Every budget has shown the possibility of redeeming outstanding obligations to the extent of millions of dollars with reduced taxation, and every year we have seen increases in surpluses. Every budget has shown that Canada has emerged from the great crisis which followed the war with renewed vigour and in a better position to continue its triumphant march towards progress. There has been a reduction of over $258,000,000 in the national debt in the last four years, with a reduction of over $120,000,000 in the income tax, yet the surpluses have shown increases amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. Truly the administration of Canada's finances is in the hands of men worthy of the confidence of the Canadian nation.

The Budget-Mr. Perras

During those four years Canada's national status has grown along much broader lines; Canada has at last really found its place amongst the nations of the world and is that leading star in what it pleased Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier to call the British Empire, a galaxy of nations. The establishment of legations in the United States, in France and in Japan and the establishment of legations by those countries in Canada, constitute a tangible and concrete evidence of Canada's unparalleled development.

Canada's stand at the league of nations; Canada's representation at the latest world's conference in London, so ably headed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), is another tangible proof that Canada's word is heard and listened to in the council of the great nations. Canadians may well feel proud that under the able administration of the present government Canada's interests have been well advanced.

In the four great basic industries of Canadian national existence, marked progress has also been felt. The mining industry has developed in proportions beyond expectation; in the last year we find the exports from that industry to be $30,000,000 ahead of those of the preceding year. Only an infinitesimal portion of our great mining resources has been tapped, and as time goes on, and so long as the mining industry is looked after with the care and attention which it has received at the hands of the present government, Canadians may feel sure that in the production of ore, precious minerals and minerals of all kinds, Canada will continue to make progress.

The development of our fisheries has, under the present administration, received such an impetus that it is now found desirable and necessary to place the fisheries under the care of a separate minister, and the government is to be congratulated upon having decided upon that policy so that that industry on our Pacific coast so flourishing and the Atlantic seaboard, known to the world, shall receive the care and attention to which they are so well entitled.

The products of our vast forests have increased by leaps and bounds; our lumber is marketed the world over, and the production of pulp and of pulpwood has in the last few years increased to over $300,000,000. But especially in agriculture has the progress been marked, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is to be congratulated for the wonderful success which that branch of our natural resources has attained. Speaking for the county which it is my privilege to represent, the county of Wright, I feel that what

has been done in this connection has been well done, and that the great basic industry of agriculture has been well taken care of.

The legislation for which the present administration has been responsible was conceived for the purpose of assuring to that most important portion of our population the safeguard which it so well deserves. It is an indisputable fact that the majority of the working population, the one that produces the most effective results, is that which comprises the agricultural classes, and it is only proper that their interests should be adequately looked after.

It is a source of gratification to a vast proportion of the Canadian people that this year's budget benefits to a considerable extent those who most need such measures. Amongst the many improvements which it contains the foremost one affects one of the primary commodities of everyday life; I refer to the abolition of the tax on tea produced in British dominions. Already, in this city and the neighbouring districts tea has decreased in price by some ten or fifteen cents per pound. The housewives the Dominion over and those whose duty and obligation it is to look after the welfare of the family will now feel that because of the wisdom of this administration a considerable burden of taxation has been removed.

Those who for years have paid income tax will find additional relief to that provided by last year's budget in that further exemptions have been granted with respect to dependents. This administration is to be congratulated upon having extended the exemption to parents and grandparents whose existence is dependent upon the head of the household.

I wish further to say that the Canadian people will be benefited because the finance minister has been able to reduce taxation and at the same time reduce by one half the sales tax. It only goes to show how much can be accomplished in the way of tax reduction by an administration that knows equally well how to administer in a business like manner the national affairs. I wish to lay stress upon the manner in which the Minister of Finance has been able to deal with the British preference. It was the doctrine of that great Canadian statesman, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that England should have a preference in tariff matters in so far as Canadian trade is concerned-that is, that England should be allowed to dispose in Canada of its goods under a lesser tariff than that applicable to foreign nations-and that it was only proper that the mother country should deal with its grown-up children in the same way.

The Budget-^Mr. Penas

I am confident that the whole of the Canadian nation is proud of the fact that greater facilities are now being afforded, not only to Great Britain but to all portions of the empire, to deal with Canada by way of imports in a manner which will be conducive not only to the better interests of Canada but at the same time to greater facility of trade on Canada^ part with the other portions of the empire.

I have learned with satisfaction that it is the intention of the present adininistration to acquire in my county a large tract of land for a national park. I have said it before, and I know that I am upon solid ground when I state that there is no portion of Canada which in natural beauty and picturesqueness can compare with that part of the Gatineau valley which is the county of Wright and which it is my privilege to represent in this house. I understand that it is the intention to set out in the southern or northern portion of that county a large tract of land for the preservation of game, fish and birds, without in any way interfering with the rights of the holders of the land. That is a project which is well worthy of the forethought of this administration and its desire to promote the conservation of wild life.

There are many other matters, Mr. Speaker, that might be spoken of at this moment; there are many other things that might be said to emphasize the fact that the present administration has had at heart the welfare of the Canadian individual without at the same time losing sight of its desire to foster in every possible manner the development of the national domain. Many other subjects could be touched upon which would reflect upon the wisdom of this administration, but in the near future the great popular voice of the Canadian electorate will be asked to show its appreciation of what this government has accomplished in the last four years, and I am sure that the Canadiafi nation, desiring to march continuously onward in the path of that wonderful progress which has marked its advancement during that time, will on that occasion express in an unmistakable way its appreciation of and its entire confidence in the present administration.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Harry James Barber

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):

Mr. Speaker, I cannot follow the last speaker (Mr. Perras) and take up the several arguments that he has advanced in an attempt to show why the present government should be retained in office. He has spoken of the general prosperity of Canada and I think I am quite safe in saying that no matter what government we have in power we cannot keep this country

back, but under a government with a fiscal policy more in the interest of Canada our country would have made greater advances than it has done during the last five years.

As regards the budget, let me say in the words of the amendment that I welcome and approve of every measure that will afford to Canadian agriculture, industry and labour an equal opportunity and fair competition in the development of the rich and varied natural resources of the Dominion. I do not intend to-night to deal with the financial portion of the budget. That has been very ably dealt with by my leader. Others have discussed the British preference and still another hon. member on this side has very thoroughly dealt with the budget from the standpoint of industry. My intention to-night is to touch upon a few matters concerning one industry that the last speaker mentioned, namely, that of agriculture and, in particular, those branches of it in which the people in my constituency in British Columbia are particularly interested.

This budget contains certain measures designed to relieve the agricultural industry. For years certain branches of it have pleaded for protection and session after session the party to your left, Mr. Speaker, have demanded protection. Now at the eleventh hour, on the very eve of a general election, the government have right-about-faced and tendered certain relief. Speaking as one interested in the small fruit industry, I lam bound to say that in these measures of relief there lurks a great danger. The fruit and vegetable branch have for years sought relief from the dumping of foreign produce on the Canadian market in competition with our own good Canadian product. The remedy given in the budget is an increase in the general tariff to apply for the twelve months of the year. This application is the very opposite of what was requested by the producer. Under the new law the highest duty will be collected at that season of the year when we have no product to market and the lowest duty will be collected when our own product is available. I want it thoroughly understood that it is not the wish of the fruit and vegetable growers to penalize the consumer by high duties when their product is not ready for the market, but they want the Canadian consumer to buy their Canadian product when it is available instead of the dumped foreign article.

I should like to spend a few minutes in referring to the record of the present government in regard to this industry. In 1926 the Conservative government came to the relief of these growers by the imposition of a dump-

The Bridget-Mr. Barber

ing duty which remained in force for the season of 1927. Under this law the producers benefited and the consumers suffered no hardship. It was working out very satisfactorily when early in 1928 the government removed this protection by order in council. The question is: Why did they remove it? Simply because strong pressure was brought to bear from the free trade section of the Liberal party headed by the so-called consumers' league. I feel sure this particular body has not changed its views in regard to protection; at least we know it had not changed when the application of this industry was before the tariff board, because it opposed that application very strenuously. Nevertheless, the consumers' league has not raised a voice in protest during the present debate. What has happened? Has some kind of truce been declared or agreement entered into between this government and this group? Is it possible that the consumers' league has agreed to permit the government to grant these increases in tariff with the understanding that after the election they will be reconsidered and possibly removed? If this be the case, all I have to say is that the consumers' league is taking big chances, because I do not think the present government will ever have an opportunity again to remove the protection from this industry. The growers will do their part to see that there is returned a government which they can trust.

Relief to the poultry industry has not been given by the raising of the Canadian tariff on eggs in the shell. This tariff still remains the same: British preference, two cents; intermediate, two and a half cents and general tariff, three cents, but provision is made for what is termed a countervailing duty. That is:

Provided that, if any country imposes upon eggs in the shell produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed upon such commodities entering Canada from such country.

This means that the tariff of a foreign country applies.

I might also mention another product to which this provision has been applied, and that is potatoes. Prior to the present budget the general tariff on potatoes was thirty-five cents per hundred pounds. That has been removed and potatoes appear on the Canadian tariff as free under the three rates, but the same countervailing duties have been applied. As I said, this is a tariff set by a foreign nation, or, as we might as well admit, the United States. It is a Washington-made and controlled tariff. I say "controlled" because it must be borne in mind that power is vested

in the president of the United States to raise any tariff by 50 per cent, or to lower any tariff by 50 per cent at any time. This power was exercised a year ago. On May 14 of last year the president of the United States exercised this right and raised the tariff 50 per cent on milk and cream. What the poultrymen of this country want is a Canadian-made and a Canadian-controlled tariff.

During the last four or five years we have hammered this into the government from this side of the house and demanded for this industry a protection of at least eight cents per dozen. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this matter was brought forcibly to the attention of the house on March 17 last when under a motion to adjourn moved from this side of the house protection was urged for this industry. The opposition came from the Liberal ranks. On that occasion I drew to the attention of the government the unsatisfactory condition of the poultry industry. I pointed out that in 1928 fifty per cent of the total importations for that year were dumped on the Canadian market in one month, and that in 1929 seventy-five per cent of the total importations were dumped on the Canadian market in one month, that of March.

What has been the action of this government in the matter of this dumping? All hon. members of this house will remember that in January, 1927, a dumping duty was imposed on imported eggs. This was successful in checking the wholesale importation of eggs at low prices but allowed eggs to come in freely when the price rose above 45 cents a dozen, thus giving relief to the producer and working no hardship on the consumer. The operation of this dumping duty was withdrawn by this government by order in council on March 29, 1928, and we all know that prices at that time did not justify such action on the part of the government. The Conservative party have continually urged for better protection for this industry. On May 14, 1928, an hon. member from this side of the house introduced a resolution urging the restoration of the dumping duty, and a division was taken upon that motion on March 16. I would ask hon. members to turn to page 3081 of Hansard for that year, where they will find recorded the vote on that division, and they will see that every Liberal member of this house voted against the restoration of protection for this industry.

But on the eve of a general election this government brings down protection in the form of countervailing duties. I say to the poultrymen of this country: Consider the

record of this government in dealing with the problems of your industry. Are you going to

199S

The Budget-Mr. Barber

trust them in the future, or are you going to look to the party that believes the Canadian market must be preserved for the Canadian producer?

This budget also provides relief for another branch of agriculture, the dairy industry. The government have told us that they have notified New Zealand that the treaty arrangement with that country will be cancelled on October 12th next. The tariff has been increased, but the harm did not come from the general tariff. It was the New Zealand treaty entered into five years ago that was responsible for the sad condition in which the dairy industry finds itself to-day. With the lowering of the duty on butter to one cent a pound in 1925, butter importations into this country have rapidly increased. In 1925 we imported about 7,000,000 pounds of butter, and for the twelve months ending March of this year these importations have increased to

42,000,000 pounds valued at $15,000,000. Just to show you how rapidly this importation has grown, may I point out that it increased by $5,000,000 in one year as compared with 1928. Bear in mind what the importation of this quantity of butter means. Forty-two million pounds of butter is the product of 10,000 ten-cow farms, or 100,000 high-grade milch cows. Those who have opposed relief for this industry have continually quoted the price of whole milk, but any one familiar with the industry knows that the whole product cannot be disposed of in that form. It is necessary that the farmer should have a profit on the products of milk, such as butter and cheese. Conditions in the industry are such to-day that it does not pay to make butter or cheese, and the farmer is consequently losing the by-products of butter making. Dairy herds have in consequence decreased and our farms are losing their fertility. It affects the production of poultry on the farm. It has greatly affected our pork exports, which were very large a few years ago, but which have been gradually disappearing, falling from $27,000,000 in 1925 to $10,000,000 in 1928. The tariff tinkering and the treaty making of this government are responsible for this condition and the Canadian farmer is the victim.

Strong appeals were made from this side of the house during every session since 1926 down to the present to have the government cancel or amend this treaty. There were also protests in the form of resolutions and delegations from the dairy organizations throughout the country urging the abrogation of the treaty, but to all these representations the government turned a deaf ear. To-day, on the eve of the general election, the government

comes through with a statement that the present arrangement will terminate on October 12th next. I fear that it is too late. The dairymen of Canada have suffered for five years under the policy of this government and they are not going to be hoodwinked into supporting them by offers of relief at the eleventh hour. They will look to the Conservative party, I believe, whose policy is the Canadian market for the Canadian producer.

Protection must be given to the three industries I have mentioned, namely, the fruit and vegetable industry, the poultry industry and the dairy industry-protection sufficient that these industries may enjoy to the fullest extent our own Canadian market. For this purpose we have in Canada to-day three tariffs-the British preferential, the intermediate and the general tariff. In addition we have a provision in the statute for the imposition of a dumping duty. But we find that in this budget provision is made for a fourth tariff, applying exclusively to a list of articles coming from the United States. This is uncalled for. The Canadian people are not aiming to hit the United States or any other country. They are concerned solely to benefit this Dominion and to promote closer trade relations with the empire as a whole. We have no particular grudge against the United States, but we do believe that Canada through its own tariff should control its own home market just as the United States controls its own home market. The countervailing duties are not in the best interests of Canada.

There is another matter that is of vital importance to those in my particular district who are engaged in farming. It is a matter to which I have directed the attention of the house on several occasions, and one which I believe has been before this government for the last six or seven years. I refer to the question of freight rates. As I mentioned before, a large section of the province of British Columbia is engaged in the dairy industry; another large section is engaged in the poultry industry, and we require all kinds of feed. The farmers of the prairie provinces have that feed for sale, but when we want a carload or two of feed grain in our district we have to pay over double the freight rate that is charged on export grain. The rate on domestic grain from the prairie provinces to Vancouver to-day is 41| cents per one hundred pounds, while the export rate is 20 cents. This we claim is a great injustice to the farmers in our province and demands a remedy. When we approach this government on the matter they say: it is in the courts. True, the province

The Budget-Mr. Barber

of British Columbia have had from 1922 up to 1928 a legal man looking after their interests at Ottawa, and I understand that between S100.000 and S200,000 have been paid in the way of legal expenses in order to fight for the rights of our province. But up to the present time nothing has been done, and it is now up to the government-in fact, action is long overdue-to step in and correct this inequality of freight rates.

We have heard a great -deal about the British preference. As Canadians we should and we must give preference to trade within the empire; but, as my leader has said, only up to the point where such preference does not interfere with our own Canadian industry. Further, this preference should be reciprocal.

I have in mind an industry of this country that is suffering to-day because of the unfair British preference as well as the general tariff.

I refer to the hop-growing industry, which owing to climatic conditions is confined to one part of Canada, the lower Fraser valley of British Columbia. The production of hops in this area under favourable conditions is about 2,000,000 pounds a year and gives employment to a large number of people. The Canadian tariff on hops is the lowest in the world, being 4 cents under the British preferential and 7 cents under the general tariff; while the British tariff against Canadian hops is 17i cents, the American tariff is 24 cents and the Australian and New Zealand tariffs are also 24 cents a pound. I should like hon. members to bear in mind the fact that our British preferential tariff is only 4 cents while the British tariff against us is 17i cents. Up to the time when the British tariff was imposed we enjoyed a considerable export business to the British isles. Since that time this industry has had to look to Canada as the market for its entire crop. The total consumption of hops in Canada is about

3,000,000 pounds a year, and if this industry was given a fair deal it could supply a large percentage of the Canadian requirements. No hop-growing country is able to grow hops in competition with all the other hop-growing countries of the world, because in most years one or more countries have large exportable surpluses, which are dumped upon such countries as do not adequately protect their hop growing industry.

This industry appealed to the Minister of Finance in 1925 for relief, but as the Liberal party at that time was a party of "low tariff," relief in the way of protection could not be given. A conference was arranged and an agreement entered into between the buyers and producers of this product whereby the former agreed to take the Canadian crop at a certain price during the years 1926-27-28.

The growers were unable to renew the arrangement and quite naturally again appealed to this government. I was in hopes, since our friends opposite had changed their policy from that of low tariff to one of protection, that this industry would have received some consideration. The condition of this industry to-day is very serious. One of the growers writing to me states:

The position in regard to hops is becoming daily worse; there are enormous hop surpluses now in every hop growing country, and I do not see where the next British Columbia hop crop can be marketed, even at a loss.

Another branch of the agricultural industry that should have received consideration at the hands of this government is the tobacco growing industry. This industry has spent considerable money in presenting its case to the tariff board, and it went to great trouble to place the whole matter before the government. According to our trade returns we imported from the United States last year about

18,000,000 pounds of unmanufactured tobacco, free of duty. Tobacco growing has become a very important industry in this country and should be encouraged. The acreage in my own district has more than doubled in one year. These growers have' a great problem in marketing their product and are certainly entitled to relief either through the tariff or through the excise tax.

There is one resolution of the budget that will receive my support, namely, the one providing for "exemption from income taxes of cooperative associations." This is a matter that has been before the courts during the last few months, and I think in almost every case decisions have been rendered in favour of these associations, with perhaps one exception, the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association. I may say this is a bona fide cooperative association with a membership of 3,000 dairymen, selling milk and its products for its members and returning the proceeds after deduction of its actual expenses. It is a non-profit-making organization. The adoption of this resolution will clear the air and I trust provision will be made for the withdrawal of the demand by the Department of National Revenue on this particular association for this tax dating back to 1923.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am convinced, knowing well the policy of the Liberal party, that these matters of relief provided for in this budget are dictated by expediency rather than by conviction. Coming as they do on the eve of a general election, it must be quite apparent to the people of this country that the budget is purely and simply an election budget designed for the sole purpose of getting votes and securing another lease of power.

The Budget-Mr. Bradette

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Arthur Bradette

Liberal

Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Temis-kaming):

Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say that I am unhesitatingly and wholeheartedly in favour of the budget. It is an outstanding budget that will go down in our political history as "the 1930 budget," and it will be an epochal one, the same as the 1903 budget was. It is typical of the budgets that the Canadian people have become used to during the last nine or ten years. The Robb budgets made a strong appeal to the people, and I believe the principles that he applied so effectively have also been applied by his successor, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), and I feel certain that the Canadian electorate will remember this as the Dunning budget. It has been enthusiastically received in every section of the country, both by the press and the people.

There are a few salient features in this budget that are as clear as crystal. First of all, there is a reduction of the national debt; second, a decrease in taxation; third, there is an enlargement of the British preference, and fourth, an expression of our willingness to deal with nations that are willing to deal with us on even terms. I believe that these four points alone are sufficient to commend this outstanding budget to the people of Canada.

We see in the budget-and the opposition has seen fit to criticize it-some of the wonderful work done by the tariff advisory board. It is a comprehensive study of the economic and industrial situation. The tariff board, wielding no power it self, but patiently sifting facts, becomes a highly successful institution. In this connection may I quote from the issue of Saturday Night of the 10th instant:

The tariff board is comparatively young and in this budget for the first time has been able to show the fruit of its labour. Its chairman, Mr. W. H. Moore is credited with having given great aid to the Minister of Finance in preparing the new schedule, and in connection with the steel industry alone has shown great ability in straightening out a complex tangle of opinion.

On that score alone we can readily understand that some of the Conservative papers are more fair minded than are the official opposition in the house in discussing the budget items. There are so many items in the budget that it is impossible to deal with them in detail. No doubt they will be fully discussed in committee and before the country.

We have heard a lot of talk in this house of free trade and high tariff parties. I for one, after listening to a good many budget

debates, am firmly convinced that there is no such person as a free trader to be found throughout the length and breadth of Canada, and I am also positive that there are no high protectionists in this country. Not later than last fall the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) said that the Conservative party was not a high protectionist party. We all know that free trade is absolutely a theory, impossible of practical application in this country. If there were any free traders they would come from the part of northern Ontario that I have the honour to represent, for the very simple reason that what we produce must find an outlet in the markets of the world, and all the commodities that we need we must buy in the large industrial centres, such as Winnipeg, Montreal and Toronto, etc. But we are logical enough to realize that as long as the government needs a certain amount of funds for administration purposes it must get some of those funds from indirect taxation, and some from direct taxation. There is no conflict between protection and free trade. There is no free trade party in Canada. It is a question simply as to what tariff protection is necessary for Canadian development. There are people who want a tariff for revenue only, and there are people who want a tariff for robbery only; a very few want no tariff at all. However, between and apart from these schools stand the mass of Canadians who want a development tariff. They are not interested in protection for protection's sake; they are not interested in protection for a few manufacturers' sake, but they are interested in it and believe in it solely for Canada's sake. They want it because they want work for Canadian workmen, purchasing power for Canadian people, home and outside markets for Canadian farmers, traffic for Canadian railways and development for Canada as a whole. However, belief in a fiscal policy is not sufficient. Canada now realizes that this government will apply fiscal policies consistently and fairly, when and where they are needed, regardless of expediency or votes. Protection ought not to be subject to the whims of men who are the champions of tariffs which might have been applicable for 1878, 1896 or 1921, but certainly not for 1930. This is the situation as Canadians throughout the length and breadth of this country understand it.

Following this thought I wish to quote a comment as it appeared in the Saturday Night:

Undoubtedly Hon. Charles Dunning, after a little more than six months' experience as Minister of Finance, has scored a coup in

The Budget-Mr. Bradette

framing a budget which in its main principles undoubtedly reflects the sentiments of Canadians as a whole. It is impossible for a budget to satisfy everyone; it has never been done and never will be done.

I wish to read the following citation from the Globe of May 6, 1930;

It is humanly impossible to frame a tariff to please every one. What is one firm's finished product is the raw material of another. It is a nice problem to decide when the country benefits more by conserving home payrolls and paying, possibly, a slightly higher price for the commodity than by sacrificing the workman and giving the ultimate consumer the advantage. One guiding point the government has is the established fact that, given volume business, Canadian manufacturers have the ability to meet competitive prices; then it becomes a question of encouraging methods to get the volume. Another guide is the knowledge that trade creates wealth. Hence, rvith reciprocal trade arrangements between empire countries as the great objective, and increased general prosperity the inevitable result, it becomes a matter of encouraging volume in each country, that purchasing power and trade may be enlarged. Apparently the government has had all this in mind in ' dealing with the complex situation. .

One of the impressive features observable m connection with the budget announcements is that little criticism had been heard at home and nothing but praise has come from Great Britain. Even Mr. J. L. Garvin, in the weekly Observer, who a few weeks ago commended the Liberalism of Mr. Lloyd George to the British people, declares that "the Canadian budget is one of those rare strokes of policy which illuminate the realities of empire." If only all political parties throughout the British Empire would drop their preconceived and traditional fiscal theories long enough to examine the significance of this Canadian gesture in the light of empire realities, the dawn of a new era would be at hand. And this applies to the Canadian opposition as well as to governments and opposition parties elsewhere. Mr. Bennett's declaration that he is "in favour of every proposal that will make for the advancement of Canada as an independent economic unit" is as short-sighted at this time as the other extreme which sees no good in an empire country and applauds all and sundry to the limits of Siberia and Timbuctoo.

As to countervailing duties, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) said that it was a retaliation of the "brick for brick" policy as enunciated by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. Just a few days afterwards, speaking on the same subject, one of his first lieutenants, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), said that it was a mere gesture of retaliation, and that it was not strong enough. Those utterances, coming from the opposition and showing conflict within their ranks, clearly signify that the opposition fully realizes that the government is dealing in a national way with the situation in hand.

I am going to read an article from the Toronto Globe under the heading " More Political Humbug."

The political ways of a newspaper organ are tortuous and confusing when it tries to keep step with the expediency movements ot the masses, but it must be exceedingly difficult for a Montreal-owned Toronto-printed publication to adjust itself rapidly enough to meet all emergencies. The strain on the^ Mail and Empire, indeed, must be terrific, if one may judge by the number of somersaults it seems obliged to take.

Yesterday the chief St. James street organ in Ontario exhibited a feeling of tender regard for the people of the United States by publishing a leading editorial under the heading^ "Crude and Rude Is the Countervailing Duty, remarking that "our neighbours have reasonable ground for complaint against the Dunning tariff for the discrimination it makes against their country in wliat is called the 'countervailing duty.' " No fault could be found with an expression of friendliness for a neighbouring country; Canadians have no other attitude. But can such an expression be considered sincere when it conies from a source which less than a year ago was howling loudly against the American tariff proposals, calling for retaliation. and demanding that parliament show that it would not stand for such treatment without prompt reprisals?

This is the tragedy of it-here to-day and there to-morrow. What a humbug on its readers, and, in this case, on the people of the United States if any of them pay attention to

During last year's session and afterward the Mail and Empire published editorials almost daily severely criticizing the King government for being too considerate of the United States. On June 21, 1929, it even called inferentially for countervailing duties when condemning the speech of Hon. Mr. Lapointe at Grand Bend. "So," it remarked ironically, "there are to be no countervailing duties against Uncle Sams tariff increases on products of this country. He is to have the same wide-open door into our market." On May 6. 1930, it says: "He (Mr. Dunning) ought to be able to manage better than to leave the impression on the neighbouring country that Canada lias a special grudge against it," although Mr. Dunning's speech made no reference to the United States or any other country. Again; "Its countervailing duty is simply a piece of clumsiness, which seems the more unaccountable because of the government's frequent declaration that its tariff policy will not be one of reprisals against the United States."

Apparently the Mail and Empire was not worrying like this when it published the following on July 26 last:

How ridiculous it would be for the United States, or for any of that country's apologists in Canada, to say that any policy pursued here as the result of the reactions of Washington's tariff revision would be a consequence of rancorous Canadian feeling. As the United States finds it advisable to adapt its tariff to conditions in its own and other countries, so must Canada be free to.do likewise when one of the paramount conditions to be met is of the L'nited States' creating.

The Budget-Mr. Bradette

On July 12 it wanted to know, "Why is the King government giving silent consent to the United States boycotting of Canada's farmers? Four days later it said:

The most direct way of grappling with the problem would be to make reasonable endeavours to avert the ill consequences that are staring our farmers in the face. But the King administration has made known to the people of Canada, and to the world at large, that, however it may govern itself accordingly, it will not do anything by way of retaliation. . . . Canada must have a government that will be its champion, and not the servile instrument of the United States.

And as the countervailing duties designed particularly to protect the farmers of Canada are now called "crude and rude," on June 25 last year the Mail and Empire gibed at the government because it would not adopt "anything so rude as retaliation." On that occasion its comment was:

What a jumble of confessed cowardice, of hypocritical empire sentiment, of pretended moral feeling against anything so rude as retaliation, of servility to the United States, and of sincere zeal for free trade, is the government's advertised stand in regard to the situation the Washington tariff-makers have created.

In view of these criticisms and more like them, before the Dunning budget was framed, it is impossible to find any sincerity in the present criticism which declares "our neighbors have reasonable ground for complaint for the discrimination it makes against their country."

I know some hon. members, who last year were concerned in a certain movement looking to an increase in their indemnity, who would not have been sorry had the government adopted the principle suggested by the leader of the opposition, that we should sit here until the United States established their new tariff. Certainly that would have brought us a certain amount of extra money last year, which would have been welcome to many of us. Every one knows that congress has been working on the tariff revision for almost two years, and practically nothing has been done as yet. The leader of the opposition seems to think that the application of the countervailing duties would give too much latitude to the government on account of the rapidity with which certain items might be changed in the United States tariff schedule. We do not need to entertain any fear on that score, for the good reason that both houses at Washington have been working overtime for nearly two years, and so far practically nothing has been accomplished.

I have already said that this budget is very popular. In the Toronto Saturday Night of May 10, there is an article by Mr. P. M. Richards, which ends as follows:

Excepting for the fact that the new budget involves many more reductions in the tariff than increases, which in broad principle, is inimical to the best interest of the Canadian industrial fabric, in a general way Mr.

Dunning s budget will no doubt be well received, and is outstanding in its wide departure from many of the more or less conventional budgets or the preceding years.

We have had the spectacle, during the discussion of the budget, of hon. gentlemen opposite calling this a high tariff budget and the opposition in the southeast corner calling it a low tariff budget. We know the people call it just a national, good Liberal budget, and they are satisfied with that. The following comment appeared in the Toronto Globe on Thursday, May 8:

It is unfortunate indeed that the great Conservative party has to be hampered with leadership which condemns another party for attempting to improve its policy while itself adhering to a circumscribed rule-of-thumb idea which is palpably ineffective as well as narrow-visioned. Mr. Bennett, of course, will have to explain on many an occasion %vhat he conceives the British Empire to be "next to Canada," why he does not regard Canada as part of the empire. And he will also have to explain how Canada can shut herself up in a shell and exist, where the farmers of the prairies are going to market their wheat, and what the manufacturers are going to do with their $4,000,000,000 worth of products.

Why should it be called a high tariff budget, when we have increases on only 100 items while we have decreases on 414 items, giving as a ratio of decreases to increases of over four to one? Really no one who knows anything about figures will try to make this out to be a high tariff budget. It is a low tariff and a national budget.

I listened with a great deal of interest to the financial critic of the group in the southeast corner, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). Before I came to this house I was told that the hon. member was a wonderful orator, and I was not disappointed when I heard him speak. He has very complete mastery of the English language and is a born orator, but at the same time I have to ask myself whether the hon. member really believes all the theories which he advances. This evening I was reading an editorial commenting on the speech delivered by the hon. member, which stated that it was too bad that the rules of the house would not allow such a man as the hon. member for Westaskiwin to speak for more than forty minutes upon such important matters. During the course of my hon. friend's remarks he said he could see no leaders who could put into effect his ideas on the government side; he intimated that there was no leader on the Conservative side, so naturally we were to infer that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin was to be the man who would lead the Canadian nation into realms of great happiness and an arcadian period.

The Budget-Mr. Bradette

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
UFA

William Irvine

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. IRVINE:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Arthur Bradette

Liberal

Mr. BRADETTE:

I hear my bon. friend

applauding. I remember this year, during the discussion in connection with the construction of a trans-Canada highway, hearing the hon. member for Wetaskiwin state that if the government did not have enough money to build this road, the war debt might be cancelled. I can see what a wonderful thing it would be if we had a minister of finance like him. We, would have no taxation; we would not worry over debt; this would be the best part of the world in which to live. He would forget all about the war debt and the national debt; he would do away with taxation of all kinds. These are some of the theories to which we have to listen, and I must say if I attempted to advocate these theories I would be well defeated, and rightly so, in my own constituency. I hope the Ottawa Journal, which contained the editorial to which I referred, will get the hon. gentleman to tell this government how to wipe out all these debts, which certainly would be a wonderful thing for Canada, but I doubt whether it will know how it could.be done after listening for one hour to the absolutely impracticable theories of the hon. member.

Both the amendment and the sUbamendment are negative in themselves. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I think if hon. members of this house could vote according to their own ideas the budget would be adopted without very many adverse votes. An hon. member of this house once said that if hon. members could do as they wished, without the whips assisting them, the results of some votes in the house would be very different, and I am sure if we had no whips the members of the opposition would gladly vote for this budget. We have been told that this is a high tariff budget, but we heard the same story in previous years; last year the Conservatives said we brought in a high tariff budget because we had collected in customs duties nearly $300,000,000. This is not a new story at all. I well remember the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), the financial critic of the opposition, criticizing_ the elimination of the tax on Pullman tickets, stating that Pullman travel was a luxury. It is not a luxury at all for those of us who have to travel great distances across this country.

The leader of the opposition ridiculed the idea of removing the duty on tea. Certainly tea is not a luxury. Perhaps if it were consumed in Ontario only a reduction in price might mean a loss of revenue to the liquor commission here, but tea is used all over the 2419-127J

country. I know that throughout Canada the housewives are absolutely satisfied with the situation. This afternoon it was stated that the decrease in the price of tea was only 10 cents and not 15 cents. The day after the budget was delivered advertisements appeared in several papers stating that the prices of certain lines of tea would be lowered by 15 cents, and certainly that is a benefit to Canada as a whole.

As the budget affects northern Ontario I must say it is very popular. We are especially gratified with the readjustment of the scale of taxation on the sale of shares, which will materially affect the transfer of shares of no par value. The mining industry is satisfied with the present situation. Last year during the budget discussion I was amazed to hear it suggested by hon. members opposite that we should have a high tariff against mining machinery brought in from other countries, and I was further amazed at a resolution passed last year by the Canadian Manufacturers Association at their annual convention held in Nova Scotia, to the effect that the government should increase the tariff on mining machinery until Canadian industry could supply the demand. It would be a fine thing to have the development of our mining interests in the Porcupine district, the Sudbury district or the newer mining areas in Manitoba and Saskatchewan wait until the machinery could be supplied by Canadian industry. We cannot wait; we must have that machinery when new mining areas are to be developed. We are coming more and more to the point where our mining machinery can be supplied in Canada, and eventually our Canadian companies will be able to supply that demand, but we should not be expected to hold up the development of these areas until that time arrives. In the meantime we must go ahead with the development of our mines.

One item in the budget which makes a very strong appeal to the people of northern Ontario is the enlargement of the British preference. They were amazed by the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition in this regard. We will be able to attend the imperial conference with something more definite to offer to the British commonwealth of nations. The hon. leader of the opposition has offered an amendment which is absolutely negative, which really shows that his party is in favour of this budget. The Canadian people are well aware of the present situation.

Another thing which amazes me is the blue ruin talk which we hear from the members of the opposition. The leader of the opposition was on the sam* platform the other day

The Budget-Mr. Bradette

with the Premier of Ontario, the Hon. Mr. Ferguson. He spoke of the blue ruin which was facing Canada, and yet five minutes later the premier stood up and said that Ontario was prosperous. We know that that province is well administered, and it is hard to understand the leader of the opposition on the one hand saying that the country is faced with blue ruin while the premier of the province, on the other hand, states that that province is absolutely prosperous. Ontario is a part of Canada, and should be considered as such; and in this matter we are more inclined to listen to Premier Ferguson than to the leader of the opposition. When a new hotel was planned to be built in Toronto, a member from that city said that it was not necessary because foreigners were going to use it exclusively to sell their wares to Canadian people and that in turn would force our people to leave the country. However, when we visit Toronto to-day we patronize that new hotel and find it well filled and really we of northern Ontario cannot be called foreigners even in Toronto.

The hon. leader of the opposition referred to the steel industry, and stated that if an increase in duty were allowed on these products certain plants would increase their capacity. The steel plant at Sault Ste. Marie is erecting new buildings, but the hon. leader of the opposition is fully aware that that has been under consideration for some time. Those buildings are not being erected because of an increase in the steel tariff, but because this company is fully aware of the modern situation and it has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in increasing its plant capacity. New industries are being born, not only every year but every week. The reports issued by the presidents of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways show that not only dozens but hundreds of new industries have been bom during the last twenty-five years.

It is impossible to have a tariff which will please everyone. The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) offered a subamendment asking that the British preferential be increased on textiles, while, on the other hand, the Conservative opposition are asking for more protection on this commodity. Some people claim that the woollen industry is not prosperous. The following is a despatch from Arnprior which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of October 2, 1929:

Kenwood mills, one of Arnprior's principal 'ndustries, is being considerably enlarged to lake care of the increasing business which the iompany is doing and there is keen satisfaction

amongst the townspeople at this indication of the growing importance of Arnprior as an industrial centre.

An additional structure 150 feet in length and 60 feet wide is now being built to the main plant, brick and steel being utilized in the creation of a modern factory building. The cost of the work will be between $40,000 and $50,000 and it is being done by men in the employ of the woollen company.

Several residential buildings are also being constructed by the same company, work on five dwellings now being in hand. They will be for the accommodation of the plant superintendent and other officials.

Plans for the factory addition and the houses were drawn by Cecil Burgess, architect, Ottawa.

That would seem to show that some branches of the woollen industry are in a prosperous condition. I visited Arnprior last summer and I was surprised at being told that not a single pound of Canadian wool is used in that plant. The superintendent told me that every pound of wool used in that plant comes from Australia or New Zealand. That would go to show how hard it is to apply duties in order to satisfy everyone. That plant is absolutely prosperous and is increasing its manufacturing capacity.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

Will the bon. gentleman

permit a question?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Arthur Bradette

Liberal

Mr. BRADETTE:

Certainly.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

Why do not our manufacturers buy Canadian wool?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Arthur Bradette

Liberal

Mr. BRADETTE:

Not being an expert

in that line, it is impossible for me to give an authorative answer to the hon. gentleman.

I understand, however, that that company do not utilize one pound of Canadian wool because they cannot get in Canada the quality required for the manufacture of their goods. If the hon. gentleman asking for more protection for the woollen industry desire to see an industry which is so prosperous that it is forced to increase its capacity, they should go to Arnprior and see the Kenwood mills.

This tariff must be considered in the same way as we would consider a forest. It may be possible to find one tree in the forest which is defective, but the forest as a whole is good. The same with the budget; one item may not give satisfaction but it should be considered as a whole.

I do not think anyone can quarrel with the Minister of Finance in the concluding paragraph of his budget speech. The opposition accuse the government of insincerity, but I believe that the worst enemies of members of parliament are the members themselves. They hurl accusations at one another and in

nr r

The Budget-Mr. Bradelte

lime begin to believe that there is no sincerity. The political history of Canada shows that in both Liberal and Conservative administrations there has been plenty of honesty and sincerity. Here are the closing words of the hon. Minister of Finance:

These tariff favours to those who favour our products are not the result of any bargain with any other country but of an attitude in international relations which We believe to be mutually beneficial and are an expression of the spirit in which Canada will approach the Imperial economic conference in a few months time. In other words we do not intend to meet 'the other countries of the British commonwealth of nations in a spirit of petty bargaining but rather in the broad spirit of willingness to become in ever increasing measure good customers to those who treat us in like manner. This is the spirit in which we desire to meet all nations, but we believe that within the British community of nations lies the greatest measure of opportunity for mutual development of trade because of our common heritage, kindred institutions and a common patriotism.

What have our Conservative friends to offer to the imperial conference? Surely not only that negative amendment presented by the leader of the opposition, because there is nothing constructive in it. There is nothing in it which the British commonwealth of nations could consider or discuss.

The Canadian people are fully aware of the present situation and I am positive that they will be overwhelmingly in favour of the present Liberal administration. I am convinced that the Canadian people will return this Liberal government to power because of its past records. It has inspired general confidence because of its ability to solve the almost insurmountable problems which it has had to face. It has the confidence to-day of the labourers, the farmers, the industrialists and the financiers; in a word, the confidence of every section of the population. Using the words of the Prime Minister uttered at W innipeg, it has legislated not for one class but for all classes; not for a favoured few, but for the greatest good. to the greatest number. Whatever the United States or any other country may do in tariff matters, we believe that our country has reached a stage in its development where it will be able to look after itself. Canada will make its own tariff and find its owm markets. An editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of July 25, 1928. is proof that the Prime Minister is worthy of being the representative of Canada at the next imperial conference. The editorial is as follows:

The Prime Minister for Geneva Announcement that Mr. Mackenzie King will go to Geneva personally to represent Canada upon the council of the League of Nations on

the occasion of its meeting in August,_ ought to be received with hearty commendation by all Canadians irrespective of party. For Mr. King will not, we are sure, journey to Geneva and speak and act there as the leader of a party. He will go, we think, as the Prime Minister of Canada, with a consciousness of the dignity and the responsibility of that office, and he will speak, we believe, not as a Liberal partisan, but as the representative of the whole Canadian people. .

The Journal is not ashamed nor afraid to say that, in its judgment, Mr. King is in every respect well equipped to represent Canada with high honor and ability. This newspaper, in common with hundreds of thousands of other Canadians, has frequently and vigorously and honestly disagreed with Mr. King upon a multiplicity of things, and it has not infrequently said things about him in the heat of partisan conflict which were perhaps more vehement than just.

That, however, does not prohibit our saying now that, in many fields and in most respects, Mr. King, like all of his predecessors, has shown himself mostly weli equipped for the demands of his office. In the field of imperial and foreign affairs, in particular, Mr. King has revealed an informed interest and an outlook that challenge respect. Some among us may think that in some respects he is too greatly influenced by a narrow nationalism that is antagonistic to the ideal, cherished by most Canadians, of earnest and sustained and proud cooperation with the rest of the British Empire. That, however, is but a matter of opinion, and it must be confessed that, in most regards Mr. King, subject to the exigencies of politics, has shown himself to be a good Canadian and a good Imperialist, one who believes with Sir Wilfrid Laurier that Canada answers to a higher destiny than a mere mythical independence or a narrow nationalism.

To Geneva, at all events, he will go with the best wishes and the support of the majority oi his countrymen. In has been this country's good fortune to have been represented abroad, both at London and elsewhere, by men who reflected credit upon the Canadian name. It was so, in the old days, when Sir Wilfrid captured the hearts and the imagination of the British people with his compelling personality and charm. It was so When Sir Robert Borden wrote Imperial history by his contributions in the war cabinet, and later on at Versailles. And it was so when Mr. Meighen, fighting almost single-handed, but with his conspicuous courage and ability, helped abrogate the Anglo-Japanese alliance and paved the way for the Washington disarmament conference.

Mr. King, we feel sure, will worthily uphold this tradition. In the field of Imperial and foreign affairs, Canada, as far as is possible, should try to speak with a united voice. That has been the policy and the strength of Britain for more than two hundred years-the policy of Britain whether a Conservative or a Liberal or a Labourite was at 10 Downing street

and it ought to be the policy of this Dominion. Let all of us, therefore, dispense with partisan considerations in our attitude toward Mr. King so long as he is abroad as the spokesman of this country. The Journal, for its part, sincerely wishes for him a pleasant journey and everything of usefulness and opportunity in the mission which he has undertaken.

The rtudget-Mr. Fraser

That article was rather well written and I believe it was making not only a declaration as to certain activities of the Prime Minister in 1928, but also a kind of prophecy that he would go to the economic conference in 1930 as the representative of Canada.

Under his direction, even during the years affected by war depression, the country knows that he was worthy of the confidence placed in him. And now that our young nation has its face turned towards the future and is basking in the light of peace, prosperity and contentment, nowhere will the sun be shining on a more contented people or on a happier land.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

John Anderson Fraser

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):

Mr. Speaker, I propose for a few minutes to deal with the

statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in regard to the financial condition of the country. We are well aware that in connection with dealing with any financial statements, two classes of liabilities must be taken into consideration: first, our direct liabilities, and, second, our indirect liabilities. The Minister of Finance in dealing with the financial affairs of the country dealt only with our direct financial responsibilities. I wish to put upon record our indirect responsibilities or the amount of money for which we are responsible so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned. I take the following figures from the financial report of the Canadian National Railways:

Long-term debt. . . Current liabilities. Unadjusted credits

Increase

Total increase

On the other hand we had the following decreases:

Liability to the Dominion of Canada, eliminating the interest which is due

on outstanding borrowings $1,026,620,838

Deferred liabilities ' 11,205,429

Corporate surplus 5,147,861

Decrease

Total decrease

If we subtract the decreases from the increases, this leaves a net increase in the liabilities of the Canadian National Railways for which we are responsible, and every single dollar of which we have guaranteed, of $342,241,717.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Edward Bothwell

Liberal

Mr. BOTHWELL:

What is the capital

expenditure in that same length of time on the Canadian National Railways?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

John Anderson Fraser

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FRASER:

That includes the capital

expenditure and everything else. I am talking about the balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways as presented by the company in the report we have before us.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Edward Bothwell

Liberal

Mr. BOTHWELL:

The hon. member has not the figures to show what the capital expenditure was in the period covered by his figures?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

John Anderson Fraser

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FRASER:

I am sorry I have not. I

did not take account of capital expenditure. Let us hope they were all capital expenditures and they all increase the standing of the Canadian National Railways in that regard. I am only pointing out the increase in the liabilities of this country so far as the Cana-IMr. Bradette.l

dian National Railways are concerned. In addition to that I wish to give the following figures:

Accumulated interest due the Dominion of

Canada by the Canadian National Railways on moneys advanced to them

1925 1929 Increase

Adding those two amounts together, we find that the increase of debt was $342,241,717, and the increase of interest, $128,226,937, or a 'total increase in the liabilities to the Canadian National, so far as the Dominion is concerned of $470,46S,654.

The total amount which has been claimed by the Minister of Finance as a reduction in debt is $257,800,000 in the past five years, which is the same period for which I am giving the figures in regard to the Canadian National Railways. That means, analyzing these reports in any intelligent way at all, that so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned her total actual liabilities, direct and indirect, during the last five years have not been reduced by $257,800,000, but have been increased by $213,500,000, roughly speaking.

The Budget-Mr. Fraser

So that instead of this government reducing the debt of this country, they have increased it by the amount of S213,500,000.

Now I turn my attention for a few minutes to a brief review of some balances of trade for which this government must hold itself responsible. For a favourable balance of trade, the government must be given credit; if it is not favourable, the government and its policies must to some extent be held responsible for the balance being on the wrong side of the ledger.

I find that in 1929 -we had a favourable balance of trade of $123,158,329; that was our favourable visible balance of trade. In the fiscal year 1930, just ended, I find that we had an unfavourable trade balance of $103,300,000. This makes a total alteration in the trade of this country in the space of the last twenty-four months of $226,458,329. I submit that any government which is responsible for any change for the worse of that magnitude in that short space of time, surely must be held accountable to some extent for the unfavourable showing.

Analyzing the reasons for this great change in our trade, I find that our total imports in 1929 amounted to $1,265,639,000. In 1930 our total imports amounted to $1,248,239,000, a decrease, it will be noted, of $17,400,000, or 1.4 per cent. Let me point out also that all this decrease occurred during the three months of the present calendar year, or during the last three months of the fiscal year just closed, because at the end of December, 1929, our imports had increased by $76,675,330, or 6.3 per cent, over those of the calendar year 1928.

Turning to our exports, in 1929 we exported goods to the amount of $1,388,798,233, and in 1930, $1,144,938,070, a decrease of $243,860,163, or 17.5 per cent. That is, our imports decreased by 1.4 per cent while our exports in the same period decreased by 17.5 per cent.

Still dealing with the decrease in our export trade, I turn to one particular item of the nine for which our exports and imports are classified, and I wish to make this same comparison as to exports and imports of animals and animal products, which I think is one of the most interesting of our national imports and exports, because after all I am sure that all will agree that this country must be regarded as excellent for the raising of live stock. There is no reason why our production and exports of live stock and all kindred products should not be increasing from year to year. When we do not find that condition, there must be something wrong and there must be some remedy that should be applied.

In 1926 our imports of animals and animal products amounted to $49,185,000. In 1929 they amounted to $71,662,000, an increase in those three years of $22,477,000. or 4-6 per cent. In a country like this Dominion, which is so well adapted to the raising of live stock and animal products of all kinds, that condition of affairs should not exist. We should from year to year be continually decreasing our imports and increasing our exports of animals and animal products. So far as our imports of animals and animal products are concerned, they have increased by 4-6 per cent. Turning to our exports, I find that we exported in 1925, animals and animal products to the value of $190,975,000, and in 1929, $158,757,000 worth, an actual decrease in that period of $32,218,000, or 16-8 per cent. Let me emphasize that: during the period to which I am drawing your attention, Mr. Speaker, we increased our imports of animals and animal products by 4 [DOT] 6 per cent while our exports decreased by 16-8 per cent. Neither one of those conditions, I submit, is in the best interests of the Dominion of Canada.

I wish for a moment to draw attention to the agricultural wealth of the Dominion of Canada and relate thereto the revenue derived from the production of animals and animal products. I find from the Canada Year Book that the agricultural wealth of Canada in 1928 was $8,027,301,000. Live stock and animal products and poultry accounted for $919,615,000 of this amount, or 11 per cent. That is, live stock and animal products and poultry, so far as the agricultural wealth of Canada is concerned, accounted for 11 per cent. The agricultural revenue of Canada on the other hand was $1,730,304,000. These are the figures for 1928. Out of that agricultural revenue received by the people of the Dominion, live stock and animal products accounted for $559,-

633,000, or 32 per cent. That is, while we had invested 11 per cent of our total agricultural wealth in live stock and animal products and poultry, we were deriving from that investment 32 per cent of the total revenue of the Dominion.

Now, I pointed out a few minutes ago that the imports and exports were both going in the wrong direction so far as animals and animal products were concerned. Let me give some particular reasons why this is occurring. In the Dominion in 1927 we had 9,172,230 head of cattle of all kinds; in 1928 this number had decreased to 8,793,270, or a decrease of 378,966 head. That decrease works out to 4-13 per cent. Let me turn to swine. I find that in 1927 we had 4,694,789 head of swine; in

The Budget-Mr. Fraser

1928, 4,497,367, or a decrease of 197,422 head, or a decrease of 4-2 per cent.

It is interesting to note the relative decreases in those two kinds of animals. We have a decrease of 4-13 per cent in cattle and of 4-2 per cent in swine. We have heard it repeatedly said in this house that on account of conditions which exist in our dairy industry, that is, because our dairymen had been discouraged rather than encouraged by the government, our swine population was also declining. I want the house to notice that there are exactly the same relative decreases in the cases of those two items, the number of swine and the number milking cattle.

In 1927 we had 3.262,760 head of sheep; and in 1928, 3,415,788 or an increase of 153,082, or an increase in 1928 over 1927 of 4-2 per cent. Now, in 1871 we had 3,155,509 head of sheep. I would direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that between 1871 and 1928 the total increase in the number of our sheep has been but 8-2 per cent. That increase I do not think is at all in accordance with the possibilities in this important line of agriculture.

Turning to the trade of Canada as set forth in the monthly reports for the month ending March, 1930, I find that our imports of animals and animal products in 1929 amounted in round figures to $71,661,000, and in 1930 to $69,853,000' or a decrease of $1,808,000 or 2-5 per cent. The exports of our animals and animal products for 1929 amounted in round figures to $159,757,000, and in 1930 to $133,009,000 or a decrease of nearly $26,000,000, or 16-2 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker, it may satisfy our friendly Minister of Agriculture to say that all is well so long as we are providing for our home consumption, but for many years in the future Canada must be an exporting country of all kinds of agricultural products, and I think it is not to our credit that we are falling down in these exports *where there is so much opportunity for development and expansion in this business.

For a moment or two I might give the house some of the reasons why our export trade is declining and our import trade increasing. I find, for instance, that in 1929 our export trade in animals and animal products decreased by $22,629,000. Our imports of butter-of which we have heard a great deal-increased by $6,777,000; our imports of meats increased by over $2,000,000; our exports of cheese decreased by very nearly $7,000,000; our exports of living animals decreased by $1,039,000; our exports of meats decreased by $4,471,000; our exports of raw hides decreased by $3,562,000; our exports of leather, unmanufactured, decreased

, I

by $3,615,000. You will note, sir, that at the outset of my remarks I pointed out the alteration in our balance of trade, that the year before we had a credit balance, but that this year we have a debit balance, so far as our export and import trade is concerned, of $226,450,000. Of this adverse balance of trade, our animal and animal products accounted for $54,695,000.

I would point out that this condition prevails all through the live stock industry of the Dominion. I find in the live stock market report for 1929, at page 91, it is stated that the supplies of cattle at the nine public stockyards in 1928 were 875,428 head; in 1929 at the same nine public stockyards the supplies offered were 799,435, or a decrease of about 76,000 head during that year. I find that is less by 159,000 head than were offered at these same stockyards in 1927. We have had a continuous decrease in the offerings of cattle in those nine public stockyards ever since 1926.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION 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:

Ever since the New Zealand treaty went into effect.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

John Anderson Fraser

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FRASER:

Ever since the New Zealand treaty went into effect, as my leader reminds me. I think that is one of the factors in regard to this very unsatisfactory condition of affairs. Our total exports of cattle in 1929 were 162,632 head; this is the smallest number we have exported in the last six years and represents practically the life of the New Zealand and Australian treaties. Our exports of cattle to the United States were 160,103 head, which is 6,000 head less than the year 1928 and 44,000 less than 1927. We had no exports of cattle to the British market at all during the last year, although that represented a good outlet for our surplus cattle in the years 1925 and 1926. However, when we come to the years 1928 and 1929 we have nothing to offer to the British market. In addition to that our exports of beef are almost entirely to the United States. The total export was

31.000. 000 pounds, or 16,000,000 pounds less than in 1928. On the other hand, let us see what has happened to the British market. Our exports in 1929 to that market were 6.100 pounds, although in 1925 we had exported

9.000. 000 pounds and in 1926, 8,000,000 pounds. It is quite obvious that so far as the British market is concerned we are not in the market at all. In addition to that I wish to call the attention of the house to the fact that our imports of beef during 1929 to supply our own demands amounted to 5,235,412 pounds. That represents twice the quantity which we had to import in 1927 or 1928, and fourteen times aa

The Budget-Mr. Fraser

much as we had to import in 1926. If that can be considered a satisfactory condition of affairs I must say that I fail to understand the significance of figures of this kind.

I wish to outline the figures in connection with the cattle sales in all stockyards of the Dominion of Canada. On the Toronto market the sales were 12,300 head less, in 1929 than in 1928. On the two Montreal markets the figures show that the sales were 11,000 head less than in 1928, and that condition prevails on all markets in the Dominion of Canada.

I have before me a rather significant statement which appears in the tenth annual report of the Live Stock Market and Meat Trade Review of 1929. I would like hon. members of this house to pay particular attention to this statement in regard to the home market. It is made by a department of this government in a report issued reviewing the trade for 1929, and refers particularly to the Montreal market:

Shipments of dressed meats from other domestic markets, consignments of pork products and canned meats from the United States of America, imports of frozen beef and mutton from Australia and New Zealand for consumption in Montreal amounted to more than total offerings of live animals on the two local markets.

Surely nothing else is necessary to prove conclusively that there is possible a large expansion of the live stock industry in the Dominion of Canada. Government officials have pointed out that in connection with the live stock trade of this country the Montreal market has supplied only one half of the local requirements.

Let us turn to the British market and see what is offering there. In 1929 the British market imported 11,715,746 hundredweight of fresh, chilled and frozen beef. Of that quantity the Argentine supplied 80 per cent, or 9,060,324 hundredweight. Canada supplied none, although in 1927 we supplied 8,000,000 pounds and in 1926 9,000,000 pounds. There is a prospective market which is surely well worth cultivating so that the live stock industry of Canada might be extended. Let us consider the imports of bacon to the British market. In 1920 Great Britain imported bacon to the extent of 5,611,634 hundredweight and in 1929, 8,281,594 hundredweight. In 1920 Canada supplied 26 per cent of the British imports, or 1,493,008 hundredweight, and in 1929 we supplied to the British market 2.5 per cent or 119,446 hundredweight. Hon. members will take notice that in 1920 we supplied 26 per cent whereas in -1929 we supplied only 2.5 per cent, despite the fact that the

British market had increased its imports from 5,611,634 hundredweight to 8,281,594 hundredweight.

In 1925 our exports of bacon and ham were 132,522,900 pounds, and in 1929 they had been reduced to 28,772,700 pounds. The amount exported in 1929 represents only 25 per cent of the amount exported in 1925. Our pork exports were 17,286,000 pounds in 1925 whereas in 1929 they were 10.184,700 pounds. On the other hand our imports of bacon and ham had increased from 1,190,626 pounds in 1925 to 6,855,217 pounds in 1929, or nearly six times as much. Our pork imports decreased from 15,443,276 pounds in 1925 to 13,945.241 pounds in 1929. I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that in 1929 we imported

20,000,000 pounds of pork products, although in the Dominion of Canada we should be producing for export very large quantities of pork products. After reviewing very carefully the market conditions so far as they obtained in 1929 I make the statement that Canada could have marketed 1,000,000 hogs more than she did in that year without affecting the market price. One million hogs at $25 per hog amounts to $25,000,000; that amount of money could have been brought into this country if particular attention had been directed to this class of business.

I shall now turn to the British imports of mutton and lamb. In 1929 the British imports of these two commodities were 5,653,979 hundredweight. Of that quantity New Zealand supplied 50 per cent. Is there any reason why Canada should not supply to the British market as much mutton as New Zealand supplies? Natural conditions, such as proximity to the market, are more favourable to the Dominion than they are to New Zealand. Of the total quantity of mutton and lamb supplied in 1929 the Argentine supplied 27 per cent and Australia 10 per cent. Canada imported 4,000,000 pounds of mutton, and our imports in this regard are growing continually to supply the demand of our local markets.

I wish to place on Hansard a record of exports and imports as they were given in a return to this house asked for by the late member for Frontenac-Addington, Mr. Edwards, during the session of 1928. To the figures given in this return I have added the imports as they are recorded in the trade returns for the calendar year 1929. The table which follows gives the quantities of pork, bacon and hams, lard, cheese, butter, milk and cream and milk, condensed or evaporated or as milk powder, exported from Oanoda during

The Budget-Mr. Fraser

the fiscal year 1025-26 as compared with the quantities exported during the last fiscal year:

Pork lbs.

Bacon and hams..lbs.

Lard lbs.

Cheese lbs.

Butter lbs.

Milk and cream..gals. Milk, condensed or evaporated or as milk podwer.. ..lbs.

1925-26 1929

14,989,100 10.184,700 125,376,000 28,772,700 8.394,700 1,775,500

148,333,500 92,946,100 23,303,900 1,400,400

8,718,380 5,627,523

45,622,600 31,982,300

When we consider the imports into Canada of these commodities we find increases in almost every instance, as

Pork lbs.

Bacon and hams..lbs.

Lard lbs.

Cheese lbs.

Butter lbs.

Milk and cream..gals. Milk, condensed or evaporated or as milk powder.. ..lbs.

follows:

1925-26 1929

15,443.276 14.651.053

1,190,626 6,855,217

4.321.387 976.145

6.678,487 2,103,724

7,029,084 35,928,249 20,035

129,355 178,968

I have been attempting to show that we should encourage the production of animal products because there is a potential market for these commodities in practically unlimited quantities, and we have not supplied that market to anything like the extent which is possible. Our goods are in demand but we are not maintaining the necessary supply; indeed, to a considerable extent we are becoming importers instead of exporters. We are not supplying the British market in beef, pork, mutton, butter, eggs, bacon and ham, cheese or poultry to the extent that is possible or for which there is an insistent demand.

On the other hand, in grains, and particularly in wheat, the condition is exactly the reverse; we are making feverish efforts to increase our production of wheat and other grains beyond the consumptive demand. Contrast the situation in the meat trade to-day with the situation in the grain trade. Our elevators are bulging with an unsold crop which, by the way, was one of the smallest crops we have harvested for a number of years. Our transportation systems remain idle while the grain lies in the elevators awaiting a buyer, and our trade returns show unfavourable balances on account of our unsold grain. The commercial situation is depressed, and indeed almost stagnant; severe unemployment exists because the grain has not moved out and the money rolled in. Foreign countries, which formerly bought large supplies of our grains, have increased their tariff barriers, encouraged home production and left our growers with the grain on their hands. British Empire markets apparently are supplied from other sources, possibly because of the price but more likely

because in the complex system of barter and exchange the shrewd British buyer finds in other countries willing customers for the manufactured goods he wishes to sell them in exchange.

Just here I might quote from the Financial Post of April 17, where I find some reasons why our wheat does not meet with the favour in the European market that it did at one time:

Too much has been made of the statistical position of wheat and too little to the effect of tariff walls being raised higher and higher by European governments against foreign grain and flour. Britain, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands now stand alone in permitting free entry to wheat and flour. The others appear to be willing to get along with cheaper products of inferior quality in order to increase greater use of the domestic grown and milled wheat.

The following figures show how potent this factor has become, especially when it is considered that all these countries are large potential buyers of Canadian wheat and flour. For instance, Germany imposes a tariff of 61.76 cents per bushel on our wheat, and I believe that tariff has been raised to 78 cents per bushel since this article was written. In France the duty is 53.60 cents per bushel, in Switzerland it is 105.49 cents and in Italy 73.20 cents.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. CHARLES E. FERLAND (Joliette) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, on May 1, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), committed to our political annals one of the finest pages of the liberal party's history, in connection with the development of this country, perhaps young but already great. By a popular and national budget "clear as crystal" to use the words uttered a few moments ago by the hon. member for Temiscamingue North (Mr. Bradette), by a budget considered "the most important since Confederation," so acknowledged by the conservative press, the hon. Minister of Finance created an atmosphere of enthusiasm and revival of hope in the destinies "of the great century" of Canada. Therefore, the people of the beautiful county of Joliette welcomed with great joy this budget destined to further develop agriculture while sufficiently protecting the other industries.

My constituents, sir, also learned with much satisfaction, of the recent appointment to the bench of the Court of Appeals, Province of Quebec, of the Hon. Antonin Galipeault, exminister of Public Works and Labour in the Quebec Legislature. By the appointment to the highest court of Quebec of this great friend of Joliette, the government has crowned a very

The Budget-Mr. Ferland

fruitful career and honoured an eminent barrister of the Quebec bar, who in his new duties will continue to fulfil with much dignity the traditions of honour, ability, probity and devotion to duty which, at all times, have made the strength and greatness of the Canadian bar. The government has also honoured in this distinguished barrister a man who has played an important part in the administration of affairs in his province, and -what is more personal

one of the most brilliant scholars of my "Alma Mater" the Joliette seminary, where the hon. Mr. Gali-peault completed his classical studies. Needless to say that the old seminary of Joliette is one of the most important institutions of higher studies in the province of Quebec. Instances of this are of daily occurrence. Only a few months ago, the Canadian press announced, with joy and national pride, that the young Roch Pinard, a student of the seminary of Joliette, had just carried off first honours in eloquence in an international competition, at Washington. Always remembering with joy the happy days which I spent in that admirable institution, which has given to religious and civil life numerous and distinguished men, I cannot resist the pleasure of mentioning that I have the privilege of sitting in this house with four worthy and distinguished students of the seminary of Joliette. They are the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere), for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Gervais), for Champlain (Mr. Desaulniers), and for Saint-Denis (Mr. Denis).

Mr. Speaker, the unpresuming city of Joliette, whose charter of incorporation dates back to 1863, in pre-confederation days, and which had but a population of 4,200 at the census of 1901, has become the rich city of Joliette, prosperous in all its commercial and industrial activities. Its present population of 10,800 is noted for its broad mindedness, courtesy, good manners, high education and excellent character. This provincial town is preeminently a place of bonne entente and intermingling of various nationalities. The English protestant minorities peacefully enjoy in our midst their separate schools and churches while benefiting of all the advantages of Joliette life. I should very much like to see this town, where tolerance, peace and harmony exist among all races, serve as an example to all Canadians, especially at this period preceding an election in which our English protestant opponents belonging to the Tory party will, perhaps, as their press foreshadows, ask the people, as usual to vote against the Liberal party, and against French domination 11 should like to see as much tolerance throughout the

country as there is in the good old town of Joliette which I have the honour to represent in the house.

In this perfect social organization, there is, however, needed a special service, and it behooved the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) to fill this need, by granting us, to our great satisfaction, a mail carriers service within the limits of the city of Joliette. I, therefore, wish to again express my gratitude to the Postmaster General on his kind decision to establish this service.

There is a local question, Sir, which is directly connected with the budget we are considering: the management of the National Railways in regard to its repair shops at Joliette.

In 1925, the C.N.R. shops, at Joliette, were destroyed by fire and have not yet been rebuilt. The management of the Canadian National Railways have nevertheless maintained more than 60 men to repair cars. Ever since the fire the citizens of Joliette have unceasingly asked for the construction of these shops. Their request has not yet been granted. The high officials of the C.N.R. maintain that the question is still under consideration, but the people of Joliette have serious doubts with regard to the fate of these shops to which our city owes at least one-third of its expansion.

I understand, sir, that the management of the National Railways has to deal, in all parts of the country, with numerous problems of the same nature as those relating to Joliette.

Indeed, eight years ago, when the Liberal party handed over the management of the National Railways to this well known expert, Sir Henry Thornton-for a long time familiar with transportation problems-the entire system of our railways, known to-day as the State Railways, showed yearly deficits of

875,000,000 and more. It was a very heavy burden for the country, we even heard a member, one day, suggest to turn over the entire business for SI to whomsoever wished to purchase it, and a large number of ratepayers confronted with the ever increasing deficits, were wondering if there were not more truth than irony in the whim of this member. Events have, however, clearly shown that the present management, which changed old deficits to surpluses, was right. To-day, the work accomplished by Sir Henry Thornton gives us an admirable instance of what can be done by a competent and energetic man, when those he serves loyally support his efforts.

A few days ago the President of the National Railways presented us his yearly statement.

The Budget-Mr. Ferland

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

May 12, 1930