May 15, 1930

CON

Milton Edgar Maybee

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAYBEE:

I was paired with the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and for the amendment.

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

John Ewen Sinclair

Liberal

Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):

I was paired

with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and against the amendment.

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

Harry Bernard Short

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHORT:

I was paired with the hon.

member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Foster). Hal I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and for the amendment.

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

Edmond Baird Ryckman

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

I was paired with the

hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

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

George Halsey Perley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mar-cil). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

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

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Plunkett). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)

Messrs:

Marcil,

Elliott,

Sinclair (Queens), V eniot,

Bowman,

Hay,

Perley,

Edwards (Waterloo),

Jones,

Hanson,

Smith (Cumberland), Hodgins,

Murphy,

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

Arthur Edward Ross

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

I was paired with

the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and for the amendment.

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

Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. JOHNSTONE:

I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and for the amendment.

The Budget-Mr. Simpson

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

Joseph-Théodule Rhéaume

Liberal

Mr. RHEAUME:

I was paired with the

Lon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and against the amendment.

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

Robert King Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):

I was paired

with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fontaine). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and for the amend-[DOT] ment.

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

Martin James Maloney

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MALONEY:

I was paired with the

hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and for the amendment.

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

James J. Donnelly

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DONNELLY:

I was paired with the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment and against the amendment.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF THE 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 question is on the

main motion.

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

Thomas Edward Simpson (Chief Government Whip)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (West Algoma):

Mr Speaker, having supported the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), thereby declaring my lack of confidence in the present government, I desire to make a very brief statement with respect to the main motion.

For several years past we on this side of the house have endeavoured to impress upon the government the necessity of extending some protection to the primary steel industry of this country which would at least provide for the industry an equal opportunity in our home markets in competition with the mass production of the highly specialized steel industries of the United States.

We have asked that assistance be given towards the development of the large deposits of low grade iron ore that are known to exist in this country which would enable the primary steel industries to obtain their supplies of raw material in Canada, providing employment for Canadian labour, rather than depending upon a supply from outside Canada, as they do to-day. We have asked for a revision of the steel schedule in the customs tariff; that an adjustment of tariff be made which would afford more adequate protection for some grades and shapes of primary steel now manufactured in this country.

But nothing has been done, and during this time the imports of iron and steel and their products from the United States have enormously increased; the primary steel industries in Canada have been able to operate only part time, and many of our workers have been forced either to go to the United States to seek employment or to be content with working about three days a week. This can best be illustrated by a quotation from the brief submitted before the tariff board by the Algoma Steel Corporation in 1928, which in part reads as follows:

During the seven years (1921 to 1928) our steel-making capacity has been employed only to the extent of 39 per cent of rated capacity, and in only one year did we exceed 50 per cent, viz.: the fiscal year ended June last. The increase in that year was due entirely to the increased demand for standard rails and fastenings.

The salaries and wages paid during this period (1921 to 1928) amounted to $22,501,555.65, or an average of $3,214,507.95 per annum. Assuming full employment for our steel-making capacity, the additional wages paid within our own plant would amount to upwards of $2,000,000 per annum.

This would indicate that had we been given a proper fiscal policy during the past nine years, in my city alone an additional amount of $2,000,000 a year in wages might have been distributed among the workmen there, providing them with more steady employment and comforts for their families which many have not been able to enjoy.

The government now bring down a budget which contains several provisions to which I do not subscribe, but it does provide a certain measure of relief for the steel industry. It contains some things that we have been asking for, but they are several years too late. I am inclined to believe that the provisions contained in this budget have been adopted by the government as a matter of political expediency, and not from conviction, and I have no confidence in this government giving effect to this budget in a way that would be to the best advantage of the people of Canada. However, as the budget provides for certain changes in the customs tariff which will be of advantage to the steel industry in Canada, and on account of a promise which I have made to my constituents that I would support any legislation which would be beneficial to the industry, I, unlike the government in this regard, intend to keep faith with my people, and as a matter of personal honour will support the budget.

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

Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):

Mr. Speaker, I represent a Cape Breton constituency. With that island

The Budget-Mr. Simpson

I have been connected for three generations. I was elected as a supporter of the Conservative party. I have just voted for the amendment of that party declaring that, while certain of the proposals submitted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) are acceptable, others represent a betrayal of the confidence of the Canadian people in the previously declared fiscal policy of the government. During my election I promised the men and women amongst whom I live and practise my profession that I would support any government that would give a bounty to coal used as coke in the production of iron and steel as recommended by the Duncan report. That recommendation reads as follows :

It was pointed out to us that, at its inception. the Nova Scotia steel industry enjoyed national aid in the form of a bounty. This system of bounties prevailed for many years. We were asked to recommend that a bounty should be again made available. In this connection we have thought it right to give consideration to a point which was emphasized in the course of the evidence, viz.:-that a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty is given when imported coal is used for metallurgical purposes, and that this is tantamount to giving a bonus of that amount, since it means that the Dominion is yelding up money which otherwise under its general policy in regard to bituminous coal would accrue to it. While there are, no doubt, other angles from which this concession can be regarded, it does in its operation have the effect of a bonus, and it is difficult to see how the same bonus can be denied to native coal.

Having regard to the bounty system previously applied, and to this aspect of the application of the drawback, we recommend that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture, and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture.

That recommendation was made three years ago last September. I protest against the long delay in giving effect to it. Such delay has caused untold injury to my constituents and their families. But favouring as I do the payment of a bonus as recommended by the Duncan report, as a matter of personal honour I propose to vote for the motion and thereby keep my promise.

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

Herbert Bealey Adshead

Labour

Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not in my seat when the divisions on the subamendment and the amendment were taken, as I did not expect when I left the house at a few minutes to six that any division would be taken until the house resumed at eight o'clock. I merely rise to express my opinion on the main motion and on the amendment and the subamendment. Had I voted I would have voted against

the Conservative amendment and for the subamendment.

As regards the budget, I may say that I was first elected to this house on the principles of low tariff and free trade. I was painfully surprised during my first session to hear the member for, I think it was. Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lavigueur) state that he and his colleagues from Quebec were protectionist. At the time I made perhaps the rather crude remark that at last I knew why Sir Wilfrid Laurier was defeated in 1911; the protectionists in his ranks foreswore their low tariff principles and thus crucified Sir Wilfrid on a cross of protection. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) took exception to that remark of mine and said that it was not reciprocity but another issue which had turned some of the French-Canadians against their chieftain. May I say in regard to Sir Wilfrid Laurier that in 1905 I received a letter from him with respect to free trade, and in my opinion at no time in his long and distinguished career did he show to better advantage than in his defeat in 1911, for on that occasion he went down to defeat because he preferred to stick to his principles rather than continue in power by deserting those principles. In fact the leaven of protection seems to have been permeating the Liberal party ever since 1911. Pope has well said that:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,

As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

My hon. friends opposite at one time hated the name of protection, they despised it as something which should not be espoused by their party, but after seeing it for a while they began to endure, then pity, and now we find them embracing it-much to the amusement of my friends to my right.

I am rather sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot support the budget. There are many things in it that I like; but it contains a good many things that I do not like from the standpoint of low tariff or free trade. It looks to me that what Canada needs at the present time is leadership; the leadership of men who have some principles at heart, who believe in those principles, and who carry them out in spite of whatever may happen. Goldsmith, in describing the character of the village preacher, a man whom he admired very much, said that:

He tried each art, reproved each dull delay,

Allured to brighter worlds, and led the way.

I am afraid that at the present time the policies of this government, far from leading the way, have degenerated into an attitude

The Budget-Mr. Ernst

of putting its ear to the ground to see what can best be done to win the next election. I would have been more pleased to see my Liberal friends on the opposite side stick to the principles which they once professed and which Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Richard Cartwright, Alexander Mackenzie and others in this land of ours laid down as Liberal principles-'principles which do not change with the changing times. The square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares described on the other two sides. No amount of sophistry can ever alter that truth. If the principles upon which the platform of the Liberal party is based are sound, they do not change with the changing times. They do not look for leaders Who will fashion their doctrines to the varying hour.

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

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Will my hon. friend permit a question? He referred to the vote on the reciprocity question in the province of Quebec. May I tell him that the vote in Quebec showed a large majority in favour of reciprocity when his own county voted against it.

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

William Gordon Ernst

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):

Mr. Speaker, if hon. gentlemen opposite are expecting from me a declaration to the effect that I am going to support the budget, I may say that some of them, and those in particular who come from the west, should remember the copybook maxim that honesty is the best policy.

The budget has been debated at great length in respect to the main principles which it involves. There are however a few observations that I would like to make. It has been rightly stated that it will not be found palatable to the Canadian people, and I can think of no better illustration of the truth of this statement than to remind hon. members of the difficulty which that master swallower, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) had in swallowing the budget this afternoon. That hon. gentleman is a past master in the art of swallowing everything-even himself. When that hon. gentleman has had such difficulty I wonder how the Canadian people in the main will stomach it at all.

The budget contains many features which lead me to wonder how the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Crerar), who has obtained the portfolio of Minister of Railways in the present cabinet, will justify the vote he will cast in a few minutes in favour of this budget. I cannot understand his position, especially in view of the observations he made in the city of Winnipeg after he became Minister of Railways.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

It was before.

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

William Gordon Ernst

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ERNST:

No, since he became Minister of Railways. I have in my hand a copy of the Winnipeg Tribune dated January 22, 1930, and the hon. minister-

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

May 15, 1930