June 10, 1931

UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

What about

oranges?

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

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

I wonder what sort of goods we can take from New Zealand that we do not produce ourselves. I wonder what goods we can import from Great Britain that we do not produce ourselves? What Great Britain wants to sell to us are mostly the things that we manufacture ourselves. I wonder what he would sell to the United States that they do not produce themselves?

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Whisky.

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

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

He was even in favour of the prohibition of the sale of whisky to the United States. But is he willing to let our raw materials go to the United States? That is against his declared policy-about which we hear so little now-to ensure that our raw materials are all manufactured in this country. I am afraid if we take those four statements of his as to tariff policy they are inconsistent with one another and unworkable.

Besides, I would say that an extremely high tariff policy has had its day. I hope that we never have an extremely high tariff in this country.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

We have got it now.

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

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

Well, I hope we will nevet have continued an extremely high tariff in this country. We have an object lesson right before our eyes in the United States, which to-day is one of the most highly protected countries in the world, but has 7,000,000 people unemployed.

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

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

And Australia.

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

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

Yes, and Australia. The

United States have found out that their export trade has diminished by one half, that

The Budget-Mr. Euler

forty-five other countries have shown them that they can play the same game and have erected almost prohibitory tariffs against the United States. And if the fact that Canada is putting up an extremely high tariff all along the line hammers home the lesson to our friends in the United States that it does not pay to erect an extremely high tariff wall against the rest of the world, then perhaps it will have done some good. I had the opportunity recently of conversing with a gentleman from Pittsburgh, a member of the Republican party, which is the traditional high tariff party in the United States. I said to him: "We are constantly reading in the newspapers that even the Republican party in ycur country, your bankers, your businessmen, your great industrialists, are beginning to feel that you have gone entirely too far in the matter of high tariff." He replied: "You are absolutely right, that feeling has developed very strongly in the United States."

I had intended to read some articles which I think bear out what I have said, but I am afraid I have not sufficient time at my disposal. But the point I do want to impress on my hon. friends opposite-although I do not suppose I have any great influence over them-is this: Let us be reasonable at least and not go to the extreme in high tariff policy, a policy which has proved so detrimental to those who have adopted it. Let us profit by the experience of others. I might, perhaps, quote Sir Robert Falconer, president of Toronto university-I do not know his politics -who, speaking at Kitchener last January, said:

We must not allow barriers to arise that will separate us from others, with the idea that we can live unto ourselves. Such barriers were one of the biggest evils of the present time. Nations and races have never before been so interdependent, yet they are trying more than ever to shut themselves off, under the delusion that in such a way, prosperity might come to them.

Canon Cody, a good Conservative, and a former member of a Conservative government in Ontario, made a somewhat similar speech, also in Kitchener, in which he described the reasons for the economic depression but never gave as one of those reasons that the tariff was too low. In the League of Nations as well-I had the honour two years ago of being a delegate-there is a very decided trend towards lower tariffs. In fact there is a movement looking to a combination of the nations of Europe on a policy of lowering tariffs, and, indeed, wiping them out altogether. In passing may I say that if we neglect any opportunity we may have of making some sort of

trade arrangement with Great Britain, we may ultimately find that Great Britain has joined that group of nations and that we ourselves are on the outside with the United States.

I believe the government has a mandate to readjust the tariff, but they have no mandate to put the tariff so extremely high as, for example, during the special session last September, when they put the tariff on glass so high that it would have been profitable for us to pension every possible employee of that imaginary glass factory in the city of Hamilton and still save the consumers of glass nearly a million dollars a yeaT.

Our manufacturers themselves have a direct interest in not putting the tariff too high-in order to preserve their foreign markets. The factory equipment of this country is designed for export trade. In my home city of Kitchener the manufacturers export some 20 per cent of their product, and right now we have an example of what a high tariff may do. This government imposed a tariff of 8 cents on New Zealand butter, with the result that the New Zealand government have cancelled their agreement with us and have put us on the same' basis as the United States. In consequence of this, two large concerns in Kitchener have lost their market in that country for automobile tires. My right hon. friend has spoken of "blasting" his way into the markets of the world. I may receive criticism from my own side of the house, but I have no great fault to find with bargaining, because after all that is a primary principle in trade. But human nature is much the same now as it always has been, and the salesman who does not at least have a courteous, considerate and friendly approach will find that he cannot sell goods, especially when he has to meet such strong competition as prevails to-day.

I intended to comment on a few details of the budget itself and to deal with the fuel policy as there declared, but I shall not have sufficient time to do so. I think the people of Ontario and of the other provinces are perfectly willing to make some sacrifices for the sake of the general good of the dominion, but I do not like to see them asked to make sacrifices which null not have the desired result. I refer now fo the fuel policy of the government. They have put up the tariff on hard coal, coal which is not produced in this country, and which simply makes the cost of hard coal greater to the people of Ontario. They have put a higher tariff on soft coal, designed I suppose to help the coal industry of the maritime provinces; they have raised the tariff to 75 cents a ton. Let me

The Budget-Mr. Euler

show how that operates against the industries of western Ontario. Our people can buy slack coal in the United States at as low a price as 60 cents a ton. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) has been given authority, and has applied it, to say that that coal is worth II a ton. This means if it is brought in at 60 cents a ton he applies a dumping duty of 40 cents; add 40 cents to the 75 cents a ton duty which this budget imposes, and you get an aggregate duty of $1.15 on a commodity worth 60 cents, or a duty of neaidy 200 per cent. Now, one might not object, if that actually were going to do some good to our friends in the maritime provinces, but I doubt whether it will bring a ton of maritime coal to western Ontario. We are told sometimes by my friends from the west that they are being sacrificed for the interests of the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec. I do not think that is a fair charge. The people of Ontario and Quebec have been generous. They made no complaint when the maritime provinces received a reduction of 20 per cent in their freight rates. They made no complaint when the western farmers were given a five cent reduction on the freight rate on export wheat. They made no complaint when the Hudson Bay railway was constructed, which involves a capital expenditure of $50,000,000 and which, I think, will mean annual deficits for years to come. They made no complaint about the Crowsnest pass rate, but I say that they should complain if they are asked to make sacrifices because of the duty placed on coal, which duty will in my opinion be of no benefit to anyone.

I am opposed to the Russian embargo. I think it is inconsistent, unbusinesslike and ineffective. It will hurt no one but ourselves. The government has put on the prohibited list such commodities as coal, lumber, furs, asbestos and pulp. We imported none of these commodities except coal, and the only coal we did import was hard coal which we do not produce ourselves and we import less than $2,000,000 worth of that. The only good we do by putting hard coal from Russia on the prohibited list is to throw business to our friends the United States, who never have done a great deal for us. I have tried honestly to ascertain a reason for this action, but the only argument advanced is that we do not want to have anything to do with Russia because she is an ungodly nation and because she has a system of government with which we do not agree. I think the hon. member for Laibelle (Mr. Bourassa) has given a complete answer to this argument, and I am not going to deal further with the, matter except

to say that when we complain about Russia being an ungodly nation, let us first clean our own doorstep. Are we acting as a Christian nation when we declare economic war against another country?

I do not desire to be misunderstood. I hold no brief for Russia. She, has done a great deal that is wrong. She has oppressed her people-there are people in my own riding who have had to flee from that country. I have no sympathy with the method adopted, but I do not see, that we can accomplish anything by this action except harm to ourselves. We have the inconsistency-I almost said hypocrisy-or our high commissioner in Great Britain, who it has been pressed upon us by the Prime Minister represents the policies and wishes of this government, calling into conference delegates from Russia. Those delegates must have been laughing up their sleeves when we first said that we wanted to have nothing to do with them and then foy a side door procedure asked them to do something for us. That conference failed, as of course it would. I have examined this action from every point of view and I cannot but find that it is unbusinesslike, unethical, useless, injurious and provocative. Canada is the only nation to take such action. We should repeal it now, for we shall ultimately do so in any case.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like a few minutes in which to make a general statement with regard to conditions throughout Canada and the world in general. Any hon. member who has observed without prejudice the course of events surely must have acquired the opinion that our present economic system has to some extent outlived its usefulness and if not abandoned must at least be improved upon. As I said before, I am not a socialist, but I hope I am not afraid of new ideas because of their source.. Surely there must be something radically wrong with this country and with the world in general when we have these constantly recurring periods of inflation and depression. There is something wrong with a country which, although overflowing with everything the people need, is faced with misery and want indescribable. I hold no brief for Russia, but she is making a great experiment and we should not be prejudiced against that which is new even though it be Russian. Some good may come out of Russia, as it did out of the French revolution. There is no use in saying that a thing cannot be done. I have a conviction that Russia is working out something which if we do not accept-I have no thought whatever of accepting communism-may have some value, even if it only proves their theories wrong. Forty or fifty years ago we

The Budget-Mr. Baker

would have been shocked at some, of the things which we now accept as commonplace in this country, such as public ownership and the social legislation in our provincial and federal legislatures.

The Prime Minister has asked for the cooperation of all hon. members. He was chosen by the people of Canada, whether wisely or unwisely, and he has a right to ask for the cooperation of every conscientious member of this house. I feel sure. I can speak for all of them as quite willing to give of the ' best that is in them, and that includes myself. The proposals made by the Prime Minister must however commend themselves to our judgment, as being in the best interests of this country.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. RICHARD L. BAKER (Toronto-

Northeast) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to have the honour of addressing the house on the subject matter of this debate. However, previous to doing so, sir, I wish to extend to you my congratulations on the exalted post which you occupy in this house, * and, I also wish to express to you my sincere admiration on the excellent manner in which you preside over the proceedings of the house in both official languages. I trust that you may live long and in the best of health, because, bear in mind, you will be called upon, for many years to come, to serve this house in the post which you at present so ably fill and with the same government on your right.

May I, sir, convey to you and to hon. members of the house, my compliments and those of my constituents; I trust that we, members of this house, shall always work together for the *welfare of the people of Canada and that we shall live here in harmony for many years to come, of course, with the present government in office and under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) a farsighted statesman.

It seems a long time since I last addressed this house, I am pleased to state that my surroundings are better than in 1926. I was then occupying a seat on your left, sir, with about a hundred Conservatives filled with enthusiasm, but to-day I am on your right, sir, with 135 Conservatives happy, satisfied and supporting the government. All the provinces are well represented in this government, and we are pleased to note that 24 members come from the province of Quebec.

Yes, 24 members who speak the French language; and I hope that after the next election we shall lay claim to 50 members from Quebec and still more members from the other provinces.

It is a pleasure for me to endeavour for a few moments to speak the French language out of courtesy for the hon. members who speak French and also in acknowledgment of the two official languages of this country.

The house is composed of 245 members. We are all Canadians. We have Canadian members who speak the French language and Canadian members who speak English; and no members designated as French or English. I approve the stand taken by the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) when he states that our country comprises two great and noble races, and the two are here to remain; therefore we must fraternise. Look at Switzerland, it is a happy and peaceful country although some of its inhabitants speak French and others speak German. It is an excellent example for us to follow in Canada. In my opinion if more people in Canada spoke the two official languages it would be an excellent thing for the country.

I should like very much to speak more at length in French, but I cannot do so to-day because my vocabulary is limited and I have but forty minutes at my disposal; you readily understand that I can be better understood in English. Therefore, sir, with your kind permission I shall continue my remarks in English.

Referring to the all important question of the day, the budget of 1931, I observe that the same old custom is in vogue which many members have followed in the past, that of giving from their viewpoint a name to the annual financial statement. This budget plus the tariff changes and the dumping clauses introduced at the special session last September I would name the Bennett budget- a business budget delivered by a business man in a business manner. This budget, as I view it, is the national policy as originally introduced by the famous Sir John A. Macdonald in 1879, brought up to date by the Right Hon. Richard B. Bennett. This is the first opportunity for many a year, unfortunately for Canada, that the Conservative party have been in a position to put in operation a fiscal policy of adequate protection which they have always adhered to as the correct policy for Canada-adequate protection for all industry: agriculture, manufacturing, mining, the fisheries, et cetera.

Personally, I regard the introduction of this budget as the beginning of a new era which will mean greater success and greater

The Budget-Mr. Baker

prosperity to our dominion. The fact of the matter is that Canada was sick and decided she would call in a new doctor. She has called in that doctor in the person of the present Prime Minister. He and his cabinet have diagnosed the case and are now starting to administer the necessary medicine. It is true that some of our friends opposite regard this medicine as severe, but it is the medicine which Canada needs. Usually a doctor does not ask the patient's opinion of the medicine he prescribes; he prescribes what he thinks is good for him. The patient will soon now begin to improve, and as is usually the case, when the condition of a patient is showing improvement the medicine can perhaps be modified.

I do not intend to attempt to go into all the items of the budget in detail; that will be done in committee of the whole. We have heard many points of view expressed with regard to the budget. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) gave his criticism as official spokesman for the opposition, and he did wonderfully well for what little complaint he had to work on. We also heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) reply to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, which he did in a magnificent manner. I think we will all agree that the minister certainly did not leave much ground for the opposition to stand on when he got through with his answer to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. There are a few important points, however, with respect to which I desire to make some observations.

It has been generally admitted, even by fair members of the opposition, that this budget is perhaps the most complete statement of the country's affairs that has ever been presented, and there is no doubt that its thoroughness and accuracy are appreciated and have been well received by the people throughout Canada. Of course a budget which increases taxation is rarely popular, but the Prime Minister, does not desire to consider popularity; he is simply dealing courageously with facts based on the necessities of the country under prevailing conditions. Had the same course been followed always it would have been appreciated by all Canadians, and we now have a precedent established for a correct basis for the laying down of future budgets.

For example, the last budget was not based on this principle. If it had been, it would not have been necessary to provide for so much increased taxation in the present budget. When the previous government were

making up their budget in 1930, a deficit was to their knowledge, being created. The revenues were declining and they should have been aware that thes'' were not budgeting in sufficiently large quantities of money to meet the requirements of 1930. This proved to be the result. Had they, as they should have done, anticipated the decline in revenues, they should not have removed the one per cent sales tax as they did. As a matter of fact they should added one per cent to the sales tax, and had they done so, there would have been $40,000,000 less to be raised in this budget in order to make up the deficit which occurred last year. That would have been fairer and better business. We all agree that the object of the budget was to raise sufficient money to carry on for the year ending March 31, 1932. This budgeting had to be done regardless of which party was in power. We have heard a great deal of criticism from the other side in connection with the raising of the sales tax to 4 per cent, but the previous government on one occasion, and quite correctly, increased the sales tax to 6 per cent in order to obtain the money required to carry on the business of the country. The Minister of Finance in this budget is not bidding for popularity; he is, as I say, figuring on the requirements for the year.

I desire to make a few observations in re- ' gard to the question of wheat. The assistance which the government has decided upon is no doubt appreciated by every hon. member.

It is certainly a good move; while wheat is low in price, assistance of this kind is a good policy. If the price advances, the assistance will not be necessary, and no doubt when that time comes the matter will be dealt with accordingly.

As regards the question of wheat production,

I stand exactly where I stood when I addressed the house on the budget in 1926. I then said that in my opinion this country was too much dependent on the export of wheat and that Russia would soon be a serious menace in our British market. Perhaps some hon. members who are present will remember that occasion.

I suggested that it would be advisable to turn as much land in the west as possible to mixed farming, and I think a policy of that sort is much more acceptable now than it was then. Had it been put into effect at that time, we would not be facing the dilemma on the wheat question that we are facing to-day. I would suggest that the farmers of the west take advantage as soon as possible of the arrangements made by the government; those whose land can be used for mixed farming

The Budget-Mr. Baker

should as promptly as possible devote less of their land to wheat growing and set aside a portion for mixed farming, particularly when we are importing hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of farm products annually. We did so in 1926 and we are doing it yet to a lesser degree, and even that should really not be necessary.

Many hon. members may ask: What do

you know about farming? I do not presume to know about farming; I am simply applying business principles. For example, if we have in a factory 100 machines producing one line of goods and we find that the market is being glutted in this * line, we endeavour to take say fifty of these machines and turn them to producing another line of goods on which there is not as much competition. The same principle can be applied to the wheat fields of the west, and if this is done it will make us less dependent on the production of wheat there. Then, when wheat becomes low in price, it does not affect Canada so much. That is proved by the fact that in the provinces that are not so dependent upon wheat, they have not the same amount of distress as there is in the west.

Again, a manufacturer producing certain raw materials, for instance, yarn, sometimes finds that so many are in that line of business that he cannot make a profit. He then sets himself to figure what finished products he could put his yarns into and make a profit on the finished article. That is good business. I am simply suggesting that if we apply this principle to farming, there is no doubt that much of the different kinds of grain grown in the west could be used for feeding and a market found for the finished product. I think it has been generally admitted, for example, that 'the price of barley is so low that it cannot be profitably grown. Perhaps if this barley could be used in feeding swine a profit could be made from an export bacon business, and in that way the farmer might be able to work out a profit. I am simply suggesting this course as something which will assist materially in bringing about an improvement of conditions in the west.

I should like to say a few words regarding Russia, a subject which has been brought up many times in the house. I wish to put myself on record as endorsing and being absolutely in favour of the 'ban which was placed by the government on the importation of certain articles from Russia. It was a magnificent stand and an example to the rest of the world. The competition which Russia offers is very unfair; she is practically a commercial enemy of ours. As we all know she works her people

on a semi-slavery basis, which, for the sake of humanity, should not be encouraged. If for no other reason, we ought to refuse to have any commercial dealings with Russia. If we trade with her, we are giving her gold to establish herself and make herself more powerful commercially against us than she is at present. The ex-Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) when he was addressing the house this afternoon, said that we were taking the position of making an attack on an enemy. But Russia first attacked us by undermining our system and working her people on a scale of wages which we do not desire in this country. Canada and other countries for years have been endeavouring to raise the standard of living and the wages of the workingmen. Russia is a commercial as well [DOT]as a religious enemy, and personally I very strongly endorse the action the government have taken against Russia. What is more, I think it is time that Great Britain and the United States understand that the sooner they make a similar step the better. At the present time England is giving Russia for heT wheat millions of dollars which are helping Russia to increase her production against England's own colonies. She may have bought, and in fact did buy, Russian wheat cheaper than she could have bought Canadian wheat, because Russia quoted no definite price but accepted in every case a lower price than that asked by anyone else. That is unfair competition. England may think she has bought cheap wheat, but I fear that England before very long may come to the conclusion that it would have been better for her if she had paid 85 or 90 cents for Canadian wheat than bought Russian wheat at 65 cents a bushel. If the bolshevist does not succeed with his five year plan he will throw his country into revolution and upset Europe. Then the difference between the price which England paid Russia for her wheat as against the price at which she could have bought Canadian wheat will soon be absorbed in the amount of gold she will have to expend 'because she will be forced into the turmoil. She will also suffer the loss of many splendid men. On the other hand, the extra amount which she might have paid for Canadian wheat might have meant an increase of only a penny or half a penny on a loaf of bread.

The proposals suggested by the Prime Minister when he was at the Imperial conference will yet be listened to more attentively. They will yet be adopted, if not in all their details, at least in general principle. But the trouble is that under the present government in England we cannot hope for any results in that respect.

The Budget-Mr. Baker

I look upon Russia as an enemy, and here in our own country we have people trying to spread atheism and communism. The hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) stated in the house, and I have not seen his statement contradicted, that there were 121 schools in this country teaching atheism. That is a shameful state of affairs. A great mistake is often made in speaking of the policies of bolshevism, socialism and communism as opposed to capitalism. Boiled down, it is really a question of collectivism as against individualism. Will anybody here say that we want the system of collectivism to supplant our system of individualism in this country, which brings out the best in our citizens? What percentage of our people woidd like to see their grandchildren brought up under the system of collectivism? It is more or less generally assumed that it is the capitalist that is opposed to these principles which Russia is spreading. That is not the case. I say that the majority of the people of this country, the working people who own their modest little homes, are opposed to collectivism and want to see individualism prevail. That is the class that is against collectivism.

Speaking for myself only, I would have gone even further than the government has done. I claim that any man from this dominion who lends his services to the building up of Russia is working for the enemy, and I would cancel the citizenship of any man who left Canada 'to go and work for Russia. I would class him as a man who is assisting the enemy. Russia is an enemy of ours from the fact that she is tearing down the standard of living for the working man, while Canada and other countries have been for years and years trying to build up the standard of living for the workingman. Again, if Russia breaks out in revolution, we would be under the obligation of protecting our citizens, which there would be very little chance to do. Nevertheless we would be implicated in any upheaval which might occur in Russia. Let those who wish to help Russia go and live amongst those people Let them experiment there, and not here in Canada.

There is one thing that has impressed me during this session. I would like to see more cooperation and less partisanship in this house.

I do not think there has been a period in Canada's history since the war when the work of the government has been so difficult, and therefore is it not a good suggestion that partisanship should be softened as much as possible, at least for the present? There should be more cooperation from the opposition, instead of attempts to make the task of the

government as difficult as possible. This remark does not apply to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and some other ex-ministers, as it does to some of the backbenchers on the other side of the house. I am also pleased to say that my suggestion does not apply to our friends of the United Farmers group. They have as a rule tried to assist, and have often spoken very kindly of our Prime Minister and his government. To cite only one example-there were others-I would refer to the speech of the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas), who made some very good suggestions and spoke very kindly indeed. I feel that it is the wish of the people of Canada during this difficult period that partisanship should be obliterated, that we should have more cooperation in this house, and that the opposition should do all in its power to assist the government in its difficult task. It is not the wish of the people of Canada that on nearly every occasion when the government attempts to go into supply and take up the estimates some backbencher of the opposition should move a motion equivalent to a vote of censure, and take up the time of the house for days, and finally the whole thing end in no benefit and no results. To give an example, one hon. member of the opposition said that he would not - help the Prime Minister, if he could. I cite that as an example of the attitude of some of the opposition members. I think it is very unfair, and certainly it is not what the country wants.

As I said before, I personally am very much pleased that the adjourned economic conference is not going to be held in Ottawa this year, because I do not think there would have been any results under present conditions. But I believe that the proposals made by the Prime Minister of this country to the Imperial conference were sound and would have been for the benefit of the British Empire. I believe that we shall yet see the day when they will be wholly or in part adopted by the British Empire. The seeds are planted, and they will produce good results.

In these difficult times it is necessary for us all to have courage and confidence, which should be backed with much hard work. Let us rally together and have faith in our country, and confidence in our Prime Minister and in our cabinet. Let us show our appreciation of the wonderful amount of hard work that our Prime Minister is doing, and try to assist him as much as we can. Uet us work hard and be as cheerful as possible

The Budget

Mr. McMillan (Huron)

while confronting the difficulties before us. Let us not be discouraged, and let us not become too exuberant when better times come, as undoubtedly they will. When times are good, everybody was flying high and not looking forward to more difficult days to come. Let us endeavour to plan better next time. We were all more or less equally to blame, but the people in the eastern provinces perhaps less than others, because they do not go up so high in the air or go as low down in the dumps as they do in other parts of the country, so there has been less difficulty in the east than in other parts of the country. Let us remember the kindly advice of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) the other night, to keep in equilibrium; or the advice of the old Greek theologian who, addressing a young student who had completed his studies and was going out into the world, said:

Be calm my Delius and serene,

However fortune change the scene.

In thy most dejected state,

Sink not underneath the weight:

Nor yet when the happy days begin,

And the full tide comes rolling in:

Let not the fierce unruly joy,

The settled quiet of thy mind destroy.

If we finish up the business in this house, get back to our work and carry on with the idea that this country is all right; if we all pull together and do our share of the work in a time like this and remain cheerful, the Prime Minister and his cabinet will guide the ship of state safely back to the harbour of prosperity. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about that. When the time arrives let us endeavour to remember the advice given by the old Greek theologian which I quoted in the house a few moments ago. The present government fully realizes the necessity of Canada being built up to a strong and prosperous country, and it is introducing the correct policies with which to achieve that purpose. We are the connecting link between the eastern and western sections of the British Empire. We realize that Canada's strength is essential to the strength of the British Empire, and that the continued strength of the British Empire is absolutely essential to the welfare of the world at large.

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

Thomas McMillan

Liberal

Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon.

22U0-159J

friend from Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker) upon the admirable address he has given in the French language. In that respect I wish I could emulate his example. I am afraid however that from that point onward we will have to part company but, let me assure him, in the best of friendship.

I am sorry that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) are not in their seats to-night. I should be pleased indeed to see them there. We waited eagerly for the budget speech, the contents of which have now been revealed. If the provisions contained in that budget along with the tariff enactments imposed last fall are fully carried into effect, I tremble for the future of Canadian agriculture. Economically I believe Canada is in the most critical situation of her history. Conditions are such that this is no time for any hon. member of the house to rise and talk cheap party politics. Politics in the true sense of the term means the science of government, the government and regulation of a nation to ensure the principles of peace, security, progress and prosperity. All hon. members acknowledge that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada, and that the constant condition of agriculture is the barometer of trade. Without a dominant agriculture the whole national economic fabric would fall to pieces. Never has that fact been demonstrated in Canada as it is being demonstrated at the present time. For the last ten or twelve months business conditions have been practically paralyzed. That situation has been greatly intensified through the defeat of the tariff proposals of the last Liberal budget and the heavy tariff impositions of the present government. With trade falling off, revenues declining, transportation seriously restricted, the national debt piling up, expenditures growing, immigration reduced to a minimum, unemployment so rife that in the midst of bulging warehouses and overflowing elevators we have the lurid picture of thousands of destitute people living under conditions of semi-starvation, even in that section of the country known as the granary of the empire, we have an economic picture unpleasant to look upon.

The purchasing power of the great body of our people has been most seriously curtailed. Why? Because the farmer is unable to sell for the bare cost of production the product of his labour. As a consequence his purchasing power has greatly diminished and the whole national economic fabric is threatened. Under such circumstances consider the treatment this government has been handing

2500 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. McMillan (Huron)

out to Canadian agriculture. Talk about finding a market for Canadian farm produce in Great Britain, but with the Prime Minister's total disregard of the elementary laws of economics how can we expect to gain a market in Great Britain? True, he and his colleagues went over there to see what they could do in the matter, but having practically bolted the door in advance to the importation of a great many British goods, how could they expect to obtain a market for Canadian farm produce? Because of the tariff changes which were made in this house during the short session their mission was defeated before they ever set foot in England. In face of ti.at fact it is a thousand pities that the opposition in this house did not delay the government in its diabolical tariff program so that members of the government would not have been able to reach England for the opening exercises which set off at ouch a ridiculous pace. I have said before and I repeat that the prime reason for the abject failure of the conference lies in the fact that the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet apparently have become protectionist crazy and seemed to be convinced that Canada must not buy anything from abroad which could possibly be produced at home. The very thought of allowing industry to stand on its own feet in both home and foreign competition almost makes them shudder in their shoes. If they would for one moment listen to reason, to common sense, they would realize that a spirit of healthy emulation is best for any industry or for any individual in any condition of life-that is, if you want to bring out the best in either. When the Prime Minister went over to Great Britain to find a market for Canadian wheat it was the silliest course imaginable on his part to increase the tariff against British goods, to the detriment of British trade. I am sorry indeed that my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is not in his seat to-night, because I am sure he did not do himself justice when he was replying to the speech made by my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). I was amused indeed to hear his story of what the Prime Minister and his colleagues, more particularly, did to secure a further market in Britain and continental Europe for our wheat. Hon members will recall he told us that whereas there had only been 155,000,000 bushels of wheat shipped from Canada to Europe in the fall of 1930, as much as 188,000,000 bushels had been shipped this year. If the hon. gentleman had been true to

himself and to his colleagues he would have stated the facts of the situation. It is common knowledge to most people that in the crop year 1929-30 the price of Canadian wheat was comparatively high, $1.25 a bushel, and the condition of millions of working men and women in Britain and continental Europe was such that they had to depend on the cheaper grains, such as barley and rye, and potatoes, to eke out a miserable existence. But in 1930-31, the Hawley-Smoot tariff having been passed by congress on May 29, 1929, no less than fourteen countries of Europe and Asia put a prohibitive duty on the importation of flour, more particularly from the United States. They did not want flour in their country that was not mixed with the products of their own farms. In consequence of that prohibitive duty, coupled with the fact that the price of wheat had fallen so low, our surplus wheat did not need to be sold,-it was being given away under the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite. They should be the last gentlemen in the world to tell the people of this country that they tried to sell our wheat at the ridiculously low price that they obtained for it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce took great credit to himself and to his colleagues for having appointed John McFarland to take charge of the Canadian wheat pool. Hon. members are aware that Mr. McFarland closed 27 wheat pool agencies in Britain and continental Europe. While I am speaking on this matter, I may well put on Hansard again the report sent to the Times-Joumal by its Paris correspondent under date of March 18:

Since the Canadian wheat pool closed its *offices in Paris, Canadian wheat is sold only through the grain trade. Millers know perfectly well that the traders are not doing business without a profit. They also know that in many cases the wheat which is offered to them has passed through middlemen who have increased the price a few cents, and this does not tend to please the buyer any more than it has added to the profit of the Canadian farmer.

The French people find it difficult to understand why the Paris office of the Canadian pool has been closed when millers willing to buy Canadian wheat without middlemen were buying dt under conditions which suited them.

Mark these words:

Prices were the same for every kind of buyer-miller, merchant or broker. It was good business without a preferential tariff, buyers knowing that the prices were those quoted daily by Winnipeg.

What about Portugal? I ask hon. members to listen to this:

Portugal has authorized recently the importation of foreign wheat for its own oonsump-

The Budget-Mr. McMillan (Huron)

tion. Repiresenta/toives from the Soviet, the Danubian countries and the Argentine have been on the spot to bid closely for the quantity allowed. This has resulted in an order for 45,000 tons being given to the Argentine. If Canada bad had her representatives there at the time, the chances are that she would have obtained the order or .at least a part of it.

I see my hon. friend from West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) talking. He was so full of merriment last night that when my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) was addressing the house he told him to talk the English language. Let me tell my hon. friend opposite that the day has long since gone by when Scotchmen in this country or in an)' other country in the world need be ashamed either of their character or of their language. What about Italy? Let hon. members listen to this:

It is known that through reciprocal arrangement she is buying this year Soviet wheat in exchange for manufactured goods.

The Canadian agents of the wheat pool were not there because of the action taken by this government through Mr. McFarland.

Why is it that the great English cooperative societies that purchase $550,000,000 worth of goods per annum have not been buying wheat and other commodities more largely in the Canadian market? Simply because other countries with whom they are dealing are willing to accept British goods in exchange, while Canada under this government is not ready to do so. Those other countries realize that the full measure of trade is to be found in the interchange of products, and if business is to flow in any volume at all, this is the manner in which it must be brought about. What of Argentina? During the fall of 1929 she was able to dispose of her whole crop before the 1930 crop was ready. Why? Because the people and government of Argentina are willing to accept the goods of Great Britain and other countries in exchange for their wheat-something which Canada under this government is not ready to do.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Why didn't you sell our wheat? You had the chance.

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

Thomas McMillan

Liberal

Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):

I would remind my hon. friend that I did not interrupt him nor any other member on his side of the house. I am pleased indeed that my hon. friends on this side gave the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Baker) a most attentive hearing, and I shall be pleased to accept in return the same courtesy from hon. gentlemen opposite.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Now will the hon. member be good.

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

Thomas McMillan

Liberal

Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):

Upon this government rests the responsibility of enlarging

the overseas market for Canadian products. It should not hesitate to make trade and low tariff agreements with that object in view, that is if the Prime Minister was sincere in his pledge to try to put the whole weight and power of the Dominion of Canada behind agriculture to aid and support that industry. The fact is that up to the present time he and his government have put the whole weight of the Dominion of Canada on top of agriculture to try to crush out its remaining life blood. This government is losing and will continue to lose opportunities to help agriculture and thus relieve the present depression if it does not soon make a radical change in its present fiscal policy. It could not do better than begin at once to rescind those diabolical measures which were placed on the statute books last fall. Those measures should have never been put upon the statute books and were allowed only on the distinct understanding that they were to be thoroughly reviewed and reconsidered during the present session.

Rather than giving, any relief, the present budget has saddled the farmers of this country with a much heavier burden. Let us deal with the sales and income taxes at one time. This is not a poor man's budget. I received the following telegram from Mr. Coyle, of the Carnation Milk Company, at Aylmer:

Sales tax from which we w'ere formerly exempted will mean approximately an annual loss of $100,000 to farmers of Alymer district.

Representations against this tax have been filed already at Ottawa by a number of the thirty plants manufacturing these milk products in Canada. The loss to Canadian farmers will be about three million dollars per annum. It is most unfair to tax condensed and evaporated milk when butter and cheese and other milk products are free. Harvest tools, spades, shovels, axe handles, shears, milk cans and the like are under a heavy tariff already, but the government adds a sales tax of four per cent. I would like to know upon what principle this present budget is based. The bi-weekly milk and cream cheques which the farmers receive for the milk which they send to the cheese factories and creameries will have to be stamped, and that charge must be paid by the struggling poor. In many instances they could probably get more money if they would paste a stamp on their notes and renew them. The rich sign cheques for thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars; why not tax them in proportion? But no, they are obliged to pay the same amount of tax. The rich travel in parlour and sleeping cars, they send telegrams and cables, but

2502 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. McMillan (Huron)

they get off scot free. Where is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) ? I thought he would remain, in his seat. Where was he when this budget was being prepared? He was here two years ago when the budget provisions of that year were being discussed. When this budget was being prepared I would have thought he would have stood over the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) with a cudgel to tell him that he must look after the interests of the struggling masses of this country. He has forgotten all the protests he made at that time.

The poor man's tea is taxed while the wines and beverages of the rich go free. Oranges, pineapples, prunes, figs and other fruits essential to the poor man's table are taxed with this four per cent sales tax, but what happens to a man with an income of $50,000 per year? Under the old income tax he had to pay $10,530 more, and according to the 1929 return there were over 523 in this country who were in receipt of an income this large or larger. If these men were taxed as they were taxed previously it would increase the revenue of the public treasury by over five and one-half million dollars. But these men are allowed to go free while the struggling masses are taxed.

This government is striking a death blow at the purity of the political life of this country. Parliament will soon become a sink of corruption. Hon. members will come here not to represent the national interests but rather to support the special interests of particular industries. Never were truer words spoken than those of the British chancellor of the exchequer who said: Once begin a policy of protection and you are on a slippery slope which leads to a bottomless pit.

Then we come to the tax on coal. Since I first came to this house six years ago I have heard more trash talked on the floor of parliament regarding a national fuel policy than would fill many volumes.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

You said it.

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

Thomas McMillan

Liberal

Mr. McMILLAN:

A national fuel policy is written across the North American continent just as clear as the nose on one's face. We might apply to this national fuel policy the words of the poet who said of the gentleman :

Old nature stamps him in her mint

And trains him in her schools,

And laughs at all the counterfeits

We make by squares and rules.

The government should allow nature to take her course and then the coal mines of the maritime provinces would be supplying eastfMr. McMillan.]

ern Canada, and the Atlantic portion of the United States. Pennsylvania and Virginia would supply Ontario with their anthracite and bituminous coal requirements. Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Vancouver Island would supply western Canada, west of Winnipeg and the western states of the American republic. That is the only true coal policy for the Dominion of Canada. In replying to any criticism of such a policy we may well cite the historic words of the highland clergyman, "You can whistle until you are black in the face but I will not take one more inch off those foxes' tails."

We have no time to deal with the separate tariff items, but they will be dealt with fully in committee. However, let me mention a few of them. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) dealt with the butter situation, and anyone who will look at the matter from the standpoint of common sense must realize that the action of this government has demoralized the butter market of Canada. We have lost the trade of New Zealand; we have been cut out of her British preferential relations.

Let us take Indian com. After one of the most strenuous fights in history, in the eighties and nineties of the last century, the cattle feeders of Ontario were able to get United States com free of duty. It was a godsend to the cattle feeders of this country. There is no other single grain which, mixed with others, will give such satisfactory returns. We will discuss this matter carefully and minutely in committee, but at the moment I would exhort hon. gentlemen opposite to realize that this is a raw material for the live stock farmer, and to allow him the privilege of bringing it in free of duty. Give him credit for sufficient common sense, and take it for granted that if he thinks it will not pay him to import it he will not do so. Millions of bushels are brought into my province, every winter for feeding purposes.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Will my hon. friend permit a question?

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

Thomas McMillan

Liberal

Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):

I shall have to ask the hon. gentleman to wait until some other time. My time is nearly up now. Mr. Speaker, we shall have an opportunity later on to discuss these items, and there are many other things which we shall have to look into. Take, for example, gasoline : I cannot sit down without saying a word in this regard. I was surprised that the Prime Minister the other day, after the regulations which this government has put into

The Budget-Mr. Stanley

effect, when he was asked a question with respect to the duty on gasoline, was so ready to hide behind provincial jurisdiction. Owing to these duties there have been established in this country plants for the refining of gasoline, employing 4,978 persons, to whom they pay $8,153,000 per annum. But to get that industry under the present duty and regulations which are now in existence necessitates a tax on those who use gasoline in Canada to the extent of over $20,000,000 per annum. Obviously, therefore, we could pension these workmen to the full extent of the wages they receive, allow them to go idle all year, and then we should have over $10,000,000 in our pockets. That is the fault I find with many of these schedules. Take the margin which the tariff enables the manufacturers to put into their pockets, extracting large sums from the consumers of Canada in the line of cotton and woollen goods and footwear. With the extra margin which the tariff compels our people to pay in regard to these three articles we could pension all the workmen and salaried employees whom these industries engage, to the full extent of the wages and salaries they receive, let them go idle all year, and then there would be a comfortable margin left in our pockets.

I am not here preaching free trade. But when the Prime Minister asks the question, "Can Canada in a protected world be other than a protected country", I say to the right hon. gentleman that this country would advance, and it would relieve the burden which bears upon the great mass of the people, the men who form the base of the prosperity of Canada, if we reduced the tariff so decisively and emphatically as to leave the Canadian industries under a reasonable revenue tariff such as would give us double the revenue we derive to-day. It would give the industries of Canada an opportunity to progress. In my opinion they would do well to rely upon their ingenuity and their own resources instead of looking to the government for favours. The effect of the tariff which we have in this country is simply to say to the manufacturers and industrial men of Canada, "Come ye, all and sundry, and we will show you, through acts of parliament, how you can make money and become rich by trading on the necessities of the people."

The manufacturers and industrial men of Canada can hide behind these high tariffs and do what they please. You have only to examine the tariff schedules, and more particularly the preliminary resolutions, to realize the truth of what I am saying; for these resolutions are of such a nature as to leave the Minister of National Revenue free to do almost anything he likes. He has the full power to raise the valuations for duty purposes as high as he pleases or to put them as low as he sees fit. He may change them at pleasure. If that is not an exhibition of high protection gone crazy, against the most solemn protests of Liberals in this parliament, 1 should like to know what you would call it.

There are many other things I might say with respect to these tariff resolutions, but just now let me say this. The members of this cabinet, in raising the duties, have times without number hidden behind the little word dumping. This little word dumping has been the scapegoat for more diabolical legislation enacted in this parliament than any other one word in the language. For -whom are the members of this cabinet working? If they are working in the interests of the great majority of the people of the country rather than in the interests of particular industries, why do they talk so much about dumping? If they are not working for these special interests, they are working for the great body of the people of the country. And the great body of the Canadian people stand in the same position as I do-indeed, in the same position that every other gentleman in this house takes. Do we not all want our requirements at a reasonable cost? I should like to see one man in this house stand up and tell me he does not want his requirements at a reasonable cost. Why, even the Minister of National Revenue told us in September that it was often pleasant to get the benefit of stolen goods at low prices. And surely he ought to know. Yet the cabinet sit over there, seemingly with the united support of all hon. gentlemen behind them, ready to back them up at any moment in their attitude, and are prepared to pass through this house enactments which have the effect of draining the life blood from the masses of the people. Go through the tariff from beginning to end and you will see it. I wish I had time to demonstrate this, but if my health and strength serve me, before we get through these items I shall have more to say in this regard.

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

George Douglass Stanley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. G. D STANLEY (East Calgary):

I

wish to congratulate the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) upon his growing spirit of moderation, which since I have been a member of the house has become more manifest, I think the hon. member is mellowing to such an extent that before long we may look forward to the day when he will be ready to cooperate with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker).

The Budget-Mr. Stanley

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

Thomas McMillan

Liberal

Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):

That is what they are passing the new act for.

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

George Douglass Stanley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STANLEY:

been doing in western Canada? I do not know that that is the exact way of putting it. Perhaps I should say, what has Canada been arranging for western Canada to do in regard to wheat? Wherever the responsibility rests, the fact of the matter is that western Canada, and I include the province of Alberta, has been concentrating on the growing of wheat, and we have been doing that to the neglect of the other branches of the agricultural industry. The whole financial structure of western Canada, I think I am safe in saying, is built up on wheat. Loans are granted upon it; our banking system is closely related to it, and for years past the farmer has been encouraged on every hand to grow wheat and still more wheat. So with our transportation systems, and government policy in connection with immigration and colonization looks to the raising of wheat and extension of the wheat growing industry. The trade treaties which have been made provide markets for our wheat. So much has wheat been brought to the front that we have been encouraged to grow wheat and to discourage the development of the live stock industry. As a matter of fact we have been depending on our wheat industry, we have been going after the wheat dollar, which is by no means certain and to a very large extent have been ignoring the more certain penny of mixed farming. The farmer alone has not brought about this condition, but the whole structure of Canadian financial and transportation policies has forced him into a position whereby he must concentrate upon the production of wheat. Thus it is that during the four years from 1021 to 1024 inclusive, the wheat exports of Canada were valued at $305,000,000. In a later four year period, from 1025 to 1028 inclusive, the value of wheat exports increased to $465,000,000. That increase was made in spite of the fact that the visible wheat supply of the world increased from a value of $266,000,000 in 1026 to $563,000,000 in 1029. When the depression came, due to the fact that the prosperity of western Canada depended upon the production of wheat, the bubble burst. The collapse occurred and the purchasing power of the people in the western provinces went down to the extent of about $300,000,000. During the time the concentration on wheat was taking place the exports of beef fell off in a period of six years from 35,000,000 pounds to

26,000,000 pounds; the exports of pork fell off from 138,000,000 pounds to 18,500,000 pounds; of mutton from an export of 1,300,-(Mr. Stanley.]

000 pounds to an import of 4,000,000 pounds. The imports of canned meats increased from

2,000,000 pounds to 8,000,000 pounds, or a poundage equal to 10,000 head of cattle. The imports of chilled beef were 5,000,000 pounds, an amount equal to 5,000 head of cattle. Butter changed from an export of 27,000,000 pounds to an import of 50,000,000 pounds; cheese exports decreased from 140,000,000 pounds to 90,000,000 pounds; woollen imports ranged from 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 pounds yearly. Strangely enough, I learned a few days ago that the province of Alberta imported last year 97 carloads of condensed milk.

To summarize the whole situation, during the past ten years the grain exports increased from a value of $220,000,000 to a value of $476,000,000. The value of animal products exported decreased from $156,000,000 to $55,000,000. If we take these statistics and try to find out where the slump came last year we will find, when we compare the agricultural values of 1020 with those of 1030 that the decrease in all Canada amounted to about $390,000,000. The gross decrease in Alberta was valued at $72,000,000, and of that decrease 85 per cent was due to field crops. In Saskatchewan there was a decrease of $124,000,000, 03 per cent of which was due to a decrease in field crops. In Manitoba there was a gross decrease valued at $30,500,000, 90 per cent of which was due to field crops. Taking the whole of Canada 95 per cent of the decrease was due to field crops, mostly wheat.

That was the situation in western Canada while we were building up and concentrating on one crop, decreasing our general agricultural products on every hand and ignoring the fact that there was an open market here for agricultural products to an extent of $75,000,000 that we were allowing to come in from outside. Exports were coming in from other countries that our own farmers could very well have provided. At the same time we ignored the bacon market in the old country. Great Britain's import of that commodity in 1921 amounted to 636,000,000 pounds and in 1929 it had increased to 1,000,000,000 pounds, representing an increase of 55 per cent. Canada's share of Great Britain's bacon import decreased from 14 per cent to 2 per cent while at the same time the amount shipped by Denmark increased from 12 per cent to 60 per cent.

In this connection there are at least two or three other facts which might be appropriately mentioned. In the first place, while

The Budget-Mr. Stanley

in Canada we have sufficient flour mills to grind into flour 42 per cent of our total crop, only 20 per cent of our average wheat crop is milled. Most of our wheat was ground into flour in the old country. Why? Because in that country it can be milled much cheaper. Why? Because there is not a great enough market for by-products such as bran and shorts. Why is there not a market? Because we have been allowing our live stock to decrease and corn to come in from the United States. My hon. friend from Huron (Mr. McMillan) referred to the fact that we had placed a duty on corn. May I say to him and to all hon. members that we in western Canada, either by choice or by force *-and hon. members may choose as they wish *-have concentrated upon the production of wheat. We provide a very substantial market for the industrial sections of Canada. The industrial cities of Canada in Ontario and Quebec have their home market because to a large extent we in western Canada supply the market for their products. We take the very logical statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler) we have the right to sell our products where we buy. If the people of western Canada buy manufactured products from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec we have a right to say to the farmers of Ontario who have their home markets in these cities and towns, " You should buy some of our western agricultural products."

Allow me to proceed one step farther. While we in the west have been concentrating on the production of wheat, what has been happening in the eastern provinces? Naturally there has been concentration on industrial activities so that to-day in those provinces we find industrial centres, and we find also that the agricultural products of western Canada are isolated from these markets. That condition has come about as the logical result of the policies which have been followed. I am not going to discuss at this time the respective policies of the two chief political parties, but the fact is that in the east there has been a centralization in one respect and in the west in another respect. The question naturally presents itself to me as a resident of Alberta: How can

we extend the markets for her agricultural and her fuel products?

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, for a moment to give a summary of our geographical position, particularly in regard to these two natural products. We are at least 2,000 miles from our home market. If our products go overseas we must add several thousand miles to the haul. There is only a very limited market for our products westward. So if Alberta is to progress-and I am looking to the future -it is obvious that she must find wider markets for her agricultural and her fuel products.

Let me pass hurriedly in review of what is happening to our agricultural industry. The agricultural exports, of 'Canada have been increasing at a very rapid rate, having gone up from $51,000,000 worth in 1891 to $815,000,000 worth in 1929. Between 1921 and 1926 the number of farms in western Canada decreased by 7,500 and in eastern Canada during that period the decrease was 20,000, or a total decrease for the whole dominion of 27,500 farms. In 1901 we had throughout the dominion 511,000 farms representing a crop acreage of 20,000,000. During the next 20 years with a 40 per cent increase in the number of farms the crop acreage had increased to 50,000.000 or about 250 per cent. In 1881, 48-1 per cent of our population were engaged in agriculture; in 1921 less than 33 per cent; in 1931 I think the census will disclose only from 25 to 30 per cent so engaged. The number of those engaged in agriculture has been decreasing right along, due to the ability of farm operators to produce much faster to-day than they could years ago. As a matter of fact, five years ago in Alberta wheat production required 15 hours per acre, whereas last year it required only 7 hours. It is common knowledge that the world markets for our agricultural products are decreasing-as the standard of living rises the demand for food products does not increase-whereas the demand for manufactured products is increasing all the time, and is limited only by the ability of the people to buy. The logical question presents itself: Why should Alberta, endowed with the cheapest power and the greatest supply of fuel anywhere in the world, confine her energies to the production of agricultural products for which there is a decreasing demand and leave to others the production of commodities for which there is an increasing demand? Undoubtedly we have the ability to engage in manufacturing industry if we can secure the necessary capital. The Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin the other day made this prophecy:

Canada will be an international home for manufacturers. Capital will pour into it. Let us all stick to our own race and to the flag which is the foundation and basis of our whole Imperial policy.

Then Mr. John A. Farrell, president of the United States Steel Corporation, made a statement which was quoted in this house recently, showing the attitude of American investors towards the possibilities of manufacturing in this country.

The Budget-Mr. Stanley

The other basic industry of Alberta is coal. In this connection allow me to quote a statement which I read in the papers a week or two ago made by Mr. W. R. Campbell, president of the Ford Motor Company of Canada. True, he was referring to Nova Scotia coal, but his opinion applies also to Alberta coal. He said:

Any producing field can serve only a certain district. Beyond the limits of that area, it is impracticable to ship coal, due to haulage charges. The western product is profitable only f,or a shont distance east of Winnipeg. The Nova Scotia product cannot economically be brought nearly as far west as here.

I submit that the same argument applies to our agricultural products. Then what is the solution, looking to the future? If it is impossible for us economically to take our agricultural and our fuel products to existing markets, then our policy should foe steadily to move to Alberta some of the industries of the eastern provinces which now require our fuel. At present Ontario and Quebec have 60 per cent of the population of the dominion and 80 per cent of our manufacturing capital; the four western provinces have 28 per cent and 14 per cent respectively; while ALberta and Saskatchewan have only 15 per cent and 3 per cent respectively. If Alberta was able to use its extensive home market and could develop its natural and fuel resources, it would be much better off than it is to-day. Let me give four economic statements.

First. It is an economic necessity that Alberta must market her products.

Second. It is an economic determination that Alberta will do so.

Third. It is economically logical that if Alberta cannot take her products to industry, then industry must foe brought to the products.

Fourth. It is an economic opportunity which presents itself to industrial Canada.

British and American investors are on the field at the present time. We hope that the industries of eastern Canada will see the opportunity that presents itself of establishing branch industries in Alberta and thereby assisting us to provide home markets for our agricultural and fuel products.

Mr. CHARLES B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the right hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) on the amount of information contained in his 1931 budget, but I wish to state also that in my opinion this budget is a real blow (to democracy.

A basic truth is that no individual industry or industrial group can prosper by itself or solely by means of its own efforts. Other industries must prosper in order that each may

sell its products. The industries and groups are mutually supporting. It is impossible to sell goods to people who have no products or services of their own for sale, or to sell them in excess of the purchasing power which they derive from their own sales. All together these constitute a system for supplying each other's wants.

This budget makes no provision for unemployment, nor does it give any aid to eastern agriculture. There is no help provided for the lumber, mining and fishing industries, and in relieving the rich it taxes further the poor. It is, in short, exactly opposite to the recognized principle of sound economics. The Minister of Finance is supposed to be friendly to the manufacturers and not one page of the fifty pages of Hansard taken up by this speech is used to state that these concessions are given on condition that the employees of these firms will receive a decent living wage or be given employment.

I regret very much the lateness of the presentation of this budget. Business men throughout Canada wait for this presentation before starting their spring business. If parliament in the future is to be called as late as it was this year, there should appear on the statute books of the country a law stating that in no case should parliament meet later than January 15.

I should like to quote a few newspaper articles which show how this budget has been received throughout Canada. Every hon. member knows that the Sherbrooke Daily Record supported the Prime Minister one hundred per cent during the last election, but on the evening after the presentation of the budget the following article appeared surrounded by a white border, the meaning of which every newspaper man knows. It reads as follows:

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

June 10, 1931