April 20, 1932

CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Something said about

himself.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
CON
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

If the hon. member is making a statement to the house that another hon. member said something with which he does not agree-

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

It is something personal with respect to the hon. member for Nanaimo.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is it something imputing impropriety to the hon. member?

*219S

The Budget-Mr. Duranleau

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Herbert Dickie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DICKIE:

If the hon. gentleman made a personal attack upon myself, may I not deal with it upon a question of privilege?

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

If the hon. member's personal conduct is impugned, I should say it would be a question of privilege; but if it is merely a difference of opinion on a matter of policy, or as to what occurred in British Columbia, that is certainly not a matter of privilege.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Herbert Dickie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DICKIE:

The member for New Westminster left the impression with the house that I had-

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Order.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Herbert Dickie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DICKIE:

-read a report purporting to emanate from Victoria, and that I used that document in order to justify an attack on hon. members opposite. I wish for the information of that gentleman to say that the excerpt I read was from a report of the commission which was handed to me at noon on the 14th of this month by a minister of the British Columbia cabinet.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

It was not the actual report presented to the legislature at Victoria.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Order.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Herbert Dickie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DICKIE:

That has been spread on the journals of the house.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Order.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

I cannot agree that this is a question of privilege. Contradictions of statements made on the other side cannot be treated as questions of privilege.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. DICKIE
Permalink

THE BUDGET

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


The house resumed from Tuesday, April 19, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. N. Rhodes (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gardiner.


CON

Alfred Duranleau (Minister of Fisheries; Minister of Marine)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):

Mr. Speaker, at this late stage of a

long debate I must crave the indulgence of the house for the few minutes I propose to take in discussing some of the conclusions which I have reached after perusing the budget presented by my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). First, I think this hon. gentleman ought to be con-

gratulated very warmly on his success, since assuming his high office, in handling the finances of the country. I think the Prime Minister could not have made a better choice for the position of Minister of Finance. I gladly join with those who, without consideration of party, have congratulated the Minister of Finance on the frankness and courage, with which he has dealt with the economic situation. It is a good sign for the future when a man like the present minister brings courage and frankness to bear on the political affairs of this country, for they are virtues which should be praised and commended.

Of course, when I say that the minister has been praised from all sides of the house and from all quarters of Canada I do not mean that he has been greatly praised by hon. gentlemen opposite. Some hon. gentlemen, as a matter of fact, have brought forward fair criticism; others criticized not quite fairly, while in some cases there has been criticism of a petty character. One naturally expects, however, in times such as these, that hon. gentlemen will advance their political ideas and parade their wisdom in an effort to serve narrow and selfish party interests. We could not expect anything else from hon. gentlemen opposite after the debate in connection with unemployment which lasted for more than three weeks. That was a stubborn opposition with regard to a measure designed to br;ng relief to the unemployed of this country, including those in the constituencies represented by hon. gentlemen opposite, and that dispute would have lasted more than three weeks if this government had not been forced by public opinion to end it by the use of closure.

Hon. gentlemen apposite seem to forget or to ignore the fact that this country is passing through a world economic crisis. They seem to forget also that this government has endeavoured, since it has been in .power, to cope with difficulties and conditions which are partly the outcome of the economic fallacies, the indifference and the lack of policy of hon. gentlemen opposite. A double remedy has been presented in the budget speech; first it is proposed to raise funds to offset the decline in our national revenue, and then it is proposed to safeguard Canadian industry. I have already said that the present crisis is world-wide and could not have been prevented entirely by any government, but it is true also that hon. gentlemen opposite could have done something to lessen its severity, and perhaps they could have refrained from aggravating the situation as it has been aggravated through their indifference, their lack of foresight and their policies in general.

The Budget-Mr. Duranleau

During this debate, and during the debate on the unemployment question as well, many hon. members opposite have addressed the house. They have stated that the unemployment situation is very acute, and that is quite true. It has been very acute for some time, but I believe hon. gentlemen opposite have been partly responsible for the condition which has existed in this country for the last couple of years. Who in this house does not remember the immigration policy of hon. gentlemen opposite? Who does not remember that in the last two or three years of their regime hundreds of thousands of immigrants poured into this country? Who does not remember that in the fall of 1929 a delegation from the All-Canadian Labour Congress waited on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour of the day and begged them to stop the influx of immigrants with its consequent effect on the labour situation here. Every member of the house remembers the answer given by the then government; in substance it was that it was not wise to cry "wolf" when no danger was in sight, that the. unemployment referred to was strictly of a seasonal character, that the same conditions recurred every autumn and that the immigration complained of, far from providing competition for Canadian labour, in fact added to our human capital by increasing the number of consumers and at the same time increasing our producing capacity.

So the immigrants continued to pour into Canada at the rate of over ten thousand per month. If we look at the statistics we see that during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930, the number of immigrants who came to Canada was 163,286, while during the first eight months of 1930, as many as 80,000 immigrants entered Canada. The doors of the country were kept wide open to foreign labour while Canadians were seeking work and while the 125,000 young Canadians who each year come to maturity were claiming in vain their right to a place in the labour market of their own country. The heads of our families were concerned with the establishment of their sons and daughters, at a time when the money earned by them, by our own people was being spent in the recruiting, the transportation and the establishment of countless foreigners.

My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) might answer that he stopped immigration. It is true that he did stop immigration, but that was only done because of the pressure of public opinion, and he did not take that step until two or three weeks before polling day. And, if I remember rightly, on the very

same day, the leader of the opposition was announcing to the country, at a meeting in western Ontario that he had stopped immigration there landed at Halifax over one thousand immigrants from southern Europe. These people, said the minister of the day, will be consumers. Yes, they became consumers; but it was not long before the authorities, provincial, federal and municipal, had to supply these consumers with some food to consume. Firmly seated in his place in the Quebec bloc of sixty-one members, who were willingly allowing their province to be sacrificed, what was in the hon. gentleman's mind? Happily, the province of Quebec has reacted; the mother province has found its voice again in this house; for at the election that followed in 1930 the Conservative representation in this parliament was increased sixfold. This change came at a very opportune time; it came at the very moment when the country had decided to abandon theories, to face facts, and to place at the head of its administration a man of courage a man without any fear. The country had come to the conclusion that we had to intensify a fiscal policy which would promote the development of our national industries and prepare the way for the rehabilitation of trade and for renewed prosperity. Let us rejoice, Mr. Speaker, that the old province of Quebec is sharing with the others in the work of renovation imposed by conditions and undertaken by this government. It was indeed the province of Quebec that profited most by the protective policy propounded by this government. You will allow me to mention more particularly the province of Quebec, my native province, because I find there a field for better and more ready observation. And from this observation I can say that we in the province of Quebec have greatly profited by the policy of this government.

In our province, as in the other provinces of the dominion, industry must be considered in a dual aspect. There are what I may call the primary industries and there are the secondary. The province of Quebec is remarkable for the development of a small number of secondary industries such as foodstuffs, clothing and other industries producing goods both for the home and for the foreign market. I am leaving aside the pulp and paper industry and the large power developments, because they belong more to the primary class, inasmuch as their products are the raw materials that are used by other industries. But let us consider some of the secondary industries of the province of Quebec, such as clothing, tobacco, shoes and

The Budget-Mr. Duranleau

dairy products. Not only have the textile and clothing industries maintained their level during the two years that we have been in power, but the imports of raw cotton have increased in this country lately, especially during the last six months. According to the statistics, during the month of February last 7,074,000 pounds were brought into this country as against 6,527,000 pounds in the month of January, showing an increase at the beginning of this year indicative of greater activity.

Mr. ST-PERE: Is my hon. friend ready to conclude that this gives more work to employees in the factories?

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

Alfred Duranleau (Minister of Fisheries; Minister of Marine)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DURANLEAU:

I hold that if the cotton industry is so encouraged as to find it necessary to increase these imports of raw cotton, the result will be more work for Canadian labour.

Mr. ST-PERE: There never was a time when things were so slack in the cotton manufacturing industry.

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

April 20, 1932