October 14, 1932

FRENCH TEXT OF SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME OF REPORT

CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :

Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay upon the table the French text of the supplementary volume of the report of the Imperial economic conference of 1932, containing the text of all the trade agreements concluded during the conference.

I notice the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is not in his place but I should like to make a statement with reference to his observations. He observed that the translators had had this material' since August 19 and that the translation should have been completed at the time. When he made that observation, I assume the hon. gentleman was not aware that the compilation included not merely the text of the agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada but the text of all the other trade agreements signed on August 20. The printing of the English text of these agreements and the translation into French could not be effected until a definite agreement had been reached as to the time of publication of the agreements, and this obviously depended upon the parliamentary situation and the procedure necessary for bringing the agreements into effect in all of the nine countries which were parties to the various agreements. It was, as a matter of fact, only Monday of this week that we were advised by one of the dominions of its consent to the printing of its agreement with the United Kingdom at the present time,

Questions

while on Tuesday we were notified of a change in another agreement, reached by mutual consent.

Under these circumstances, it was not possible to complete the printing of the English text of the agreements in question until the day they were tabled in the house, and I am sure, in the knowledge of these circumstances, the member for Quebec East will agree with me that the translators and printers have been very expeditious in making it possible to table the complete French text to-day. I did not know the other day with certainty but I know now that galley proofs of the French text were furnished to members of the press gallery on the afternoon of the day on which the English text was tabled, that is, on Wednesday.

Topic:   FRENCH TEXT OF SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME OF REPORT
Permalink

QUESTIONS


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


STEAMSHIP N. B. MCLEAN

LIB

Mr. DUFF:

Liberal

1. What is the capital cost to date of the steamship N. B. McLean?

2. What is the yearly cost of operation of above ship including "laid up" period as well as when patrolling Hudson bay and strait?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   STEAMSHIP N. B. MCLEAN
Permalink
CON

Maurice Dupré (Solicitor General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DUPRE:

1. $1,253,138.50. 2. From August 1, 1930, to March 31, 1931. From April 1, 1931, to $118,605 23March 31, 1932. From April 1, 1932, to 131,449 71September 30, 1932.. .. 58,423 02

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   STEAMSHIP N. B. MCLEAN
Permalink

MR. M. P. GALLAGHER

CON

Mr. BARRETTE:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. How many years has Mr. M. F. Gallagher, chief of the pardon service, been in the employ of the Department of Justice?

2. By whom was he recommended?

3. What is his salary?

4. During the years 1930, 1931 and 1932, has Mr. Gallagher taken any holidays?

5. During said years, has Mr. Gallagher visited the penitentiaries of Canada at the expense of the department?

6. If so, what were the expenses of each inspection per year?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MR. M. P. GALLAGHER
Permalink
CON

Mr. GUTHRIE: (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Fifteen (15) years.

2. The late Right Hon. C. J. Doherty.

3. $5,940.

4. Yes.

5. In 1930, no. In that year the inmates of penitentiaries were interviewed for clemency purposes by the dominion parole officer, now

superannuated, whose functions have been transferred to the remission service. In 1931 and 1932, yes.

6. 1930, nil; 1931, $444.72; 1932, $695.15.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MR. M. P. GALLAGHER
Permalink

QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

UFA

Mr. SPENCER:

United Farmers of Alberta

1. What was the original amount voted for Soldier Settlement Board scheme?

2. What was the number of farms purchased: (a) raw lands; (b) improved farms?

3. What was the cost of administration each year till the present time?

4. What was the amount voted for revaluation and cost of administration?

5. What was amount voted for 30 per cent reduction and cost of administration?

6. In reference to 30 per cent reduction, what was the amount actually credited against settlers' principal and amount credited against arrears of interest?

7. What was the amount of arrears and interest owed by settlers prior to 30 per cent reduction?

8. What was the amount of arrears and interest owed by settlers at this date since the 30 per cent reduction?

9. What is the collective debt of existing soldier settlers to the board to date?

10. What in the opinion of the board is the aggregate valuation of the farms of existing soldier settlers to date?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Sub-subtopic:   SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
Permalink

MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

For a return showing a list of all federal public works started, or for which tenders have been called and contracts awarded, or listed for future construction, in Nova Scotia, by constituencies, since April 1, 1932; the nature of same, whether wharves, breakwaters, etc.; whether such works are on regular estimates or undertaken as relief measures; the amounts expended or estimated to be expended during the current fiscal year; names of localities and foremen of construction; current rate of wages paid.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Sub-subtopic:   FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink

MR. C. A. GOYETTE, K.C.

LIB

Hermas Deslauriers

Liberal

Mr. DESLAURIERS:

For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence and other documents exchanged between Mr. Castonguay or any member of his staff in connection with the dismissal of C. A. Goyette, K.C., returning officer in Ste. Marie, Montreal.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MR. C. A. GOYETTE, K.C.
Permalink

GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


The house resumed from Thursday, October 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. P. G. Davies for an address to His Excellency the The Address-Mr. Vallance Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coote.


LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :

Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a

few remarks upon the address, might I first of all join with those who have preceded me in congratulating the two young members, one the mover (Mr. Davies) and the other the seconder (Mr. Laurin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think they conducted themselves in a very able manner and considerable credit should go to the constituencies which nominated and elected these two young men.

I intend to deal very briefly with some of the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). While he was delivering his address the other day in reply to that of my hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) I could not help but notice some very striking statements and I propose to quote shortly from the utterances of the Prime Minister upon that occasion. He said:

I fancy, Mr. Speaker, that most of us listened with some surprise to the observations of the right hon. gentleman this afternoon,-surprise not untempered with regret. The surprise was that the effort was so feeble; the regret was that it was so lacking in constructive suggestions. I need hardly remind this house that we had expected one thing at least in which we are not disappointed. There was no policy that he did not adopt, no suggestion he did not make that might catch a single vote. He ran true to form. There was nothing that had been heard in the heavens above or the earth beneath or the waters under the earth to which appeal was not made for the purpose of deriving some assistance and support.

In view of those remarks and after looking back some three months at the pledges given by the Prime Minister, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that such utterances are very ill advised. I am reminded of a story which used to travel throughout western Canada some twenty-five or thirty years ago. We had at that time in the city of Calgary a noted character, a member of the legal profession of which the Prime Minister is a member. He was an Irishman named Paddy Nolan, and the Prime Minister and he, on a few occasions, met on opposite sides of a case in court. On this particular occasion the Prime Minister, as usual, was waxing very eloquent, and as I looked at him the other day I was reminded of this story. These two gentlemen appeared in court, one for the prosecution and the other for the defence. The right hon. gentleman 53719-14

was pleading to the judge and jury, and every now and then he would snap his fingers and call the page and ask for So and So on Such and Such. He did this repeatedly and, I suppose, with some effect. Our old friend Pat Nolan got up and after addressing the court for a few seconds also snapped his fingers. The page came and he said, " Boy, will you kindly bring me Bluff by Bennett." It seemed to me that while the Prime Minister was giving utterance to the words I have just quoted, it was the same bluff. He has been noted throughout his public life-I do not know anything about his private life- as a great bluffer, and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and this house, for fear they do not know it, that the right hon. gentleman may pull that bluff once throughout Canada but he will never pull it in the next general election. And as was suggested the other day by my good friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard), he is rather loath to try it.

I proceed now to deal with conditions as I have found them in the various parts of Canada through which I have travelled, but I propose first of all to read something pertinent to the present situation, and I would ask hon. gentlemen to listen carefully to it and to decide in their minds, as I read, precisely in what period of our history the passage I am about to quote was written.

The condition of England, on which many pamphlets are now in the course of publication, and many thoughts unpublished are going on in every reflective head, is justly regarded as one of the most ominous, and withal one of the strangest, ever seen in this world. England is full of wealth, of multifarious produce, supply for human want in every kind; yet England is dying of inanition. With unabated bounty the iand of England blooms and grows; waving with yellow harvests; thick-studded with workshops, industrial implements, with fifteen millions of workers, understood to be the strongest, the cunningest and the willingest our earth ever had; these men are here; the work they have done, the fruit they have realized is here, abundant, exuberant on every hand of us; and behold, some baleful fiat as of enchantment has gone forth, saying, "Touch it not, ye workers, ye master-workers, ye master-idlers; none of you can touch it, no man of you shall be the better for it; this is enchanted fruit." On the poor workers such fiat falls first, in its rudest shape; but on the rich master-workers too it falls; neither can the rich master-idlers, nor any richest or highest man escape, but all are likely to be brought low wdth it, and made "poor" enough, in the money sense or a far fataler one.

Of these successful skillful workers some two millions, it is now counted, sit in workhouses, poor-few prisons; or have "out-door relief" flung over the wall to them,-the workhouse bastille being filled to bursting, and the strong poor-law broken asunder by a stronger. They sit there, these many months now; their hope

The Address-Mr. Vallance

of deliverance as yet small. In workhouses, pleasantly so-named because work cannot be done in them. Twelve-hundred-thousand workers in England alone; their cunning right-hand lamed, lying idle in their sorrowful bosom; their hopes, outlooks, share of this fair world, shut-in by narrow walls. They sit there, pent up, as in a kind of horrid enchantment; glad to be imprisoned and enchanted, that they may not perish starved.

Now undoubtedly if I were to ask when these words were penned, you might quite truthfully say that they could have been written last week or last month or eighteen months ago. As a matter of fact, they are the words of Thomas Carlyle, written in 1840.

I have another quotation which I should like to read to the house before proceeding. This is from Sam Slick the Clockmaker, which most of us have read. This is what Sam had to say in that quaint language of his:

They tell me, too, that the council doors are to be opened so that we can hear the debates. That will be a great privilege, won't it? "Very," said the Clockmaker. It will help the farmer amazingly, that. I should count that a great matter. They must be worth hearing, them councillors. It's quite a treat to hear members in the house, particularly to hear when they talk about bankin', the currency, the constitution, bounties and such tough knotty things. They go in deep into these matters and know so much about them,-it is quite edifying.

That also could have been written last week or a month ago, but it could also have been written only yesterday. But Sam Slick gave utterance to these words just one hundred years ago.

I suppose some will make the statement that the condition through which the world is passing today is the recurrence of that cycle which we experience from time to time, but I am not one of those who believe that such conditions occur in cycles; I am one of those who hold that I am master of my destiny and captain of my soul. Therefore I believe that we and we alone are responsible for the condition through which we are now passing. If we admit that depression comes in cycles, why should we be standing here, each trying to contribute something to the solution of the problem that faces us. If these things work in cycles, if I admit that, then I must logically conclude that when we reach the peak of prosperity or of inflation, or when we get down to the depths of depression, there must be some point in the cycle where responsibility can be placed for our not being able to right ourselves on an even keel. I believe, however, that we are far enough advanced in our civilization to be able at all times to keep things riding on an even keel. I pick up today's paper and what do I find in it? In today's Citizen I read the following:

We see, on the one hand, Nature, immensely bountiful; scientifically equipped factories capable of providing every home want, and ready to raise the general standard of living of all human beings to an infinitely higher level; and, on the other, millions of men all over the world without work, in great poverty and want; factories working at a loss, to 25 or 50 per cent of capacity;

I propose, in my humble way, to give what I think is something of a contribution to the solving of the present problem. I listened the other night with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) as he enumerated some of the causes that had been given to him as he travelled through western Canada. I do not think there has been a time in our history when men and women have given so much thought to the economic condition of the world.

Now I think, Mr. Speaker, that we will all agree that wealth is produced from four sources. We have our natural resources; our forests, our fisheries, our mines and our agriculture. What is the condition of those primary industries to-day? The member for Aoadia (Mr. Gardiner), when addressing the house the other night, dealing with the causes of what he chose to call the overproduction of commodities said that in his opinion it had started from the day we harnessed the steam engine. Now, natural resources of themselves are of no avail. The ore in the mine, the fish in the sea and lakes, agricultural products, or the trees in the forest are of no avail without the application of labour. By the application of labour we transmute those natural resources into what I propose to call wealth. I would ask this house one simple question; has there been at any time in the whole history of civilization, any country or any community of which we have any written record, that has admitted that they had too much wealth? I say it is not from the production or fabrication or development of these natural resources that our trouble today arises. The trouble is in the distribution. That is absolutely my honest conviction. The trouble lies in the many ramifications that enter into the distribution of goods. If I were asked what are the three outstanding factors responsible for the position in which we find ourselves today I would put them in this order; first, that we have developed, not only in Canada, but in most countries of the world, what I propose to call a narrow nationalism. Then I would say that these artificial barriers which we have erected against the free flow of goods are probably the second, if not the greatest cause of this disruption today. And third,

The Address-Mr. Vallance

I would put the control of currency and credit. So I propose briefly to deal with those three subjects.

I will take first narrow nationalism. The question may arise in the minds of those within sound of my voice, what do I mean by narrow nationalism? I ask you to look at Europe today, what do you find? You find great national movements in every land. You find the Fascist movement in Germany. What for? In order to create a greater and stronger nationalism to protect that thing which is sacred to them, that great nationality. We look to Italy and we see the Fascist movement growing stronger and stronger there. We look to France and Russia, what do we see in Russia? I am reminded of a book I read, written by George Williams, the ex-president of the United Farmers of Canada in the province of Saskatchewan. As I read that book there were two features that struck me as rather astounding; the first that during his sojourn in Europe, Russia was the first entrenched boundary that he crossed. Why was Russia so deeply entrenched? Simply to preserve that nationalism in which she believes. The second feature is, he said, that as he travelled through Russia with his escort, in every factory, every state farm, every place he went he found to his amazement a little place or corner that they called the "red comer." Naturally when we hear the word "red" we figure that that is where all the radicals will have foregathered. But that was not so. In that corner you found all the munitions of war, every one dissected, showing the mechanism, showing the function for which they were created. There you found bombs of every description, there a model of an aeroplane, there a tank. He asked his guide, "What does all this mean, why the red corner, why the tank"? He was on a state farm at the time. His guide pointed to a tractor in the field, he said, "The tractor driver of today may be the driver of a tank tomorrow." Why was Russia doing this? Narrow nationalism. Fear of those around her, fear of France, fear of Italy, fear of everything. The one thing that narrow

nationalism breeds within us all is fear. I look to the boundary of our own country, there I find some three thousand miles of frontier, not a gun, not a soldier. Why? Because we have absolute faith in each other and no fear. long as that narrow nationalism prevails throughout the world it will in my opinion be much more difficult to overcome the troubles which now oppress us and to bring about the better condition that we all desire.

53719-14J

In Canada we had in our last election our "Canada first" policy. In Great Britain they had the "Buy British" campaign. That was re-echoed all over Europe. There is a tendency to bind ourselves into units more tightly as time passes, in spite of the fact that science and invention tend to break down those very things. Today it is possible for an individual to stand in this capital city and his voice within an instant of time will be heard all over the earth. We realized that during the Imperial conference, when my good friend Ian Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) sat among the heather on the hills of Scotland and there listened to the voices, hearing them as plainly as though he sat within this chamber. They were heard all over the prairies, in England and throughout the empire.

Then our means of transportation. No longer do you see the ox-cart or the old carriers conveying goods along the turnpike. We travel now at great speed. There was a time within the memory of many in this house when in the old land you cared not who lived in the next village five or six miles away. Why not? Because you were an economic unit within yourself. I can well remember as a boy in Scotland-and I am not so very old-when we had in every village the blacksmith, the cooper, the weaver, the miller, everyone was there. No one cared what happened in the next community a few miles away. But those conditions have changed. Yet we in the legislative chambers not only of Canada but all over the world are trying by legislation to bind tighter those units that science and invention would lead us to break down. I believe that until we get a larger viewpoint and are able to see it as expressed by Bobby Burns:

When man to man the world o'er,

Will brithers be for a' that.

our present troubles will not be cured.

Now I proceed to the second cause, the restriction of trade by tariffs. In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is the greatest of all. The only reason why we have this unconsumed accumulation of goods that Carlyle mentioned in 1840, that Sam Slick mentioned one hundred years ago, that every individual todays knows we have in this civilization, is that by our legislative measures we prevent the free flow of goods. You cannot tell me that in a country such as ours there is any necessity for the condition that we are experiencing today. I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) the other day telling the house of an actual case where a lady sold four dozen

The Address-Mr. Vallance

eggs for five cents a dozen and bought in exchange two packets of garden peas, for which she paid ten cents each, and returning home she counted the peas and found that there were only thirty-three. Two days before I left home I sent one of the lads to the village with a load of wheat, 61J bushels of No. 1 northern, with only one per cent damage. The lad's mother wanted a load of coal brought home. He got $18.45 for that wheat and paid $22.40 for a wagon load of coal. Think of it, Mr. Speaker! You cannot trade a wagon load of our No. 1 northern wheat, and there is no better grown in God's universe, for 2,400 pounds of Alberta coal. I listened to my hon. friend from Weyfourn (Mr. Young) when he was stating to the house the other night what in his opinion was wrong, that the farmer today is giving four hours of his labour for every hour that the industrialist is giving. I do not know what coal costs at the pithead, but I do know that when we were getting $1.75 for our wheat, we could buy a load of coal with a load of wheat. But there is no relation between the two values today, and until the primary producer is placed in a position where he has purchasing power we shall never get out of this calamity.

I might give another illustration. We have a place in Saskatchewan by the name of Ravenscrag, and I quote this from the Saskatoon Star of September 16, 1932:

It does not pay to ship fat cattle from the Ravenscrag district, at least not when the profit is only ninety cents.

So Neil Pratt, farmer of the district, found in shipping a fat cow to Moose Jaw recently, through the cooperative.

His returns, after freight and all other charges were deducted, were exactly ninety cents.

During the election campaign the Conservative party certainly admitted that a government could exercise some control and they said that if they were returned to power they would exercise control to see that conditions of that day no longer continued. We tried to tell them at that time that no government had the power to carry out such promises as were then being made by the Conservative party, and yet that no government could divest itself of the obligation of attempting to fulfil its promises. But the people fell for those promises, and the government is now saddled with the responsibility of attempting to bring about changed conditions throughout Canada.

While I am on this subject of conditions as they exist in this country, and particularly in western Canada as I have observed them, I would remind the house that when the

Prime Minister introduced his Unemployment and Farm Relief bill I asked him in what way he or the government proposed to relieve agriculture. I was told at that time that the government had no specific policy in that regard. I then asked if it was the intention of the government to continue the five-cent bonus, and if not, had the government changed their minds and decided to accept the suggestion and pay a bonus of one dollar per acre? The Prime Minister arose and very politely said that the government had not yet decided, but we are taking power in the bill, he said, to deal with the matter should an emergency arise. Now the question I should like to ask is, just when in the opinion of the government will conditions be bad enough to be considered as constituting a crisis? At many points in Saskatchewan to-day No. 1 northern wheat is selling for less than thirty cents a bushel. Last year when I delivered my wheat, not being an actual grower within the definition as interpreted by the chairman of the grain commission, I did not receive the five-cent bonus, but I was able to sell No. 1 northern at 414 cents a bushel. I have a return in my office for some wheat that I shipped about the Thursday prior to the day I left home to come down here, and it shows that I received the munificent sum of $447 for a carload of No. 1 northern wheat, containing between fourteen and fifteen hundred bushels. You cannot today exchange a carload of wheat for a carload of anthracite coal, pound for pound. You cannot even exchange a carload of No. 1 northern wheat today for a carload of Lethbridge coal, pound for pound. What is the government going to do about it? Does the government yet realize that a crisis does exist? Has the government given any intimation at all to the wheat pools? I noticed in the press the other day that the pools had made some representations to the government regarding what they proposed to do, and that they were asking for a renewal of the five cents a bushel bonus. I would like the government to announce its intention in that regard as soon as possible.

There are several other very important matters that I should like to take up, but my time is passing fast. I picked up a paper the other day, and I should like to draw the attention of the house to this strange anomaly. Our good friend the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) addressed the Arthur Meighen Club at Regina, and I quote from the report of his speech:

Dr. Cowan foretold a shake-up in the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa. As a representative of a rural riding, he was going to Ottawa to talk business this time, he said.

The Address-Mr. Vallance

I should like to know from my hon. friend from Long Lake and from the other members from Saskatchewan who are sitting behind the government, after all they have said to the people of that province, why they are maintaining this clamlike silence. During all this debate there has not been an utterance from the government benches outside of the speech of the Prime Minister himself. If I know anything about the province of Saskatchewan, I know that the people there are watching with a great deal of interest to see what action will be taken by the representatives from that province sitting behind the government in this house.

There are other matters upon which I should like to touch, but time will not permit. I notice that our good friend from Rose town (Mr. Loucks) was very active between sessions addressing meetings. True they were Tory meetings, but still his audience was composed of residents of Saskatchewan and citizens of this dominion, and I know that these people whom he was addressing, and telling the wonderful things he did tell them, are watching very keenly to see whether he will tell this government what he told them.

There is a matter which I wish particularly to take up with the government, a matter in which, I may say modestly, I took a very prominent part during the last session. It had to do with farm implement repair parts. It will be remembered that when the right hon. the Prime Minister brought down his first budget, as Acting Minister of Finance, he proposed certain alterations in the schedules dealing with farm implement repair parts, and because of the representation made undoubtedly by those who sit beside him as well as by us who sit in opposition, although we voiced our views on the floor of this house, the Prime Minister gave us the assurance that the proposed new schedules would not be brought into operation until March 31, 1932. I rose in my place about the 25th or 27th of March and directed a question to the government at that time, asking if it was their intention to bring the new schedules into operation after the 31st of March. The reply I got from the Prime Minister was that the member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) was an old parliamentarian and ought to know that these things could not be revealed until the Minister of Finance brought down his budget. I waited patiently until April 1, when I again rose in my place and directed this question to the Minister of Finance:

Some two weeks ago I directed a question to the Prime Minister which I wish now to direct to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), this being the first of April. When the Prime Minister, acting as Minister of Finance, presented his budget last year, he brought in certain schedules having to do with the tariff on repairs to farm implements. Because of representations made by the opposition he decided that these schedules should not become operative until after March 31. It is now April 1, and I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if those proposed schedules are now in operation or if the government have taken care of the situation by order in council.

The Minister of Finance, always courteous and considerate, rose in his place and gave the following, in my opinion, very definite answer:

Pending the bringing down of the budget, I am happy to inform my hon. friend that the matter is being provided for by order in council.

That was on April 1. Then, when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget he had the following to say, which will be found at page 1915 of Hansard:

With one exception, no tariff amendments are therefore proposed. The exception relates to repair parts for farm implements, for which the special rate granted to March 31, 1932, will be further extended to March 31, 1933.

We have not yet reached the year 1933. I left Ottawa towards the end of the session, two days before the prorogation of the house. Hon. members may imagine my amazement, Mr. Speaker, when I learned that on May 25, memorandum No. 536 was issued by the Department of National Revenue at Ottawa which stated that the lower tariff would apply only to parts or repairs made by the original maker of the machine, such change to become effective immediately. This is the serious ruling to which I refer; it is one that will affect not only the farmer's cost of production, but every industry and activity in Canada.

I well remember that during the session previous to the last one, the Prime Minister gave a lecture to the farmers throughout Canada in which he stated that the one thing they might as well know then, as well as at any other time, was that in order to meet the competition of Australia, the Argentine-yes, and Russia-they must cut down costs of production. I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that when the nation is passing through such trying times, when we find it impossible to buy new things, and are patching up the old ones, the easiest way to cut down production costs, so far as farmers are concerned, would be to allow repairs to enter the country so that the old implements may be made to operate. That, however, did not seem to be the plan of this government.

The Address-Mr. Vallance

I see two or three ministers in their seats, and I should like to ask them if it was the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man) or the Minister of Finance who considered the representations made? We had the assurance from the Minister of Finance that the schedules would be in operation until March 31, 1933. This change very seriously affects western Canada, and no doubt eastern Canada, if they use implements similar to ours.

The implement part industry in western Canada is very extensive. Each year hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent by western farmers when buying repairs for their machinery. In the three western prairie provinces there are many settlers from the United States, some of whom brought machinery from their native state. Of necessity, they must obtain repair parts from across the line. There have sprung up several concerns confining their activities to the creation of implement repairs. To my mind, it would be logical to conclude that the representations must have been made to the government by, we will say, the Massey-Harris Company, John Deere, the International Harvester Company, or some other large manufacturing concerns in Canada which manufacture parts for their own machines.

I am not prepared to agree with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) when he states that Mr. Thomas Russell, president of the Massey-Harris Company, is responsible for the change. I should not like to place the blame entirely upon Mr. Russell. I feel, however, that there has 'been a concerted effort on the part of those who have been most affected, and I feel, further, that those others who are interested in machinery parts, should be told by the government who made the representations. In that way, quite probably the name of Mr. Russell would be cleared.

Binder and combine canvas come under the term "repairs." For days and days, and at one time for two weeks, it was utterly impossible at any point in western Saskatchewan to buy canvas for a binder. That condition was brought about because the order to which I have referred had gone out, making it absolutely prohibitive for importers to bring in the goods necessary to meet the demand. Further, when the original assurance was given by the government, certain merchants placed orders for parts, 'but later on had to cancel them. They took delivery of the portion of their orders which had been manufactured, but had to cancel all further orders. In that way a financial hardship was brought about, and a further hardship was suffered by farmers who

could not obtain repairs. As I have previously stated, I believe we ought to know who made the representations, and why the government broke faith with hon. members in the house when, as a matter of fact, assurance had been given by the Minister of Finance.

If my time has not elapsed, I should like to say a few words concerning the subject of finance.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Hugh Guthrie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I should like to inform

my hon. friend that the regulation to which he has made reference has very recently been cancelled.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

October 14, 1932