April 2, 1935

LIB

Charles Gavan Power

Liberal

Mr. POWER:

What about the surplus milk?

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

Follin Horace Pickel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PICKET:

I give the milk commission credit for doing away with the surplus milk, but they did reduce the price agreed upon by the distributors and producers. They also gave the distributor the privilege of increasing the price to the consumer by forty cents per hundred pounds. The farmer was given thirty-five cents more but the distributors received an additional five cents. It was not the object of the investigation held by this government to increase the price of milk to the consumer; the object was to have a more equal division of the proceeds of the labour

The Budget-Mr. Picket

of the producer, which he does not geit at present.

I communicated with the commission last fall in an effort to have them fix the price of cream, and they fold me that they would look into the matter. Up to date they have not done so. The farmer is supposed to have expensive equipment; he must have his premises fixed up in just such a way and he has to wear just such clothing when he goes to milk-they will be wanting him to wear a dress suit pretty soon. He must do all these things but the price of cream has not been fixed. On May 28, 1933, when this investigation was being made, the price of butter was 28 cents per pound. On that day a Toronto dairy paid SI.28 for a gallon of 40 per cent cream. This gallon of cream was reduced down to 30 per cent with surplus or separated milk. The whole process cost the dairy between $1.37 and $1.38. That product was sold to the consumer for $5.68-three times as great a return as in the milk business; and the farmer gets no benefit. I would not take up so much time, but I do not like to have such a bombastic outburst from the hon. member, denouncing the government and making a lot of misstatements as he did.

Often we hear that the government should not be in business. I contend that the government has been in business a long tim'e. The government has even gone into the business of fixing time, which is a bad thing for the farmer; I know of no legislation that hurts the farmer more than daylight saving. Nothing does more damage in the country. The price of labour is indicated in the Labour Gazette, showing that printers receive from $5 a day up, bricklayers, plumbers, gas fitters, carpenters and others from $8 to $10 a day, for an eight hour day. Is that business? I contend that a good deal of the hardship which the farmer is suffering to-day is the result of governmental interference-and when I speak of the government I mean federal, provincial and municipal governments. There have been a good many restrictive, regulating and grading acts which the farmer has to put up with. I am not opposed to grading; I want that distinctly understood. I am not opposed to grading so far as our export trade is concerned, because we must have it if we are to compete; but I do not think it is right to pass a grading act and then fail to see that it is properly administered.

To-day they are buying eggs, and they will continue to buy eggs during the summer at 7 to 10 cents per dozen, especially in the west; they will put them in cold storage, and six or seven months hence they will receive from

40 to 50 cents a dozen for these eggs, for which they are paying from 7 to 10 cents a dozen. Is that business? If the government is in business it should prevent that sort of thing. In 1932 the distributors in this country paid 16J and 17 cents a pound for butter. They bought butter all summer, during the time the farmer was producing, and in the winter it went up to 32 cents a pound. What consolation is it to the farmer to have butter selling at 32 cents a pound when he has none to sell? There is no satisfaction in that kind of business. In 1933 the distributors paid 17^ and 18 cents a pound during the producing season and in the winter butter went up to 30 cents. This last summer they paid 18i and 19 cents and this winter the price went up to 26 cents, and it would have gone up to 30 or 32 cents had it not been for the surplus in storage. There was some 14 million pounds in cold storage and this had a tendency to keep the price down. Why should such things be allowed to go on?- We consume practically one hundred per cent of the butter produced in this country. We consume ninety-eight per cent of all our farm produce, except wheat and cheese. In this connection, we hear the opposition crying for markets. Not only this year but throughout the past five years that has been their cry-let us have markets. I say to them, use your common sense and tell us where you can find a market with as high a price as you can find right in this country.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

In the United States.

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

Follin Horace Pickel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PICKEL:

During the past five months, as the result of artificial stimulation, the American people have boosted their prices to our level and a little higher in some instances; but a year ago we got three times as much for our pork, ten cents more for our butter and ten cents a dozen more for our eggs. Is the artificial stimulation going to continue there? I fear for that country. I hope they will come out all right, but if they do not the result will be reflected in this country. They are spending billions over there to stimulate prices and there is a good deal of grumbling all over the country.

In my opinion our cold storage plants, on which thousands upon thousands of dollars have been spent, do not help the farmers at all. Who gets the advantage of cold storage? The commission man. It does not help the farmer, because it enables the commission man to buy the farmer's produce in the summer at a low price and leave it in cold storage; and when the farmer stops producing in the fall of the year the cold storage

The Budget-Mr. Picket

operators boost prices, making millions. These plants were built presumably for the benefit of the farmer, but the farmer has been neglected and he gets no advantage from them. As they are operated to-day they are a curse to him.

Before I close there are one or two facts I want to present to the house. Perhaps I shall be told that my age accounts for what I am going to say-they tell me I am getting old and childish, and perhaps I am-but to me the two gravest menaces that we are facing in this country to-day, and'the same is true of the world at large, are, first, automobiles, and second, the lack of discipline among the youth. The automania is a perfect curse; and what is to become of the youth of the country? There is no discipline among the children. I was surprised and amused the other night when the estimates of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) were being considered and he was being questioned about the relief camps. It seems that there has been some trouble in regard to discipline. I should like to know how you can have an aggregation of young people without discipline; it is absolutely impossible. Discipline is the first requisite, but where is there any discipline among the young people? There is no more home life, absolutely none. There may be individual exceptions, but as a general rule there is no more home life. The children come and go as they please. If you tell them to gee they will haw, and if you tell them to go east they will go west. They think of nothing but sport, dancing and social gatherings. Take the schools, sir, the colleges and universities; they are just athletic recruiting grounds. The athletic instructors draw down salaries twice as large as those of the professors. Look at the newspapers; they are half filled with sporting news. You see young fellows rush for the latest editions of the papers, and all they look at is the sporting page; that is all that interests them. How are we going to get at these people, these future rulers of this country? I do not know how we are going to discipline them; to my mind that is certainly a serious question. This might be a big field for the churches. As I said a moment ago, when the Minister of National Defence was putting through his estimates two or three members were questioning him quite closely; evidently they did not think the inmates of the relief camps

were being treated very well, but I noticed that most of those who spoke on that subject were bachelors, who did not know much about it.

I am not going to keep the house in suspense any longer, Mr. Speaker; I am just going to stop. To my mind our most important problem is our young people, girls as well as boys; one is as bad as the other. Where are they going? You can do nothing with them. I hope someone will evolve some scheme by which they may be brought to their senses.

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

John Franklin White

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):

The Budget*-Mr. White (London)

On February 13 last, in this house, a motion was made by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) to the effect that farm implements and machinery Should be free from customs duty. Inasmuch as farm implements are duty free under the British preference, and any that are imported come mostly from the United States, it follows that the mover of that motion was in favour of free entry from the United States. The hon. member who proposed the motion became rather famous in 1924 as the author of the phrase "ringing the death-knell of protection." I suppose this is another effort to ring the death-knell of protection. He began with the statement that gradually through the application of the policy of protection manufacture has become concentrated, and combines, trusts and mergers have sprung into being. In order to correct that condition he proposes to go for relief to a country of higher tariffs and immeasurably greater mergers than ever existed in Canada. Does he expect corporations to be all that is pernicious and wicked in Canada but all that is benign and friendly when they happen to be located in the United States? I am afraid his trustfulness must be even greater than his fine open countenance would indicate. I think he should give some consideration to the Combines Investigation Act which was passed in 1923 when the present opposition was in power. By that act men engaged in a certain line of business who meet together and come to the conclusion that it is in t.heir interest to charge certain prices for their goods and then all quote the same prices become liable to prosecution. But if they meet together and discuss the same problem and decide to pool their resources and form a combine and all go into one company and charge what price they like, then they are within the law. So it seems to me that piece of legislation might be called an incentive to combine rather than Combines Investigation Act.

Another argument used, and very properly, was that we must buy in order to sell. That argument has been often heard in this house. But I would remind the hon. gentleman that in respect to the United States the balance of trade has been against us for many years, and at no time was it more heavily against us than between 1021 and 1930 when the present opposition was in. power. During all

that time the United States market was gradually lost to us by progressive increases in their tariff. We have already bought and bought heavily, but we are looking in vain for the opportunity to sell. That situation has been brought forcibly before hon. gentlemen opposite very many times in this house, but, they seem to forget it, and are willing and anxious to buy and buy and buy without any trade in return.

We all know that the Canadian customs duties were raised in September, 1930, particularly on agricultural implements. The tariff was raised from six per cent in some cases to twenty-five per cent, in other cases from seven and a half per cent under the general tariff to twenty-five per cent. However, there are many people who do not know that despite the increase in duties farm implements have been cheaper to the Canadian consumer during the past three seasons than they were at the time of the 1930 tariff increases. The prices for 1933 are not yet announced, so it is not possible to give comparisons for this year. I have been especially interested in this feature as at one time I was engaged in the manufacture of these goods, and later in the manufacture of the steel that enters into their construction. The changes in tariff were given in a return to a question asked by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) on November 19, 1932, and answered on January 30, 1933.

Taking for example binders and mowers, which come under item 445 of the customs tariff, prior to 1917 the duties were: British preference, 124 per cent; intermediate, 124 per cent, and general, 124 per cent. It remained so until May 24, 1922, when they were reduced to: British preference, 74; intermediate, 10; general, 10. That held until April, 1924, when the British preference was made free, and the intermediate and general six per cent. Then on Septmeber 17, 1930, the present government made the British preference free; intermediate, 15, and general tariff, 25. The same thing applies roughly to many other types of implements. I have here three different numbers of the customs tariff 445, binders and mowers; 446, hay rakes, cultivators, etc., and 448, bay loaders and hay tedders. This I ask to have put on Hansard; I have read enough of the document, I think, to permit it to go on the record:

____________The Budget-Mr. White (London)

Customs Tariff-Agricultural Implements

- Prior to 1917 June 6, 1919 May 24, 1922 May 12, 1923 April 11, 1924Binders, Mowers, No. 445 121/121/121 No change 71/10/10 No change F/6/6Hay Rakes, No. 446, also Cultivators, Harrows, Drills 121/171/20 10/15/15 10/121/121 No change F/71/71Hay Loaders, No. 448, also Hay Tedders 15/22J/25 121/20/20 10/15/15 No change 5/10/10- April 16, 1926 Mar. 2, 1929 May 2, 1930 Sept. 17, 1930 June 2, 1931Binders, Mowers, No. 445 No change F/6/6 Combines 5/10/10 F/6/6 F/15/25 No changeHay Rakes, No. 446, also Cultivators, Harrows, Drills No change No change No. 409B F/71/71 F/15/25 No changeHay Loaders, No. 448, also Hay T edders 5/10/10 F/10/10 F/10/10 F/15/25 No change

I made the statement that prices have been lowered. I have here an advertisement of the Massey-Harris Company which appeared in the Toronto Star of July 9, 1931. Among other things it says:

The price to the farmer has not been increased on any implement manufactured and sold in Canada by this company since the tariff *on agricultural machinery was raised in September (1930) or since the recent budget of June first.

Substantial reductions in price have been made since September last on an important number of implements.

The question of prices has come in for a great deal of attention on the part of hon. members during last session. I have here a *collection of prices which I have gathered from time to time. These prices are on different types of agricultural implements, and are taken from price lists in my possession dating from 1905 until the present year. From 1905 until 1916 there was very little change. Take for example a 7-foot binder with no attachments; in 1905 it sold for $134, in 1908 for $115, in 1911 to 1913 for $138, in 1916 for $133, in 1917 for $149. The year 1918 was the first year in which there was much advance-that was the last year of the war-and in that year the price was $210. It continued to rise until in 1921 it reached the highest, $281. Generally speaking it ran about $237 until 1930, when it rested 92582-150

at $232. That was the year in Which the tariff was changed. In 1932 the same binder sold for $183.24 despite the fact that the tariff was then 25 per cent instead of six per cent. In 1933 there was some difference in the price; the International Harvester Company had what they called a wheat plan discount. On the day of t'he announcement of that discount in the newspapers-the price being affected by the price of wheat-the price of wheat was 49J cents, which allowed a discount of 121 per cent off the list price. That brought the price of the International Harvester Company binder down to $190.30. In that year the Massey-Harris Company pursued a different policy, namely that of having a fixed discount of ten per cent off the list price. Their binder during the whole of the season was sold for $195.75. That of course was a seven-foot binder with no attachments. The price I have given is the Ontario price and the price f.o-b. branch houses in various parts of the province. I am informed that about the same ratio existed, so far as the western provinces are concerned. I have before me the figures for eleven different kinds of implements, showing retail prices from 1905 to 1933. I do not purpose reading those figures into the record unless there is objection to their being placed on Hansard; but if there is, I shall read them.

The Budget-Mr. White (London)

Retail Prices of Agricultural Implements

1905 to 1923-One payment Oct. 1st or Dec. 1st. 1924 to 1933-J cash-Balance Oct. 1st or Dec. 1st.

Year 7-ft. binder, no attachments 5-ft. heavy mower Hay rake, dumping, 10 ft. Cultivator, 6ft., 9 stiff teeth$ cts. $ cts. $ cts. $ cts.134 00 52 50 31 25 35 35115 00 54 50 27 50 33 00138 00 54 50 33 50 40 00138 00 53 50 33 50 40 00133 00 56 50 35 00 52 50149 00 61 50 39 00 57 50210 00 84 00 52 50 82 001919, Sales Tax, li p.c 220 00 87 00 54 50 85 001920, Sales Tax, p.c 237 00 93 50 55 50 93 501921, Sales Tax, 3 p.c 281 00 115 50 59 00 112 501922, Sales Tax, 3 p.c 226 00 93 00 50 50 89 001923, Sales Tax, 4$ p.c 234 00 95 50 51 50 96 001924, Sales Tax, 6 p.c. (abolished April 24)

1925 247 00 237 00 100 00 96 50 55 00 54 00 97 50 96 001926 237 00 96 50 54 00 96 001927 237 00 96 50 54 00 96 001928 237 00 96 50 54 00 96 001929 237 00 96 50 54 00 96 001930 232 00 94 50 54 00 94 001931 232 00 94 50 54 00 94 001932 227 00 93 50 53 50 92 50Less allowance on "Wheat Plan" plus 5 p.c. when 18 03 13 33 17 85paid as per statement 43 86 183 14 75 47 43 17 74 65"Wheat Plan" discount on day of announcement by International Harvester Co., April 4,1933 (discount variable with price of wheat- 217 50 89 50 51 00 88 50Discount 12i p.c 27 50 11 19 6 38 11 06190 30 78 31 44 62 77 44Massey Harris- List Price 1933 215 50 89 50 51 00 88 50Discount 10 p.c 21 75 8 95 5 10 8 85195 75 80 55 45 90 79 651934 217 50 93 50 51 00 88 50

The Budget-Mr. White (London)

Retail Prices of Agricultural Implements

1905 to 1923-One payment Oct. 1 or Dec. 1st.

1924 to 1933-J cash-Balance Oct. 1st or Dec. 1st.

Disc harrow, 14 disc, 3-horse, out-throw Disc drill, 13 disc, 2-horse 13 Hoe drill Western single disc drill, 20* marker Hay loader, steel windrow, with forecarriage Farm wagon, gears, skein 3J, tires Jx2j Hay tedders, 8-fork$ cts. $ cts. $ cts. $ cts. $ cts. $ cts. $ cts.30 25 82 75 72 75 No quotation No quotation No quotation 48 0027 00 72 00 65 00 *121 00 75 00 65 00 41 0031 00 80 00 77 00 *115 00 75 00 67 00 49 0031 00 80 00 77 00 115 00 75 00 67 25 49 0034 50 87 50 81 00 113 50 74 50 67 00 52 0038 00 93 00 85 00 125 00 78 00 70 50 56 0057 50 125 00 115 00 188 00 112 00 90 50 79 0057 50 130 00 119 50 200 00 116 50 104 00 81 5067 00 149 00 133 50 220 00 120 00 118 00 87 5078 50 179 00 163 00 254 00 137 50 138 00 100 0060 00 142 00 133 00 206 00 112 00 111 50 82 0066 00 148 00 139 00 218 00 118 00 111 50 84 0068 50 155 00 147 00 238 00 122 00 112 50 85 5066 00 157 00 149 00 232 00 123 00 107 50 85 5066 00 154 00 146 00 232 00 123 00 110 00 85 5066 00 154 00 146 00 232 00 125 00 110 00 85 5066 00 154 00 146 00 232 00 125 00 110 00 85 5066 00 154 00 146 00 232 00 125 00 110 00 85 5063 50 154 00 146 00 232 00 122 00 110 00 83 5063 50 154 00 146 00 232 00 122 00 110 00 83 5062 50 152 00 144 00 230 00 120 00 105 00 83 5012 07 29 41 27 86 44 41 23 16 20 27 16 1250 43 122 59 116 14 185 59 96 84 84 73 67 3860 00 143 00 137 00 220 00 117 00 100 00 81 007 50 17 88 17 12 27 50 14 62 12 50 10 1252 50 125 12 119 88 192 50 102 38 87 50 70 8860 00 143 00 137 00 220 00 117 00 100 00 81 006 00 14 30 13 70 22 00 11 70 10 00 8 1054 00 128 70 123 30 198 00 105 30 90 00 72 9060 00 143 00 137 00 220 00 117 00 100 00 81 00

*No particulars.

2352

all concerned, and I believe that a fair and dispassionate review of the whole situation will confirm what I have said. Hon. gentlemen opposite, perhaps with a wave of the hand, may try to dismiss these things as being of no account, but I have given the facts and the figures, and I feel sure that I am right in regard to them.

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

Franklin White Turnbull

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):

Mr. Speaker, before entering upon a discussion of the budget proper there are one or two things not connected directly with the budget which I wish to mention. I want to refer in the first place to some remarks that were made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Mac-Innis) with the assistance of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) on March 29, as found at page 2254 of Hansard. The hon. member for Vancouver South said:

Who organized the unemployed in Regina?

Mr. Garland (Bow River): Who referred to him as Judas?

Mr. Maclnnis: The present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when he was an agitator.

I very much regret, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Vancouver South should refer to the Prime Minister of this country as an agitator during his absence from the house and especially under the condition of his present absence, and I think the hon. member for Vancouver South will regret it himself just as much when he has had the chance to think it over. He went on:

Who organized the unemployed at Regina and gave them buttons to wear in the lapels of their coats?

Mr. Donnelly: The Tories.

Mr. Maclnnis: Chickens will come home to roost.

It is wonderful, Mr. Speaker, how much these gentlemen who live so far from Regina know about these things, and it is wonderful how careless they are of the facts. That matter was brought up somewhere during the campaign in 1930, and if hon. gentlemen will consult the columns of the Regina Leader-Post, a Liberal paper, they will find there a letter from one of the officials of the association of the unemployed in which he says that the Conservative party did not organize the unemployed to attend Mr. Bennett's meeting on the tenth day of June, the day in question, but that the unemployed asked the party to give them a reserved portion of the auditorium so that they might attend the meeting and listen to what Mr. Bennett had to say with regard to unemployment. I assume that in order to identify themselves they wore a little bit of ribbon a quarter of an inch square

on the lapels of their coats, but those badges were not placed there by the Conservative party nor were the unemployed organized by the Conservative party. I had occasion once before to deny that statement in the house, but apparently it needs denial over and over again. As the hon. member for Vancouver South says, "Chickens will come home to roost." But the kind of chickens he talks about are fouler birds than chickens are themselves.

I wish to make a passing reference to the national gallery. In my view the pictures in the national gallery are the property of the people of Canada, and as long as they are stored either in the museum at Ottawa or in the vaults of some building in Ottawa, as I believe many of them are, they are not of very much value to the people of Canada as art, whatever they may be as treasure trove. I firmly believe it is easier to take these pictures to the people than to take the people to Ottawa to see the pictures. While it is true that travelling exhibits visit various portions of Canada for a short space of time each year, I am of the opinion that the national gallery should be decentralized; that instead of collecting a huge gallery in Ottawa we should have smaller exhibits in various parts of the country, in the capitals of the provinces. With the pictures circulating through the capitals in that way those who live at a distance from Ottawa may have a chance to appreciate art as well as those who come to Ottawa.

There is another matter to which I wish to direct attention, and that is the growing custom of governing by commissions. It did not start with this government, but I am sorry to say that it has been continued to some extent by this government. I am of the opinion that the sooner we get back to the position where we are governed by bodies who have to do with the administration of the law of this country and where responsibility is placed in departments that are made responsible to the government of the country, instead of to parliament, which means no responsibility at all, the sooner we will get a better class of administration and one that the people can examine and control.

Returning to the budget; it is a very admirable presentation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). We have had criticism which at least does not err on the side of brevity from the financial critic of the opposition, the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). The hon. member, representing the Liberal party, has moved an amendment, and a subamendment has been

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull

2355 moved by those who represent a body of opinion outside of the two old parties. The amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth reads:

This house regrets that the proposals submitted by the Minister of Finance on March 22 are entirely inadequate to meet the serious and acute situation prevailing in Canada and afford an additional reason why appeal to the people should not be longer delayed.

One would have thought that if the hon. gentleman, who has held high office in this dominion for so long found any serious fault with the proposals submitted, or deemed them inadequate to meet the situation which prevails, and had in his possession other proposals which would have met it more adequately, he would have done his duty as a member of the opposition by putting forward those proposals. My criticism of the hon. gentleman is, that at no stage in his amendment and at no stage in his address did he depart from the practice which the Liberal party has followed since 1930. Since that time hon. gentlemen opposite have played the game of the frog who sat beside the pond with his mouth open hoping that providence would send him a fly. Hon. gentlemen opposite have not offered a policy of any kind or made any suggestions as to how this country could be aided. They have opposed with all their might every suggestion which has been brought forward to assist the people of this country. They have fought year after year and time after time, even to the extent of requiring closure before we could possibly get any relief bills passed to take care of the people. I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite and their followers throughout the country make the statement that the men in the relief camps are being paid Chinamen's wages of twenty cents a day, but I would point out to the country through you, Mr. Speaker, that had the wishes of the opposition been carried out there would not have been a one cent piece voted, let alone a five cent piece, with which to pay these men the so-called Chinaman's wages along with providing clothing, shelter and food. This is what these men have received from this government in spite of the opposition of those who sit opposite. How hon. gentlemen opposite under the circumstances came to consider themselves the custodians of the interests of those in distress is beyond my comprehension. They have opposed every attempt by the people of Canada to assist those in need.

The second part of the amendment asks for an appeal to the people and suggests that

this appeal should be no longer delayed. What has happened to the desire previously expressed by hon. members to have social legislation put upon the statute books of this country at this session? This is the third time this session that they have moved motions which if successful would have dissolved parliament and sent hon. members tc the country for reelection without any social reform measures having been passed. In view of these facts what can we say to their statement that they are anxious to proceed with the program of reform?

The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) rejects the idea of an immediate election as it asks that all that part of the amendment after the word "Canada" be struck out. The subamendment recommends the use of social credit to relieve the conditions faced by the people of this country. I am sorry the hon. member was not more definite in his proposal with regard to social credit. He did tell us that probably 300,000 people would take advantage of his proposition and receive $50 per month for twelve months. It would take $180,000,000 per year to carry out the provisions of the subamendment of the hon. member. The hon. member did not tell us how the social credit was to be distributed or in what form it was to be distributed, whether it was to be printed currency or something else. If it was to be printed currency, he did not tell us what effect it was going to have upon the exchange situation or upon the possibilities of our carrying on the international trade about which the hon. member at times waxes so enthusiastic. He did not tell us how the issuing of social credit was going to prove of any benefit beyond the giving to some person of a piece of paper which might be of some value for a month or so. There is one thing to be said in favour of the subamendment; it rejects the idea of having an election until after we have had the opportunity of completing the program of social legislation now before the house.

There are certain reasons why I desire to express my approval of the budget. My first reason is because of the increase in income taxes. Hon. members opposite often say that the Conservative party is a little tender with the incomes of those in the higher brackets, in fact the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth rather pooh-poohed and belittled these increases. It might be interesting to have the record of the Liberal party with respect to income taxes and to find out just who was tender with those in the higher

2356 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull

brackets. I think it will be found that the Meighen- government was in office; ini 1930, Liberal party is the ; sinner in this regard. I when the King government was in office, and have before me a statement furnished by the in 1933, when the Bennett government was Department of National Revenue, income tax in office. The latter figures are given without division, which gives a comparison of taxes including the increases provided for in thepaid on different incomes in 1921, when the budget this year. These are as follows:Taxes payable, 1921 Taxes payable, 1930 Taxes payable, 1933Income Meighen government King government Bennett government$ 5,000 .... $ 126 00 $ 32 00 $ 120 0010,000 .... 619 50 232 00 546 0020,000 .. .. 2,089 50 1,232 00 2,173 5030,000 .. .. 4,084 50 2,880 00 4,588 5050,000 . . .. 9,649 50 6,704 00 10,069 50100,000 .. .. 32,749 50 19,064 00 27,447 00150,000 .. .. 64,249 50 34,544 00 48,867 00200,000 .... 97,849 50 51,496 00 72,187 50400,000 . . .. 243,799 50 124,200 00 175,969 50700,000 .... 469,549 50 242,928 00 350,731 501,000,000 .... 696,349 50 362,928 00 527,131 50

All through the schedule we find that the taxes imposed by the Conservative governments upon those receiving higher incomes were practically double the taxes imposed by the Liberal party.

I am glad to know that further exemptions in sales tax have been provided. This is a step in the right direction and will benefit many people. Another item is the removal of the excise tax of three per cent on goods imported into Canada from 'Great Britain and the empire. It is an additional move to help empire trade. Then the customs tariff was reduced on forty-eight items and increased on four, and there was a small change in the empire content of certain articles purchased in the empire. Because of these proposals; because of the history of this country, described by the budget, the history of returning prosperity, of continued economy in administration, of reduced interest rates, of expanding trade, of new trade agreements, of increased employment, of rising prices for primary products, of adjustments of farm debts, of expanding revenues, of balanced budgets, of favourable trade balances, of assistance to the provinces and the extension of farm loans- because of that history, I am very much in favour of the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance and wish to congratulate him and the government on the showing they have made during the return to prosperity from the depths of the depression in 1931, 1932 and 1933.

I wish now to deal with the second part of the amendment of the hon. member for Shel-bume-Yarmouth-that is, that there should be an immediate appeal to the country. In my judgment there are many reasons why there should not be an immediate appeal to

the country. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) gave one of them the other day, namely, that an immediate appeal would disfranchise two or three hundred thousand voters who have come of age since the lists were established. An hon. member says that they will not vote Liberal anyway, and that is why my hon. friends opposite wish to disfranchise them. But there are several important problems facing this country and it is necessaiy that they should receive proper consideration before any appeal is made to the electorate.

There is first of all the question of treaties, and in particular the question of empire treaties and the attitude of my hon. friends opposite with respect to imperial trade. During the election of 1930 the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) posed in Ontario as a great imperialist

Look what we did for imperial trade through the Dunning budget. That was his proclamation all through the country, and the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), was represented by him as an anti-imperialist who was opposed to the imperial connection. The leader of the opposition has declared that he is not in favour of protection, but I have before me a report that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of October 20, 1925, from Kingston, Ontario, in which the then Prime Minister, now leader of the opposition, was reported:

We realize that our industries have to have safeguards-

Not protection, but safeguards, whatever the difference is.

-with respect to competition from other parts of the world, competition from the country to the south of us, competition from conditions

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull

as they are in England, and we think that is ail the more reason why in these days of depreciated currency and the like we should have the benefit of expert advice and information on all these great questions of the tariff.

Where then was free trade, where was the fifty per cent preference which he was going to give England, instead of safeguarding this country against conditions as they existed in England, especially in those days of depreciated currency? And what about the criticism we have received from the other side day in and day out because, in view of the depreciated currency in other countries, we have imposed dumping exchange duties so as to protect the structure of this country from exchange on goods coming in under depreciated currencies? In connection with these treaties, and in connection also with the difference between a preference for a preference and a preference for a hope, I wish to quote some remarks of the Prime Minister of England, the Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald, which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 14, 1931. According to that report Mr. MacDonald said:

But we got orders for British industry made possible by preferences, and when the orders came the British manufacturer could not execute them because he had made an arrangement with the United States manufacturer not to put his goods into the Canadian market. * The very people who made these arrangements. concluded the head of the Labour government, "are now attacking the government because they did not pull off economic arrangements with the dominions the other day."

After twenty-eight years of " preference for a hope," of giving the British people preferred entry into our markets, we have the leader of the government there stating that instead of trying to get their goods into our markets under these arrangements, so that they could tie up with us, they tied up with United States firms, so that the Canadian market should belong to United States firms and not to the British-doubtless in return for something else somewhere. And that is why our imports from Great Britain are not as great as they otherwise would be, because British trade had entangled itself with agencies and representatives in New York, who were given agencies for the whole of the North American continent, and who saw either that British goods did not come to Canada or that they should come through New York, and were consequently credited to imports from the United States rather than from Great Britain.

In connection with these same treaties, we had the attitude of the Liberal party as expressed in the debate on the treaties. We

have the declaration of the leader of the opposition that when he is elected to office he will restore the tariff to the point where it was when he left office, which means that these treaties cannot exist, because 167 items put on the free list by these treaties would have tariffs reimposed on them if the right hon. gentleman were elected and carried out that threat. Then he fought the historic battle of Liberalism to prevent these treaties from coming into effect; he declared that they violated all Liberal principles and destroyed Canadian autonomy. I wonder if hon. members have read the speech he made at Quebec when he said that Canada had been reduced to colonial status because we passed these treaties, and that our nationality had gone. They were going to involve us in questions of imperial defence and, according to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), they would destroy our lumber trade completely. But in spite of that they voted for it all; they swallowed the destruction of the lumber trade, swallowed our destroyed autonomy, swallowed the danger of our entering into imperial defence, swallowed the violation of Liberal principles, on condition that we inflate the dollar and put it on the same level as the pound.

The leader of the opposition came back from' a visit to England and reported that there was no support for the treaties there. A few days later the English House of Commons nailed the story; they saw it for what it was worth. They approved the treaties by one of the largest majorities recorded in the British House of Commons. This impressed the right hon. gentleman so much that at the great meeting of the national council which was held in Ottawa in January, in the midst of a discussion of peace, he said that we should not be able to repeal these treaties but that it would be necessary to modify them in favour of international trade if they interfered with such trade. If they interfered with international trade they would have to be modified; in other words, where we had to choose between Great Britain and the United States, we would choose the United States rather than Great Britain.

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

What is your authority?

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

Franklin White Turnbull

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TURNBULL:

The press. Although

the press reports were to the effect I have indicated, there has been no denial from any member of the Liberal party since then, and there was no repudiation of the press reports during the debates on the treaties. For these reasons it is necessary for us to consider

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull

whether it is safe to trust the renewal of these treaties to a party that has expressed itself so violently in opposition to them and in favour of international trade rather than of imperial trade-a party that has expressed itself as opposed to these treaties because they involved this country in complications.

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

And you are afraid to bring in a motion to void them. You deliberately shirked your motion; you shelved it.

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

Franklin White Turnbull

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TURNBULL:

I suppose my hon. friend across the way will give us a vote of thanks because he was not compelled to put himself on record again in regard to the lumber trade of British Columbia.

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

I will

discuss that when the time comes. I know far more about it than you do.

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

Franklin White Turnbull

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TURNBULL:

Another question that

will arise during the lifetime of the next parliament is that of converting a large amount of our tax free debt. The present government has successfully converted over a billion dollars of debt with an annual interest saving of approximately $15,000,000; it has reduced interest rates in this country from five per cent to the vicinity of two and a half per cent, and bonds which were free of income tax have been replaced by bonds which are taxable. Another conversion of that kind must occur in 1937. The people of this country must consider whether they would rather trust that conversion to a philosopher who writes books which are forgotten by everyone, including himself, or to a business administration that has made a success of that sort of conversion in days gone by.

A third problem that must receive the consideration of the people of this country is the railway problem. Hon. members opposite shake their heads and laugh over the railway problem. Nero fiddled while Rome was burning. and while the railway problem was being created during the term of office of hon. gentlemen opposite they were still laughing and telling the country everything was all right.

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

Charles Benjamin Howard

Liberal

Mr. HOWARD:

No one is laughing now; everyone is crying.

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

Franklin White Turnbull

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TURNBULL:

I hope they are tears of regret that my hon. friend is shedding over the record of his party in connection with these railways. This year we have a deficit on the national system of some $40,000,000, for which the Minister of Finance has had to provide. The capital indebtedness of these

railways was increased by $922,000,000 during the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite, according to the Duff report at page 27. The interest on that sum is approximately what it will cost this country this year to take care of the national railways, so if that $922,000,000 had not been added to the capital indebtedness we would have saved approximately $45,000,000 in interest. I wonder if my hon. friends are going to say that the purchase of six branch lines in 1929 for $35,000,000 was a proper expenditure of the public money; I wonder if they are not shedding tears of regret over it now. I know that Professor Norman McL. Rogers, who is a Liberal candidate in Kingston, is authority for the statement that the purchase of these railways by the dominion government, relieving the provinces concerned of their obligations in regard to the bonds of those railways, which were not paid, might have been an act of philanthropy on the part of the dominion government but certainly it did not lighten the burden on the Canadian National system. Let hon. gentlemen opposite figure up the interest burden, to say nothing of the capital expenditure, imposed on the country during their maladministration while they were in office. Let them remember also that they knew so little of what was going on that when the salaries that were being paid in Montreal were exposed in the select committee of the House of Commons-after this government came into office-the right hon. leader of the Opposition said that he was astounded at these things, that he did not know such salaries were being paid. And the reason he gave for not knowing that such salaries were being paid was that he had always made the time-honoured answer in the House of Commons when questions were asked in regard to salaries, that it was not in the interests of the railway that the public should know what was being paid these men. I notice that my hon. friends across the way are not laughing now; they are getting back to tears of regret. This country must decide whether it is going to place the administration of these railways back in the hands of the Liberal party to be used for political preferment, for the purchase of branch lines which add to the burden of the railways, for the purpose of putting the railways even further into debt, or whether they are going to leave it in the hands of the trustees to be administered as a business institution instead of as a fifth wheel on the Liberal machine.

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Keep on attacking the national railways; we understand why.

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull

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

Franklin White Turnbull

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TURNBULL:

I want to suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that no person is attacking the Canadian National. We are attacking the Liberal party for the -abuse to which they subjected the Canadian National. My hon. friend from Vancouver [DOT]Centre is very voluble now, but for the last week he has been glued to his seat under the directions of his leader, afraid to get up and express his own opinions.

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Listening to a comedy.

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

Franklin White Turnbull

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TURNBULL:

That has been the

trouble with hon. gentlemen opposite. When they mismanage the affairs of the country they consider it a comedy or a joke, but we want an opportunity to let the people know about these things.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear; bring on the election.

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

Franklin White Turnbull

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TURNBULL:

That is why my hon. friends are anxious to have the election brought on, so that we will not have that opportunity.

Then there is the question of the social reform legislation. What is the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite on that question? They have always approved of it in principle but never in practice. The unemployment insurance policy was in the 1919 platform, where it remained buried and forgotten. The right hon. leader of the opposition included it in the platform he enunciated in this house on February 27, 1933. He went through western Canada in the fall of that year proclaiming his unbounded faith in unemployment insurance, sickness, invalidity and old age insurance, crop insurance and1 everything else he thought the people of the west would be likely to vote for. Then, having done all that, he came down to thie House of Commons and told the people that he had not brought in these measures because he did not know he had the power to do so. Could there be a more glaring deception practised on the people of Canada? We had the leader of a great party going out and telling the public for fifteen years that he was in favour of certain measures and that, if returned to office, he would fulfil his promises, at the same time thinking in his heart of hearts, according to his own statement, that he did not have power to do the things he promised or to provide those things which he was holding himself out to the people as being able to provide. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre laughs that laugh of his again. That is Liberalism a la the present Liberal members of this House of

Commons, but it is not Liberalism as the people of this country want to see Liberalism expounded and exposed.

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

April 2, 1935