April 2, 1935

?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Give' them a chance.

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 Liberalism of hon. gentlemen opposite is just about as dead as unemployment insurance was in their hands; it was simply a name. During this session, as I have said1, there have been three attempts to force dissolution of the house in order to prevent any major social reforms being passed. When social reform has been introduced hon. members opposite have received it with sneers and jeers. They proclaimed it-at least their leader did-as futile, useless and unconstitutional; then he twirled his thumb and they all gob up and voted for this futile, useless and unconstitutional legislation, lest perchance the people might think they were opposed to it. What is going to happen to this social reform legislation, in the event of our immediately dissolving the house as requested by the financial critic of the opposition, and the people deciding, as my hon. friends seem to think they will, to put the Liberal party in office?

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

Leslie Gordon Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL (Hamilton):

Where could they find one?

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:

They are going to be faced with a. hostile senate, and with a hostile senate they cannot pass any social reform legislation at all. The only kind of legislation that they say they can send to the senate when it is hostile is legislation to repeal section 98 of the criminal code. They send it there because they are listening to their master's voice from the immediate left-

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 about the Old Age Pensions Act?

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:

-and because they know their friends in the senate will defeat it there. The excuse was given, not by me but by members of the opposition themselves and by their leader, that the reason they could not bring in social reform legislation was that they were faced with a hostile senate. The Old Age Pensions Act was an exception to the general rule. In other words they can bring in those things that they want to bring, but the senate is a very fine excuse for anything they do not want to do. It is like a lie, an abomination to the Lord but a very present help in time of trouble.

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

To the Tory party.

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 other day when

one of the social reform measures was being considered by the house the hon. member

The Budget-Mr. Turnbull

for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) said it was glorifying the bill to oppose it. "There is nothing in it," he said; "let us pass it and get rid of it "*-the same old sneer. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, would it be safe for the people of this country to entrust the operation of this reform legislation to those who sneer and jeer at it? Would it be safe, in view of their attitude, to leave its administration in their hands?

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

William Alexander Fraser

Liberal

Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):

The

people will answer that.

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:

Let me remind my hon. friend from Northumberland, who seems to have found his voice, although he has not yet stood up to speak, that the party of which he is a member failed in their duty as a government from 1922 to 1930 and were dismissed from office and the Conservative party put in their place. Let me point out that they are now failing in their duty as an opposition, and the next thing will be that they will be dismissed as the official opposition and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation put in their place.

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

You will be down there after the next 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:

There is yet an important item of legislation to come before the house in connection with the mass buying investigation. Can we safely trust this to the opposition? Had we better not put it on the statute books while those who are in favour of it are in office? What was the attitude of the leader of the opposition when the resolution to set up the price spreads and mass buying rommitee was brought in? At page 190 of Hansard for 1934 he is reported as saying:

The motion is in large part one of postponing action. What the country is interested in is not so much further inquiry with respect to matters about which nearly everyone knows a great deal, but legislation, if more is required, to meet a situation that is already understood.

II my right hon. friend knew that these conditions existed, he did not pass legislation to stop them, but referred to a book long since on the shelf, entitled Industry and Humanity. Having said that there was no necessity for investigation, he then says: "There is no necessity for any legislation in connection with it; so there was no necessity for either investigation or legislation. While the investigation was still going on the leader of the opposition spoke during a by-election in Ontario and described the whole investigation as humbug. His words were reported in the press as follows:

[Mr. Turnbull.1

Once again, but briefly, Mr. King referred to the Stevens pamphlet. He believed that there was "collusion" between Prime Minister R. B. Bennett and Hon. H. H. Stevens, in this matter *-"more in the nature of humbug to serve the political ends of Mr. Bennett and the personal ends of Mr. Stevens."

With that attitude towards the mass buying commission and the legislation to be brought forward would it be safe for tlhe people of this country to entrust such legislation and the administration of it to those who say it was all unnecessary?

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

Leslie Gordon Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL (Hamilton):

Would it be safe

to entrust them with anything?

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:

Take their general

attitude towards these questions. Let me quote from Hansard of June 6, 1934, page 3727, where the leader of the opposition is reported as saying:

Yesterday the house was told by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that my colleague the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and myself belonged to the school mid-Victorian constitutionalists; and that was held out as a reproach. To those who so assert, may I say that I for one am very proud of being classed of the school of mid-Victorian constitutionalists.

Then there is the question of wheat marketing. During the war we used to hear arm chair generals telling how to defeat the enemy. Many of us were very glad that the arm chair generals were not in command of the forces. The other day we had an arm chair wheat merchant telling us how to sell our wheat. We heard him telling how Mr. McFarland was trying to glorify himself instead of taking care of the farmers' troubles. Picture the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth sitting in his gilded office in St. James street with one of his imported fifty-cent cigars in his mouth and his feet on his mahogany table, advising the farmers of western Canada how to sell their wheat, and the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) who never bought or sold a bushel of wheat in his life except on the stock exchange, telling us how the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth could make a better job of it than Mr. McFarland.

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

William Alexander Fraser

Liberal

Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):

He could not make a worse one.

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:

If they keep up that sort of thing they are going to turn every farmer in western Canada against them. Anyone who suggested, when the British market was rising four times as fast as Winnipeg, that the plug should be taken out and wheat allowed to drop to the Argentine level.

The Budget-Mr. Swanston

thereby further destroying the purchasing power of the farmers of western Canada, has very little knowledge of the trend of thought of the people of the west, and very little knowledge of the effect that the buying power of western Canada has upon employment in eastern Canada. My hon. friends are laughing and jeering still, as they sneer and jeer and laugh at anything. There is no doubt the farmer will get over his troubles even if they do laugh. The job of official opposition should be taken from them and given to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation if they carry on in this way. In 1928 we had approximately 550,000,000 bushels of wheat in western Canada that sold for approximately $1.25 a bushel, which meant about $675,000,000 of new money. That money came into Ontario and Quebec to buy boots and shoes, clothing, machinery, automobiles and practically everything the farmer requires. When he paid the interest on his mortgage the money came to eastern Canada and was distributed among the bond and stock holders of mortgage companies, who used it largely for the purpose of purchasing the necessaries of life for themselves, and these purchases kept the wheels of industry turning in the central provinces and kept men and women at work. But in the last four or five years when providence did not see fit to send us a crop and when in the absence of an imperial treaty Soviet Russia broke the price of our grain in England, we had about 260,000,000 bushels of wheat, which was selling at 40 cents a bushel, and instead of having $675,000,000 in new money we had about $100,000,000, or a little more, which was not sufficient to keep the people of the central provinces employed. As a consequence unemployment became rife in all parts of the country.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that because of these facts there is no reason why there should be an election at the present time; there is no reason why the party now in office should not continue to carry out its program, and no reason why that program should not be placed before the electors in the proper way and at the proper time. We have had the statement by the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), a former Minister of Trade and Commerce, that wheat would find its own market if it were left alone. That view is confirmed by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) who states, "Just leave wheat alone, and it will do what it likes." That is what the opposition has done with everything else. When they were in office they let everything do as it liked, and as a result the country

got in a mess. Now in opposition they suggest that wheat should do as it likes.

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

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Question, question.

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

Leslie Gordon Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL (Hamilton):

Get up and answer; you can't do it.

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

James Beck Swanston

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. B. SWANSTON (Maple Creek):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent in this chamber a very extensive and important constituency in southwestern Saskatchewan. Comparatively speaking it is one of the newest sections of this great country. To the southwestern portion of Saskatchewan there flocked many new settlers, men and women who were born and raised in many different sections of the globe. Canadians from every part of Canada are to be found there; people from every comer of the British Isles, from France, Belgium, Germany and the United States. Then, a very substantial part of our population is of Scandinavian origin, and the country is fortunate indeed to have as citizens men and women as honest, as progressive and as law-abiding as they are.

These new settlers from all lands have entered upon their duties of making homes for themselves and breaking the virgin soil. In a very short period of time they have accomplished by way of individual development and community effort that which I say is the greatest possible tribute which could be paid to their progressive character. In the short space of a quarter of a century an area which had been untouched by the plough was suddenly changed into an active and well ordered community with beautiful churches, schools, power houses, public buildings, highways, railways, telephones, first class farm homes, and an extensive elevator system.

You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this development could be brought about only by mortgaging the future to some extent. Money was borrowed, goods were purchased on credit, lumber was purchased and farm machinery was acquired to improve the land. Just at a time when we thought the difficulties of the district were almost surmounted there came upon us the depression with its low commodity prices. Then followed adverse climatic conditions seriously affecting the area. The people in that section of the country met their difficulties with courage and fortitude. They maintained their school and church services, they maintained their community services- and this all in the face of sacrifices which had to be borne individually and collectively.

The Budget-Mr. Swanston

At the last session of parliament the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was passed. It was not until some months after its passage that the preliminary organization could be established. We know now what its effect will be, what it will do in the future for the people on the land. In my section of the country there is only one official receiver, and he is very busy. It is impossible for him to do all the work devolving upon him, but I have urged upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) the necessity for arrangements whereby help may be given and the facilities of the legislation made more readily available to the farmers. I am pleased to say the minister has received my representations and is going to appoint agents to assist the receiver in that section of the country.

The purpose of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is to create an understanding between debtor and creditor. Unfortunately in the past such understanding had disappeared or was fast disappearing, due to the fact that the farmer through no fault of his own was unable to pay and the creditor was unable to collect. There was a tendency on the part of each to magnify his own difficulties, without regard to the other party. However, with this legislation they can get together around a common table; they will appreciate the fact that each has his own difficulties, each has his problems, and that the problems of both can be met only by the farmer being retained on the land as an efficient producer.

When I learned from the Minister of Finance that up to the end of February over two thousand settlements had been effected throughout Canada by the official receiver and by the boards of review, I realized how successful this great experiment had been. When I read the principles announced by the boards of review in the prairie provinces I am convinced that the legislation is going to function as was intended when it passed this parliament a year ago.

For instance, I learn from the joint pronouncement of the three prairie boards of review that they consider the farmer who is reasonably endeavouring to farm his land efficiently and who has been fair and honourable with his creditors is entitled to consideration. I find, further, that the boards of review are interested in seeing that the carrying charges to the farmer are reduced. In the classification of debts they believe special consideration is due in connection with those debts incurred for the necessities of

life. This is as it should be. In my opinion a retail merchant who has carried a farmer through difficult times and has furnished him with food and clothing is entitled to further consideration. I would urge upon the minister consideration of an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act which would extend to retailers the informal procedure of arrangement and adjustment of debts as is available to farmers under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. This legislation is new, but it constitutes a real reform, and if carried out by receivers and boards of review-and apparently that is being done-it will mean much for the happiness and the contentment of farmers throughout Canada.

Then, at the last session of parliament amendments to the farm loan act were passed, and further amendments have been passed at the present session. The people in Saskatchewan cannot benefit by the amendments of last year because there was no immediate session of the legislature in Saskatchewan adopting the legislation, and while in fact the legislation was passed, it did not become law until December, 1934. Then came the amendments made to the farm loan act during the present session. The $90,000,000 available through the farm loan board will be of great assistance to the farmer. The farm debt of Canada exceeds one and a half billion dollars. A comparison of these figures would indicate that every farmer could not expect a loan. However, either under one act or the other, so far as his indebtedness is concerned the farmer should be in a position to face the future without fear. Carrying and fixed charges must be reduced, and if we can obtain reasonable commodity prices the farmer will experience no difficulty in meeting his obligations as they become due.

I was glad to hear from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) that he intends that there shall be the closest cooperation between the official receivers appointed under the 'Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and the farm loan board, once it is established in the province of Saskatchewan. The official receivers will have an intimate knowledge of the condition of the farmer and can be of [DOT]very real assistance to the farm loan board and to the farmers as well. As a result of the operation of both of these acts the farm debt load in Canada is going to be very materially decreased. I have learned with the greatest interest of the success which the receivers are having in my own part of the country in reducing and rearranging indebtedness which has been all past due and in default.

The Budget-Mr. Swanston

During a period of high prices for commodities, the price of land naturally rose. Farmers, anxious to extend their own holdings, either for their own use or for the use of their growing sons, found themselves hopelessly involved because of agreements they had entered into. Likewise, they found themselves involved in debts for heavy machinery purchased for the purpose of farming the land, which, with poor crops and low commodity prices, they could not liquidate.

I am glad to note that in dealing with these large obligations of the farmers, the official receivers are making special efforts, that the boards of review are making very real adjustments, and that the net result is that the farmer, with his new set of contracts, can proceed to farm his land with the satisfaction and the knowledge that he can reasonably perform the new obligations he has assumed.

The last census figures indicated that there were in Canada 728,000 farmers. Of this number, almost 90 per cent could be termed by the census authorities as home owning farmers. We are all proud of this fact. As Canadians we believe that our people will be better satisfied, better contented, if they can . carry on their agricultural endeavours as owners of their own land. It will be apparent, however, that with the tremendous farm debt load to which I referred there is a very real danger of that very high percentage of home owning farmers being reduced either by being forced off the land by their creditors, or by losing hope and giving up their land.

The legislation which was passed at the last session of parliament and the legislation to which I have referred which was passed at this session was definitely for the purpose of retaining a high percentage of home owning farmers in this country. That is what the farmers want themselves; it is what this government wishes as well. There is a traditional desire on the part of every British subject to own his own land or his own home. This comes to us through the generations that have passed. The same is true of many farmers in my own constituency who have come from other lands. They have come with a traditional desire to own their own land. Then to the great province of Saskatchewan many thousands came from countries where they could not own their own land, and they came to this land of hope knowing that here there was not only the possibility of owning their own land but that they would live in communities where the

same desire existed, and furthermore, that they would live in a country where by legislation this desire would be encouraged.

At the last session of parliament there was passed after very considerable controversy what is known as the Natural Products Marketing Act. This legislation was designed to secure for farmers in Canada a more orderly marketing system than the system which obtains at the present time and one which would result in financial advantage to the farmer without being unfair either to the distributor or to the consumer of these products. It was felt that in handling the product of the farmer there was manipulation and exploitation, and that it was necessary that there should be a regulation of the movement of products so that prices might be fairer and that they might be stabilized at a fair level.

I know that in the urban centres particularly it was urged that should the measure be a success in so far as the farmer was concerned, it would mean higher prices to the consumer. Fortunately, we have some experience to go by in this country in the matter of orderly marketing. In the province of British Columbia for some years the marketing of their fruit was controlled. Following a decision of the courts that control was lost, and in comparing the return to the producer during the years of control with the cost to the consumer, it was definitely found that with control and regulation the producer was getting more, with no increase in cost to the consumer, whereas the consumer was getting a better product in that the effect or control was to raise the standard of the product which the consumer could obtain.

The Natural Products Marketing Act has now been in force for almost a year. A number of schemes have been suggested and have been approved. More than a score of others are before the marketing board at the present time for consideration. The experience of the fruit farmer, of the tobacco farmer, and of the fisherman has fully justified the passing of the legislation and fully justified the confidence which the government had in the legislation as a method and a means of curbing abuses and preventing the exploiting of the primary producer. Experience will no doubt indicate that certain improvements will still have to be adopted and the act and the regulations in due course amended, but what I want most emphatically to say is that the law has justified itself as a means of obtaining for the producer the greatest possible reward for his labour, and at the same time

The Budget-Mr. Swanston

the consumer will be obtaining a better product without any substantial increase in cost to him.

In my own province many men who at first were definitely opposed to the principle of the marketing bill are now as strongly in favour of the act, and in the cattle industry almost without exception the rancher and farmer who produces cattle for market looks to the marketing act as the agency not only to improve his condition, but once it is improved, to continue the improvement and give some degree of confidence for the future.

If there is one commodity in. which the people of the province of Saskatchewan are interested it is wheat. In 1930 not only the national situation but the international situation was such in the matter of wheat that a very direct interest-had to be taken in the handling of wheat by the government of Canada, or, poor as the returns were to the wheat grower, they would have undoubtedly been much lower. The government in backing John I. McFarland in the stabilization policy which he was supporting undoubtedly was successful in putting into the pockets of the w-estern wheat farmers millions of dollars which otherwise they could not have had. It is even difficult to imagine how the work could have been carried on at all, or how the companies could have operated, had not this stabilization policy been adopted. Those who are critical of that policy and who would change it completely say that the result of it has been that the farmer has been receiving a fictitious price for his grain. In plain English, they say that the price the farmer received is higher than he should have been receiving. They are going to change all that. They are going to eliminate the fictitious prices so if those who criticize the policy of the government in wheat are put in the position where they can determine the policy, there is nothing surer than that the price which the farmer will receive for his wheat will be very substantially lower than the present levels. The wheat farmer should keep this clearly in mind. If he wants a lower price for his product there is one sure way of getting it-change the policy of supporting John. I. McFarland which has been followed by this government.

Another feature of the policy of this government in connection with grain which I support wholeheartedly is the providing of a better distribution of grain acreage. A market can be found for more barley in Canada and in Europe, and we also need more oats in Canada. The sensible policy is the one advocated by the Department of Agriculture

for the better distribution of grain acreage and the putting of some of the acreage now in wheat into coarse grains. The district in which I live is interested not only in wheat farming but in the raising of cattle and sheep. We have had a drought in the last few years but in view of the snowfall of the present winter we hope that this is broken. However, we must consider what can be done in order to prevent a recurrence of drought conditions. We must give consideration to those policies which will prevent if possible a recurrence of the extreme drought conditions of the past few years.

It must be borne in mind that the range or grazing areas from the Rocky mountains to the dirt hills in Saskatchewan are seriously overgrazed. Another serious drought this year will spell disaster to many of those in the business. They will be forced to market unfinished grass cattle, and herds which have taken years to build up will have to be sold. What will be true of the rancher will be true also of the farmer. The drought has been a costly proposition to everyone concerned-to the farmer, to the municipality, to the province and to the dominion. It has been suggested that there be free freight on feed, but there is no such thing as free freight. Someone must pay, and the state has been paying. In the last analysis the taxpayer is called upon to bear the expense of millions of dollars which has been incurred in taking care of the relief feed requirements caused by the drought. Remedial measures must be taken to correct this situation and improve the stability of farming and ranching in these districts.

There are three essential factors in the production of live stock-grass, water and winter feed. A sound water development policy will go a long way to stabilize the industry and bring about security against feed shortage and serious death losses of live stock. I am glad to support the policy of the government as announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to provide for experiments in the so-called drought areas. This will include the building of dams and the impounding of water in reservoirs. It will take care of spring flood conditions and conserve spring run-off water. I suggest that particular consideration be given to simple community irrigation projects. I urge the government to consider a scheme which has been suggested on the Whitemud river in southern Saskatchewan, and I hope a favourable report can be made in this connection.

The dominion experimental farm at Many-berries, Alberta, has done some splendid research work in connection with water development. During the past eight years the station's only source of water has been the reservoirs. There has been a little snow but the summers have been dry. However, because of the water policy which was followed it was not found necessary to move the stock to water, as water was always available within a distance of two miles. The United States government is keenly interested in what has been done in Canada, and I am informed, I believe authentically, that the government of the United States is constructing 700 dams in Montana and North Dakota. If the drought period is broken, as conditions this winter would indicate it is, I contend that this would be the time to construct the

Date of construction

Capacity of reservoir, acre feet

Type of soil

Surface acres of water

Average annual run-off

Drainage area

Height of dam

Length of dam

Width at top

Freeboard

Depth of water

Yardage of dirt, cubic yards..

Cost per yard

Type of rip-rap

Cost of rip-rapping

Total cost of dam

Cost of repairs for one year..

Loss of water, per yard

Permanency

The Budget-Mr. Swanston

necessary dams. The time to prepare for another drought period is during the time of ample rainfall so that there may be that conservation of water so necessary in a dry period.

I would point out that the construction of dams is not expensive. Most of the labour can be obtained locally and the expert engineering expense can be kept low. The station at Manyberries has harvested eighty tons of hay per year from forty acres of land. If water had not been available at the critical dry periods, no crop would have been obtained. I have obtained some figures of the cost of the type of reservoir constructed at Manyberries. The figures, which are for two dams known as C.23 and A.29, are as follows:

C. 23 A. 29

Oct., 1927 Oct., 1927

18.5 5

Loam Clay

4.6 1.2

20 acre feet 12 acre feet

640 acres 320 acres

16.0 feet 10 feet

270 feet 165 feet

8 feet 8 feet

3 feet 3 feet

13 feet 7 feet

3,517 350

20 cents 20 cents

Part rock Rock

$26 $10

$729.40 $80

$20 $10

2.5 feet 3.5 feet

100% 95%

The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), the chief financial critic of the official opposition, was particularly critical of the wheat selling policy of the government and especially of John I. McFarland. His argument is that the prices paid during the past year for wheat have been out of line with world prices. He infers that the price of wheat is too high. The official opposition say: Put us in office and we will change all that; we will see that prices are more in accord with world prices. In short, that they will be lowered. This is a hopeful promise from the Liberal party to the western voter. It would appear that the official critic is making a bid for the support of the big interests in St. James street, Montreal, where he is now located. When it comes to choosing between the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) I think the western farmer and everyone dependent upon him will know how to vote, 92582-151

especially when the wheat question is considered.

Let us consider for a moment the record of the Liberal government from 1922 to August, 1930, in connection with wheat and markets for wheat. In 1922 the Liberals took office under their present leader, following a Conservative prime minister, Mr. Meighen. They were given the legacy of free markets for our wheat in France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Greece and all other European countries. After nine years of Liberal rule, a rule which boasted of freer and wider markets-they offer the same thing if they are again returned-what did we find? We found that the free markets left by the Conservatives had disappeared, to be replaced by the highest tariff wall ever placed against Canada. When the Conservatives took office in August, 1930, there was a duty of 85 cents per bushel against our wheat entering France; the duty

The Budget-Mr. Swanston

on our wheat entering Germany was 92 cents per bushel; it was 90 cents per bushel against it entering Italy, and so on down the line. That is the record of achievement by the Liberal party. Because of a fear of provoking someone, they permitted the United States to build up a prohibitive tariff wall against our butter, our eggs, our cattle and everything else we produced and had to sell. The western farmer knows that this depression took place twelve months before the Conservative party came into office, and the prices of farm products were rapidly tumbling. He knows that during the last year of Liberal rule the price of wheat dropped from $1.55 to 80 cents a bushel before this government came into office. Everything was in chaos, and the personal effort of that greatest of Canadians of whom we are all so proud, the Prime Minister of Canada, was necessary to prevent even more serious consequences of world conditions affecting this country.

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

April 2, 1935