May 1, 1939

CCF

Abraham Albert Heaps

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. HEAPS:

On the point of order raised by the minister, since I have been in the house this is the first time that there has ever been any attempt at curtailment of discussion on the budget. An hon. member is entitled to discuss almost anything when he is dealing with the budget because it concerns the expenditures of government whether on wheat, unemployment or anything else. I think the hon. member has a perfect right to speak on any subject he chooses.

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

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member was not in the house this afternoon when a similar point was raised and when I read the decision. At that time I held that the point of order raised by the leader of the government was well taken.

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

Harry Raymond Fleming

Liberal

Mr. FLEMING:

I was just about to quote from the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. I consider that is in order. My remarks up to that time were based upon the radio address by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and I had no thought in mind of commenting on any bill now before the house. The Minister of Finance said this:

Agriculture can do little to protect itself against these international storms. Other producers can contract their output, can frequently lay off their workers to live at public cost upon the relief rolls, while their contraction in output prevents a disastrous decline in price and the disappearance of profits. Farmers cannot readily do these things.

And again:

This was the reason for the guarantee of a basic minimum price of 80 cents for the western wheat crop of last year.

The minister states that this was the reason for a guarantee of a basic minimum price of 80 cents, but he does not say anything about the 60 cent price the Minister of Agriculture mentioned in his address over the radio in Saskatchewan during the Easter recess. If there were justification for the 80 cent price last year, there is just as much, if not more, for it this year.

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

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

I did not mention a 60 cent price in my radio address.

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

Harry Raymond Fleming

Liberal

Mr. FLEMING:

The minister said a 60 cent advance.

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

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

That is not a 60 cent price.

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

Harry Raymond Fleming

Liberal

Mr. FLEMING:

That is splitting hairs,

and I think I told the minister that before. The livelihood of the whole prairie west depends upon the industry of agriculture. The whole economy that has been built up is threatened with extinction by this 60 cent price. The farmer cannot live on 60 cent wheat. All the figures having to do with industry prove that is below the cost of production. The farmers of the west have been aroused by what they regard as a betrayal of their interests. We western members might just as well bluntly tell the government right now what we think of the matter. I protest that the farmers of the west cannot be satisfied with anything less than 80 cents. Whether or not there is a 60 cent advance, that is the lowest basic price upon which we can exist and have something with which to pay on our debts. The price of wheat this year, according to the bureau of statistics, is the lowest since 1890, with the exception of 1932. Government assistance is needed when the price of wheat is low, not when it is high. Surely no Liberal member of parliament would rise in his place in this house and say that he would be willing to let 300.000 people in western Canada starve. I am getting sick and disgusted hearing all about the relief that has been poured into the west, just as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) said he was getting sick and tired talking about tariffs. Other places than western Canada get relief.

I sometimes wonder if the reason why we are not seeking markets is that we do not wish to sell wheat to potential enemies. England knows where her wheat supply is in the event of war. While I am not questioning that as a matter of policy, I do not see why the wheat farmer should have to suffer.

The Budget-Mr. Fleming

It is not that we want to be war-threat profiteers. On the contrary, it looks as though we are going to be war-threat victims. We all remember the story of what happened in 1917 when the price of wheat soared to $2.50 a bushel. There was great consternation in the financial world of St. James street, Montreal, and Bay street, Toronto. They considered that this was an exorbitant price, and they prevailed upon the government of the day to set a price on wheat. They were afraid the agricultural west might become a financial factor, and a stop price was placed on this commodity. They might have received $5 a bushel, but the tillers of the soil, the back-bone of Canada, were not to be allowed to get into that class. That strata of society was just for the manufacturer of the east. It was quite in order for the textile industry, the packing houses and the drug supply houses to make this money; that was quite justifiable ; but the humble peasants in the lowly cottages from the head of the lakes to the Rocky mountains must not make too much profit, that would be disloyalty to their king and country.

The Minister of Finance says;

On the frontiers of science, invention and technology, the possibilities of expansion are greater than they ever were on the geographical frontier.

Perhaps he had in mind how they are making buttons out of skim-milk in Waterloo county. But while these frontiers of technology have been expanding, apparently our ability to control them has been contracting. Thus not only do I see little hope for the west in the budget, but I fail to find any minor, let alone any major attempt to tackle the great economic problems of the day. Many persons believe that the invidious paradox of poverty amidst plenty and our economic failure are due entirely to our outworn monetary system.

I turn now to another subject. The minister said that naked aggression has caused a grim procession of tragedies and repeatedly altered the map of Europe. This has had its effect in Canada although we are far removed from the conflict of war in Europe. I often wonder if the Canadian people fully realize how fortunate they are in having as Prime Minister, the right hon. leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Mackenzie King). One thing for which we must be thankful is his effort to keep us out of war. The influence that Canada has in restraining the old land from any hasty action may never be fully known, and I shiver to think what might have happened if a hot-head had been at the head of our administration.

Imperialism and flag-waving are with us once again. Hon. members must see it on every side with its propaganda of fear. This proved a suitable way of getting into parliament in 1917, and no one knows it better than the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston), and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). The unscrupulous office seekers are at work again trying to cast reflection upon our German and Ukrainian population. History repeats itself; the same old tactics that were used in 1917 are again to be seen. Even the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth) raised a question the other day in the house about a certain German newspaper in Winnipeg. I never heard the hon. gentleman raise any question about communistic propaganda. He was loud in his condemnation of padlock law in the old province of Quebec when it attempted to stamp out communism.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

Are you in favour

of it?

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

Harry Raymond Fleming

Liberal

Mr. FLEMING:

Yes, if it stamps out

communism. Communism is not a social and political system, but a gigantic conspiracy organized throughout the world to wage war against all human and divine laws and to destroy Christian civilization, according to the Cardinal Archbishop of Quebec. Our German population is now being subjected to violent abuse. For a quarter of a century I have lived in a German speaking community, and I number members of that community among my truest and best friends. It is indeed with sorrow in my heart that I hear them subjected to insult. The German-Canadian citizens of Saskatchewan are loyal to their king and country, and loyal to Canadian institutions. There may be some irresponsible agitators who are trying to embarrass our German population, just as some of our English-speaking people try to embarrass us. I think I can best give to the house an idea of the loyalty of our German-Canadians of Saskatchewan by quoting from a German language newspaper published in the city of Regina, a paper that has been published for over thirty years. In one of its leading editorials Der Courier says:

The majority of German-Canadians now in this country are pro-British with unmistakable loyalty to the land of their adoption.

Der Courier has in the past denounced communism as a disrupting, demoralizing influence in our Canadian life. It does not hesitate to denounce any other similar fact that such a disturbing organization finds advocates among a few German-speaking citizens makes no difference to the principle involved. Der Courier stands for national unity, freedom of speech, liberty of action and democratic government. It is resolutely opposed to any movement

The Budget*-Mr. Fleming

which would undermine or imperil these privileges which Canadians enjoy in such generous measure.

Throughout the long years of its existence Der Courier has interested itself in the democratic and political life of Canada. It has steadfastly striven to discharge, even at the price of sacrifice, its duty in directing public opinion along sane paths. It has endeavoured to promote peace and harmony among all peoples, races and creeds. It has held high and exalted concept of citizenship and has emphasized the liberties, privileges and duties which that citizenship entails. It has always endeavoured to be impartial, temperate and cool in judgment, free from racial or religious bias. In a word, it has tried to be constructive, not destructive, in character. Its aim has been to build, not to destroy.

I have a letter from a young Ukrainian in my constituency, in which he says:

As to the Ukrainians here in Canada, they are loyal to the British empire and willing to fight against the British enemy that will try to disturb her peace and our freedom. . . .

All Ukrainians will fight shoulder to shoulder with the British army against any enemy who would try to disturb our peace and freedom.

Our non-British population have confidence in the present Prime Minister. They recall 1917, when the government of Canada brought into existence the nefarious War-time Elections Act, which disfranchised them and made a sham of our Canadian franchise. While we must be alive to defend ourselves if attacked, that is a far cry from inciting people to hate, which is neither Christian nor the way to peace. Let me recall to this house the words of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier who, speaking on this disfranchising bill, said:

Because they may have been born in Germany or Austria or Turkey they are not sup-posed_ to give an unbiased verdict upon the questions before the country. I do not admit that doctrine. I do not admit the doctrine that when a man leaves Europe-whatever may be the part of Europe whence he comes-and comes to this country, when he swears allegiance to His Majesty the King, when he becomes a citizen of Canada, when he builds a home for himself and his family, I am not prepared to believe that if a conflict arises between the land of that man's birth and the land of his adoption, that he will go back upon the country to which he has sworn allegiance. I can well believe that if there be men of German origin who have forsaken Germany and who have become British subjects in this country-having made their homes here and established their families here-that they may be suffering agony at this time, but I am not prepared to believe that they will turn traitor to the land of their adoption in favour of the land of their birth.

That can well be repeated to-day not only for the truth of what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, but also as a warning to those who might be thinking of following people who would use

[Mr. Fleming.1

the cheap trick of appealing to patriotism and race prejudice in order to gain political preferment.

I find, Mr. Speaker, that this budget in no way provides help for our suffering population. There is no help for the primary producer; nothing has been done with respect to farm implements; nothing has been done to smash the combines about which we heard so much a year ago. The sales tax has not been abolished. The sugar tax is still maintained. I therefore find that I must support the amendment to the amendment. I do so because I believe it is in the interests of the people whom I represent in this house, and because I wish to register with this government my protest. I wish, however, to make it abundantly clear to the house and the country that I cannot subscribe to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation doctrine of socialism. Perhaps I can explain my views more forcefully by quoting the words of a distinguished Canadian, Cardinal Villeneuve, who, speaking in Montreal last fall, said:

Now I will deal with my attitude towards the C.C.F. One of the principal leaders of the C.C.F. declared that their program was based on frankly socialist principles. That is true; the C.C.F. and communism, economic programs are practically the same. The only difference is that the communists admit that they are prepared to attain their object by violent means, while the C.C.F. think they will accomplish their purpose peacefully.

The C.C.F. program contains several fundamental errors. Let me very briefly describe the first error in the C.C.F. program which advocates the suppression or at least the quasisuppression of private property. Now the right to own property is not derived from human laws but from nature, and every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.

The abolition of private ownership leads to state ownership and therefore the C.C.F. program proposes the nationalization of practically all forms of industry and other means of production and state ownership of all financial companies, etc.

I cannot support the Tory amendment because it is worse even than the budget. Since I have come to this house I have found five types of Tories. There is, first, the Toronto Tory, represented by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). As one Conservative said, " If in doubt, vote as the member for Broadview does and you will always get Tory votes in Toronto."

Next there are the sincere Tories, represented by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence), a bom high-protectionist, and always consistent.

Then there are the insincere Tories, represented by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley)-a Tory in Toronto and a Cooperative Commonwealth Federationist in Assiniboia.

The Budget-Mr. Fleming

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

George Halsey Perley

Mr. PERLEY:

What kind of a Liberal is the hon. member?

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

Harry Raymond Fleming

Liberal

Mr. FLEMING:

I am a western low-tariff Liberal.

Next there are the Liberal Tories, represented by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), a convert to Toryism, and converts are always much more ardent in their new faith than if natural born to it.

Finally there are the Tory Liberals. I shall not give examples for fear Israel Tarte might haunt them in their sleep and say to them, " Laurier kicked me out of the Liberal administration because I was a high-protectionist, but I was much more moderate than you are."

I have found, Mr. Speaker, in the last few months, that these various types of Toryism look upon the west as a millstone round their necks. We in the west are to them a sort of Albanian colony in this confederation which Macdonald made and Laurier saved. If this cleavage is allowed to grow, I fear that great northern nation which was the dream of D'Arcy McGee will become " warring nations in the bosom of a single state." Do not let us say that the credit of Canada cannot pay an assessment for a minimum price for wheat. The governor of the Bank of Canada admitted, under cross-examination by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), that we could spend billions of dollars and in no way impoverish this country. I should like to quote at this point from a speech by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard who, speaking at St. Thomas on April 22, is reported as follows:

The speaker told of other things that "bankrupt" Germany had done. The hundreds of costly public buildings, the great new sports and health stadium, a new university at Munich that Hitler had ordered built when the need of a new wing to the old university was voiced. "It is true they have regimentation of wealth and manpower in Germany, that they work longer hours at lower wages, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Germany could find the equivalent of 4,000 million gold dollars to build all this," said the speaker. "The ability of finding money, as exampled in the totalitarian nations, should give the answer to that silly question often heard propounded in Canada: 'Where is the money coming from'."

We have the best land in the world. Our resources are unsurpassed in the world. What *would Hitler not give for those fertile wheat fields? But, Mr. Speaker, the agrarian west will not much longer live in economic slavery. The farmer sells for nothing the fruit of his toil, but when he purchases he has to pay out of all proportion to his income. Let the government be magnanimous; let them give the western farmer an 80 cent minimum price and the acreage bonus as well. I hope that

this government will not become what Disraeli once said about the Conservative party. "A Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."

In the last few weeks the Winnipeg Free Press has been publishing cartoons, with a certain degree of humour, by Arch Dale, the official cartoonist of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. On one side there is a figure represented by the Bracken committee; on the other, a member of the present government, and then, between the two, a hard-pressed farmer. Dale brought home to us the other day the bitter fight which the farmers and farm leaders of western Canada are putting up, and he quoted that phrase from Emerson which we learned years ago in our public school readers:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood.

Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,

Here once the embattled farmers stood.

And fired the shot heard round the world.

The shot for economic liberty has been fired. Let the Liberal government take cognizance of these democratic petitions which were presented to the government by the Bracken committee. Someone has said that committee came down here and held a pistol to the head of the government. That is far from the truth. The petition is one of the weapons which the farmers of western Canada has, in our democratic set-up, to show what they are thinking about on the western plains.

Let me say in conclusion that I regret the necessity of offering any opposition to the government's budget, but I do so because I learned at my mother's knee to be true to yourself and to no man will you be false. I recall that on the day I received the Liberal nomination in the constituency of Humboldt I quoted the words of that great Liberal, William Lyon Mackenzie, grandfather of the leader of the present government:

I have no end in view save the well-being

of the people at large, no ambition to serve buit thiat of contributing to the happiness and the prosperity of our common country. The influence and the authority "with which you may invest me, shall always be directed according to the best of my judgment, for the general good, and it will be my care to uphold your right to the utmost of my power with the firmness, moderation and perseverance, which becomes the representative of a free people.

Yet if year after year we are to have a series of innocuous budgets, such as this is, I am almost willing to try any change. I just want to give this warning to the government: If this budget indicates the answer to our problems, particularly to the sorely pressed west, then I despair of the future for the Liberal party in western Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Marshall

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

James Alexander Marshall

Social Credit

Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) upon delivering a constructive speech. To my mind he usually makes a forward contribution to the debates of this house. It takes courage for any supporter of a government to rise in his place and speak his mind as the hon. member has done this evening.

I wish to give a moment or two to a remark which was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Tomlinson). He made a brief reference to the group of which I am a member to the effect that we social crediters dislike the eastern people because they have but one desire, namely, to grab all they can lay their hands on. Let me hasten to state that this is not the truth. Centred in eastern Canada to-day are financial institutions which have brought the people of western Canada to the poverty-stricken condition in which they find themselves to-day, and they have also brought to the same condition a very large percentage of the people of eastern Canada. We are opposed to these institutions on account of their nefarious practices, not because of what they have done to western Canadians but because of what they have done to all the people of Canada, both in the east and in the west. We were sent here by people who have come to realize what is the cause of their troubles. These people know that debt, taxation and the low price of farm products are the causes of the situation in which they find themselves. They know full well that these debt merchants and manipulators of the prices of primary products live in eastern Canada, and our people are determined through their elected representatives to see that an end is made of this unholy traffic; that is the reason we are here to-day.

We have no quarrel with eastern Canadians. The west was peopled by men and women who came from eastern Canada or who can trace their lineage back to families that lived in Ontario, Quebec, or even the maritime provinces. Everything that the hon. member for Bruce can persuade this government to do for eastern Canada will find ready support so far as we are concerned, provided, of course, that his requests are fair, just and ' reasonable, because we are opposed to anything which smacks of graft or political patronage.

If we are to judge from the speech delivered by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hynd-man), this afternoon, there is something wrong in eastern Canada. It appears that patronage is rampant even in the city in which we are holding this parliament. We as a group want for all our citizens, whether they

rMr. Fleming.]

live in the east or the wrest, justice, equity, the right to live normal, happy, contented lives, free from debt and worry. We are deeply concerned with the plight of the fishermen of Nova Scotia or of British Columbia; we are deeply concerned over the problems of the apple growers of the Annapolis valley or of the Okanagan. We share their worries with the cheesemakers and the potato growers of Ontario. Their problems are our concern just as much as are the problems of the people of the prairies. I say this to the Liberal party to-night: You will find us as a group ready and willing to sit round a common table at any time with only one object in mind, namely, a sincere desire to find a solution to the problem of debt, which, to my mind, transcends every other problem under the sun.

When I hear so many hon. members quoting statements made in past days by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), or even the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), there comes to my recollection time and time again a statement made by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) which, in my opinion, far exceeds anything I have ever heard from the point of view of optimism. I brought this statement to the attention of the house in the first session of the present parliament in 1936, and I make no apology for quoting it again on this occasion. In fact, it is a statement which we should constantly keep fresh in our memories. Here it is. The Minister of Mines and Resources made a broadcast to the Canadian people on the evening of April 24, 1936, at 10.30 o'clock eastern standard time, and at the conclusion of his broadcast he made this astonishing statement:

Is it .too much to expect that production of gold in Canada of from $200,000,000 to $250,000,000 -a year would give the following results:

1. Decisively and permanently settle the problem of unemployment.

2. Bridge the gap between the east and the west with mining camps and communities established at numerous points.

3. Bring a constructive and probably a permanent solution ,to our railroad problem.

4. Create an even greater market than at present for foodstuffs, clothing, structural materials, mine machinery and equipment, electrical supplies, electric power, fuel, explosives and innumerable other commodities including household furnishings and automobiles.

5. Revitalize the whole national economic life of the dominion.

6. Open up careers for coming generations of university graduates.

7. Ease the financial problems of the dominion, provinces and municipalities.

The Budget-Mr. Marshall

8. Alleviate the burden of our international indebtedness.

9. Assure the stability of the Canadian dollar; and. finally,

10. Stimulate the opening up and development of our resources in those northlands about which we know little to-day.

We must not fail to grasp t)he opportunity that lies before us.

If we turn to the white paper that formed a part of the budget this year, we shall find on page 27 that the production of gold has advanced steadily from 1926 to the present time. The production has been as follows:

1926 $ 36,300,000

1928 39,100,000

1932 71,500,000

1936 131.300,000

1937 143,300,000

1938 165,900,000

We are steadily aproaching the $200,000,000 mark. But will anyone suggest that unemployment is gradually decreasing as the production of gold is increasing? Will anyone suggest that poverty is declining in the same ratio as gold is increasing? I think that statement by the Minister of Mines and Resources is one of the most extravagant utterances ever made, unless I do not realize what the meaning of the word " extravagant " actually is. Some of the statements that the Prime Minister has made pale into insignificance compared with this statement.

This budget that we are considering at the present time is the fourth in the new series of Liberal budgets presented to the people of Canada for their acceptance or condemnation according to the way in which the people look upon them. This is the ninth successive year in which a deficit has been registered. These deficits have ranged from $220,000,000 in 1933 to a little more than $17,000,000 in 1937-38.

I always admire the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), and I listen to him with great interest when he speaks. He interjects into his speeches little quips and sallies that create at times pleasant diversion. A couple of years ago this hon. gentleman used a couplet that had its birth in the house of representatives of the United States. He dressed it up in slightly different clothes and applied it to the present premier of Alberta, and the house got quite a nice laugh out of it. I want to bring it to the attention of the house in its original form. It is this:

Hush, little deficit, don't you cry;

You'll be a crisis by and by.

I believe right thinking people in Canada to-day will agree that the crisis is not in the sweet by and by; it is here to-day. It is a tragedy to think that the intelligence displayed

by the members of the Liberal party in this house has not been able to bring about a solution of the problems which confront us.

While on the subject of debt and deficits I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) on April 14, appearing at page 2801 of Hansard:

We have enjoyed sane, economic administration. If one were to check the debt of Canada as it stands to-day, if he were to add all the surpluses under Liberal administrations and those under Conservative administrations, and balance them against the deficits of these respective parties, he would find that only $23,000,000 of a total interest-bearing debt of $3,100,000,000 can be attributed to Liberal administration.

A little further on he said, referring to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey):

How can the hon. member be sincere in his eloquence for the youth of Canada when the party to which he belongs has been guilty of saddling youth with more debt and has done more to mortgage future generations than any other party in Canada.

I took the trouble to do just as he suggested, and if any hon. member wishes to check the figures I am about to give he will find them at page 60 of the public accounts for 1938. The Liberals have been in office thirty-two years. During twenty-one years they piled up deficits and during eleven years they showed surpluses. They increased the public debt by $505,624,853.13, and during the eleven years they showed surpluses they decreased the public debt by $291,125,038.55. The difference between these two figures, or $214,499,814.58, is the net amount that has been added to the debt of this country by the Liberal party. That is a far cry from the S23.000,000 mentioned in the speech of the hon. member. But I wish to go on and complete the picture. The Conservatives have been in office thirty-five years, during thirty-one of which they showed deficits, while in the remaining four they had surpluses. They increased the national debt by SI.377,724,209.18. while they decreased the national debt by $27,977,780.77. The difference between these two figures, or $1,349,746,428.41, is the amount by which the national debt has been increased by the Conservative party since confederation. Then, during four years we had a union government, a fusion of the Liberal and Conservative parties.

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

Thomas Vincent Grant

Liberal

Mr. GRANT:

No; it was all Tory.

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

James Alexander Marshall

Social Credit

Mr. MARSHALL:

I am glad to hear that statement. I did not know; I thought it was composed of both parties. During those four years the national debt was increased by $1,461,692,685.89. I wonder whether the Liberals or the Conservatives will derive much

The Budget-Mr. Marshall

consolation from those figures. I suggest that at the next election, whether it is held this year or next, the Canadian people will judge both the Liberals and the Conservatives on their past records. The creation of debt instead of the creation of currency and credit will be the national issue in the next election, unless I am greatly mistaken.

On page 3147 of Hansard of this year the Minister of Finance said:

Our taxes are high but w-e do not bury the money we take in in taxes, as one might gather from what some speakers say. We spend it quickly, far too quickly, in my opinion, and for the most part pass it on to those who will spend it quickly again.

Perhaps hon. members might be interested to learn where we get our tax dollars and how we spend them. During the year just ended the income tax accounted for 28-31 cents in every tax dollar. The sales tax accounted for 23-81 cents; customs for 15-70 cents; excise for 10-23 cents, and other sources for 21-95 cents. The point I wish to make here is that one year ago the greatest money-getter of all was the sales tax. This year it has fallen to second place and its former position has been taken temporarily by the income tax. The sales tax, which is 8 per cent on the manufacturer's invoice, is one of the greatest impositions that could be placed upon the backs of the people. When it reaches the consumer, instead of its being 8 per cent it amounts to, roughly speaking, 12 per cent. An interesting item in connection with these matters is that the people of the institutions which make the most out of the people of Canada pay the least. On page 2 of the white paper we find that taxes collected from banking institutions have steadily decreased from 1934-35 to the present time. These are the figures of the amounts collected from these institutions:

1934- 35 $1,369,0001935- 36

1,281,0001936- 37

1,210,0001937- 38

1,107,0001938- 39 (estimated)

1,026,000

Then on the opposite page we find these same institutions collected as commissions and discounts on loans the following amounts:

1934- 35 $2,890,0001935- 36

3,577,0001936- 37

3,839,0001937- 38

4,555,0001938- 39 (estimated)

4,975,000

Is it any wonder that some of us consider this banking proposition one of the greatest racketeering games on the face of the north American continent?

I want to turn for a moment to the one main concession given in the budget just brought down. At page 3153 of Hansard the Minister of Finance is reported as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that when we are in committee of ways and means I shall move the following resolutions.

And then we turn to resolution No. 2, to which I direct particular attention:

2. That any metalliferous mine that comes into production after the 31st day of December, 1939, and prior to the 1st day of January, 1943, shall be exempt from income tax for the first three fiscal periods following the commencement of production.

Let me hasten to say I would be the first to endorse giving any and every assistance necessary to any business, if such assistance were needed. The question we must answer is this: Does mining require this assistance? Well, the Financial Post a couple of issues ago printed a significant article with respect to Canadian mines. It is in these words:

Canadian mines pay big returns. $922,000,000 in dividends since start. There cannot be many cynics about mining left! Mark Twain said something about a mine being a hole in the ground surrounded by liars. The cynics have always cracked about more money going into the ground than ever comes out.

If you meet one, here's the answer of Canadian mining:

At latest estimate, some $650,000,000 is invested in the mining and treatment of metals such as gold, silver, nickel and the base metals.

In 1938 the output of those mines totalled more than $300,000,000. In other words the production of one year returned about half the total sum invested.

Metal mining employed more than 40.000 men and paid them wages of over $61,000,000. More than 100,000 Canadians are directly supported by this industry.

Hundreds of trades people, hotel keepers, transport companies and other types of business have invested very substantially in northern towns to supply the needs and provide the entertainment of this vast mining community.

The mining industry pays out almost $100,000,000 in one year for supplies and equipment, for freight, insurance and other needs.

In the brief history of Canadian metal mining, the mines have paid out to shareholders a total of $922,000,000 in dividends.

Total dividends paid in one year alone, 1938, amounted to $93,820,715.

Is it any wonder many of us protest against giving these concessions to the mining industry at the present time? It is plain to see that this budget is designed for the "haves" rather than for the "have-nots." To him that hath shall be given; to him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. The Neros of the Liberal and Conservative parties are fiddling with tariffs, foreign trade and economic internationalism, while the Dominion of Canada bums. I take

The Budget-Mr. Grant

this opportunity to warn both parties to take heed, lest the conflagation which they have started will engulf both of them, leaving the path clear for true reform to be ushered in.

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

Thomas Vincent Grant

Liberal

Mr. T. V. GRANT (Kings):

Mr. Speaker,

I do not like speaking to a small audience, but the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall) who preceded me must take the blame for that situation. The hon. member will forgive me if I do not refer to his remarks, which were non-contentious-unlike those of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), who sowed wheat with one hand and tares with the other. I had intended to speak at length on the budget, but recently in compliance with what I thought was the desire of all hon. members for an early prorogation, I decided otherwise.

I wish, sir, to refer only briefly to a few statements of the financial critic of the official opposition who, I am sorry, is not in his seat. Let me say at once to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) that his leader would say more in a few moments than he said in a rather lengthy speech. That may be because his leader is a doctor and can make a rapid diagnosis. It is just as well that the hon. member is not a medical man, because I am afraid the patient might pass away before he would make a diagnosis. However, he did succeed in almost entirely emptying the chamber and the galleries, and if he had spoken a little longer he might have had the place to himself.

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

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

It is not filling up very fast now.

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

Thomas Vincent Grant

Liberal

Mr. GRANT:

It will be filling up shortly.

He said that the people of this country properly regarded this government as a '"do-nothing" government. If that is so, why have not the people of this country elected a few "do something" Conservatives? There have been ample opportunities in the many by-elections which have been held recently. His leader can thank the Liberal party for the seat he holds in this house, because we did not wish to encourage communism and other false doctrines in this country. I am sorry the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) is not in his seat, because I wanted to congratulate him upon the courageous stand he has taken in his controversy with Tim Buck. I hope he will lose no votes on that account, as I do not want to see him and his party replaced by members of either of the other groups. I have listened to their strange

political doctrines for four years, and I have never heard anything but destructive criticism and murmuring discontent.

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

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

You could not learn anything in forty years.

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

Thomas Vincent Grant

Liberal

Mr. GRANT:

I could not learn anything from you whatever. Bad as the Tories are, they are always defenders of democracy.

The hon. member for York South said that Canada did not displace Japan as fourth trading nation of the world, that Japan displaced herself because of her war with China. That is merely playing upon words, if it is not just child's talk. It means the same thing to the people of this country as it did when the Bennett tariffs sent Canada down to sixth position among the trading nations of the world. The matter of primary importance to the electors of this country is not what Japan did or did not succeed in doing in China, it is the fact that under Liberal rule Canada stands out proudly as the fourth trading nation in the whole world.

He admits that Canada has moved up to fourth position as an exporting nation, but he contends that that does not sell one pound, one bushel or one measure of our agricultural products in a foreign market.

I should like to see him try to get a hearing in any part of Prince Edward Island with that kind of gospel. Our potatoes are selling to-day for $1 a bushel, and we are obtaining for our other farm products as good an average price as we have ever received in this country. Prices to-day are just about five times as high as they were during the five years of Tory rule. The only trouble with our farmers is the fact that because of the hardships and financial losses which they had to endure during those long five dreary years they have not yet been able to produce in quantities to meet their increased obligations. Conservatives should be ashamed to mention agricultural products. To cap the climax the hon. member for York South said:

I do not suggest that any government can compel foreign countries to buy more of our goods than they desire.

I want to ask him if he has forgotten the famous declaration of his late if not lamented leader of 1930, that if elected as Prime Minister of Canada he would blast his way into the markets of the world. Is it possible the hon. member for York South is now denying his former leader and master under whom he served as Minister of National Revenue, as chief organizer and as the "white hope" to take his place as leader of the once grand old Conservative party?

The Budget-Mr. Grant

I ask hon. members to listen to some more of the hon. gentleman's logic. At page 3344 of Hansard of this year he is reported as follows:

In ihis budget speech this year, to bolster up the efficacy of the new trade agreement entered into with the United States, the Minister of Finance was careful to point out that our exports of merchandise to that country, exclusive of gold, for the first quarter of this year, 1939, registered a gain of nearly 16 per cent over the total for the same period for 1938.

He claims that this is an indication that the trade treaty of 1938 is a bad one for Canada because the same thing happened in 1936. The trade treaty of 1935 came into effect on January 1, 1936, and exactly the same experience was had then as we are having now, our exports to the United States began to increase at once. Therefore, says he, since the trade treaty of 1935 was a bad one, the trade treaty of 1938 is also bad, because, in the words of Euclid, "things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another." Unfortunately for his geometry, he took it for granted that the trade treaty of 1935 was a bad one, which nullifies his proof.

The Tory blood comes out strong in the hon. member for York South when he says:

Nothing could more clearly indicate the lack of foresight on the part of this government in respect of its negotiation of trade treaties than the 'announcement contained in the budget that the excise tax on all goods imported into Canada will be repealed.

Although he admits that the repeal of the 3 per cent excise tax imposed by the Bennett government has now reduced our taxes by the amount of $14,000,000 annually, he endeavours to show that this 3 per cent excise tax was not a tax at all. He calls this government "dull of perception" for their action in relieving the Canadian consumers of this burden. The point is that should the Tory party ever regain power, and if by any chance the hon. member for York South should survive that long, he would likely be Minister of Finance, because of his long years of parliamentary experience, and naturally the first thing he would do would be to reimpose the old 3 per cent excise tax. Besides starting another tariff war, this would add at least $14,000,000 more to the taxes of the Canadian people of the distant future.

After terming this government a weak and wasteful administration, he proceeded to say: That is the record of the last year. What may we expect in the next year? The prospects for the next year are further deficits and further debts upon the people.

Imagine such deliberate platitudes coming from one of the survivors of the late Tory government, which not only ruined the common people of this country in every possible way, but added to the public debt of Canada the enormous sum of $669,000,000-more than twice the aggregate of all Liberal deficits since confederation!

Finally, as soon as he got through reviling the government for having repealed the 3 per cent excise tax, he stated and repeated that the electors of this country have become taxconscious and that the never-ending and ever-increasing expenditures of the government were driving the people to revolt.

In conclusion, let me point out to the hon. member, who also talked of leadership, that were it not for the interest which has had to be paid on the huge sum which the Bennett government added to the public debt of this dominion in five years, this government would have had a surplus every year since coming into power, as the Liberal government had in almost every year between 1921 and 1930 under its present leadership, that of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King).

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

William Kemble Esling

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):

The sins of omission and commission of all parties as revealed during this debate seem to be numerous. I hope I may be pardoned for bringing to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and of the government such matters as are of immediate interest to my district. Very often inequalities in a statute are shown in communications from individuals. I received one such to-day from a soldier settler, which goes to show the disadvantage at times of attempting to meet one's obligations.

In this particular case the soldier settler, after his return from overseas, met every single payment due to the department. His payments of principal and interest were made regularly. His neighbour, with a piece of land with an equivalent indebtedness, said, "What is the use? The government will have to do something about it some day," and so he never paid a single cent of interest o.r principal. An official of the soldier settlement board passing through the country listened to the troubles of this second man and said, "Why don't you take advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?" This man did, with the result that in the long run the man who had paid nothing on principal or interest, who gave no thought at all to his obligations, owes to-day to the government less than the man who had met every

The Budget-Mr. Esling

cent of his payments regularly. While many concessions have been made with respect to soldier settlement lands, I do think that further consideration should be given to wiping out the indebtedness of those who made their payments regularly and did not receive as much benefit as those who took advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.

I want to compliment the Minister of Finance upon reinstating the 5 per cent tax upon remittances in connection with motion picture films. As hon. members know, there is a remittance tax on all investments and royalties going to the United States or any other foreign country, but the motion picture people were able to convince the government in 1936 that they should not pay this 5 per cent tax, and so the government reduced it to 2 per cent. The fact is that the motion picture film agencies have been able to remit to the United States nearly five million dollars a year as rental for motion picture films, and it is therefore a satisfaction to me that the Minister of Finance has seen the injustice of reducing the tax from 5 to 2 per cent and has reinstated it to 5 per cent, which means that the government exchequer will now benefit to the extent of about $150,000 a year. Certainly any avenue of investment which permits a remittance of practically five million dollars a year is not entitled to leniency at the hands of the government.

I want to say a word on behalf of the silver miners in the Kootenay West district. There is unemployment there for the reason that the price of silver will not permit the operation of the mines. I have already presented to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) resolutions from various boards of trade in Kootenay West, asking them for an excess price for silver produced from newly operated mines during 1939, and for such small properties as were unable to operate because of the low price of silver. That means only those properties which come into operation this year, and properties which produce, we will say, up to 40,000 ounces of silver. The proposal is advanced to the government purely on the ground of furnishing employment. Certainly it would encourage operations and permit many small properties as well as leased properties to furnish employment. If hon. members would picture the plight of the unemployed in that mining district and think of the bonus being granted to the farmers for wheat, the bonus to the fishermen for fish, the bonus for cheese, and subventions to coal mines, it is only natural they should hope that

the government would give some consideration to assisting these mining properties in order to help their development and provide employment.

' Another matter which is of great importance in connection with the budget is the report of the tariff board concerning the radio industry. Some three years ago I brought to the attention of the house the fact that a resident in my district had been notified by a patent holding company that he had brought in from the United States a radio which infringed upon certain patent rights, and he was asked to pay a royalty, which after some correspondence he did. He was then served with papers and was asked to sign an undertaking that he would not bring in another radio from the United States, and was informed that if he did it would be subject to confiscation and destruction.

The report of the tariff board shows what has been the cause of complaint; it is the Patent Act. It emphasizes beyond all things the necessity of revision of the Patent Act. This hearing before the tariff board shows that there are just about one dozen radio manufacturers in Canada; that they are all subject to the four leading electrical companies in this dominion, namely the Northern Electric Company, the Westinghouse, the Marconi, and the Canadian General; they control all the patents, and other manufacturers are subject to their dictation as to price, production and distribution. These four companies in turn control the patents under the names of two other companies, one for radios and the other for tubes and parts. First of all, the report emphasizes the necessity of amending and revising the Patent Act. Every fair-minded person must admit that a patent is the property of the inventor, that he is entitled to all the perquisites and all the revenue which his genius will bring him. But when it comes to a corporation or to several corporations acquiring these patents for the purpose of forming a monopoly and dictating production and prices, then is the time for the government to intervene. This report also shows that the price of radios in Canada is from 28 to 82 per cent higher than in the United States. These figures are based upon a comparison of thirty-six models of radios of the same type in Canada and in the United States.

Therefore I contend this, that the government should exercise their authority first of all under the Combines Act. They are fully aware of the fact that combines exist. Those evidences have been presented to the tariff board. They also have authority under the

The Budget-Mr. Needham

Patent Act to revoke a patent where an abuse is evident. Surely the government have every evidence under the sun from this report of the tariff board that there are abuses of the Patent Act, by way of regulating production, and by way of regulating prices and distribution. You cannot blame people for going to the United States to buy a radio when they can buy it at from 28 to 82 per cent cheaper than it can be bought at home. These excess prices are due entirely to the combine and the monopoly existing by reason of the control of these numerous patents.

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

May 1, 1939