March 1, 1928

CON

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

And not abused.

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

John Warwick King

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

Then section 18, which is the controlling section, and which my hon. friend failed to read, deals with cases where no appeal is allowed from the board. That is the section under which the Minister of Immigration dealt with this case, and he is quite right in saying that he had no authority to admit the child. Section 18 provides:

There shall be no appeal from the decision of such board of inquiry as to the rejection and deportation of immigrants, passengers or other persons seeking to land in Canada, when such decision is based upon a certificate of the examining medical officer to the effect that such immigrants, passengers or other persons are afflicted with any loathsome disease, or with a

The Budget-Mr. Macdougall

disease which may become dangerous to the public health, or that they come within any of the following prohibted classes, namely, idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics and insane persons: Provided always that Canadian citizens and persons who have Canadian domicile shall be permitted to land in Canada as a matter of right.

The history of this case is this. That child arrived on the steamer. The officer went on board and detected the child and said: This child cannot oome in under section 3. Having given that decision, and the board of inquiry having made their inquiry, the minister was precluded under section IS from exercising the discretion he might have had if the medical officer had failed to report and do his duty.

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

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

What then is the purpose of section 4 in the act?

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

John Warwick King

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

It has been found in practice, and I suppose this section was put in for that purpose, that people have passed through our lines of medical inspection and have gone on to their points of destination, and there have made associations which were able to bring from time to time certain suggestions to the minister that it would be a great hardship and very unfortunate. and not in the public interest, to deport an immigrant. That is why section 4 is there, to give the minister discretion. But this case having been detected on the steamer, and the medical officer having made his report, and the board of inquiry having made their report, the minister was precluded under section 18 from exercising the discretion he would otherwise have had under section 4.

I make this statement because I think the attack that has been made on the Minister of Immigration is very unfair. As far as I am concerned as Minister of Health I am prepared to take full responsibility for the decision of Doctor Rutherford in this case. I will go further and state for the benefit of those who may have any doubts about this case that if it is considered necessary I will have another examination made by competent men in Great Britain who are outside of our service altogether, and if it is found that this child should be admitted to Canada under our laws and regulations, there will be nothing put in the way of allowing that child to enter Canada and join the other members of the family.

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

Peter McGibbon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McGIBBON:

Was this child not

examined previous to coming to Canada?

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

John Warwick King

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

No. The curious

thing about that is that the report shows

and the mother states that although the mother and the four children were examined, the baby was not examined.

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

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

Even in these circumstances could not the Minister of Immigration have overruled the regulations because of the special circumstances regarding the family and permitted this child to remain here for six months?

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

John Warwick King

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

I do not think

so. It is an unfortunate condition. This is not the only case in Canada; there are other cases. On account of the medical officer having detected this child on shipboard and having reported the condition to the officers of the Immigration department, and the board of inquiry having sat on the case, the Minister of Immigration was precluded from exercising his discretion and it was necessary to return this child.

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

Isaac Duncan MacDougall

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):

Before I essay to offer a comment on the budget presented to parliament by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) I desire to refer briefly to the address delivered in this chamber yesterday by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning). I do so not to criticize him for of all the men who sit on the government benches there is none for whom I have a higher regard than for the hon. gentleman who occupies the portfolio of railways and canals. Yesterday during the course of his very excellent speech, and all his speeches are excellent, he made a very vitriolic attack on the members of the Progressive group. As I listened to that attack the thought passed through my mind, How fleeting is memory, and how base is ingratitude 1 We who sat in this house in 1925 listened to far different speeches from hon. gentlemen opposite. Neither the Minister of Railways, nor any other supporter of the government down to the humblest back-bencher, in reference to that group took the position which the hon. minister himself adopted yesterday. From every comer of the government side there were flung at that group bouquets, panegyrics and laudations. Some of them went so far as to say that the Progressives were more advanced Liberals than the Liberals led by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, that their own party had strayed away from the narrow path of rectitude, and that the Progressives represented the real Liberalism so sorely needed by this country. Our friends opposite were so accommodating that they were willing for the Progressives to vote lack of confidence in the government, but they implored them not to vote the Liberal party out of

The Budget-Mr. Macdougall

power. As a result of those very friendly advances I am afraid that some members of the Progressive group were actually spoiled, as to-day we have, for example, the spectacle of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) arrogating to himself a monopoly of all public morality and all private virtue. Nevertheless, those blandishments were effective in 1926 when the government, in defiance of the popular will, were attempting to hang on to power by their eyelashes. But to-day the mask is thrown off, and we are told by a responsible spokesman of the government, the Minister of Railways, what the Liberal party really think of the Progressives. Henceforth my friends to the left and my friends in the Labour group know that whenever an organized labour or farmer nominee appears in an election his head will be hit by a bludgeon wielded by the Minister of Railways and his associates in the Liberal ranks. However, that quarrel is between the government and the Progressives.

May I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the masterly-might I say?-[DOT] adroit manner in which he has presented his budget. It is said of individuals that they mellow with advancing years and their prejudices become less pronounced. Well, that is hardly true of the hon. minister, because in the presentation of his budget he made ai excellent political speech, and I can well understand that my hon. friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) will be quoting some of the figures there given-not for the information of the Canadian people, but rather to baffle them-whenever he is addressing the electors of his riding. As I say, I admire the adroit manner in which the Minister of Finance presented his budget. Speaking of the national debt, for example, he made no reference whatever to the first year and three months of office of the Liberal party-during which, making no allowance whatever for the obligations incurred on behalf of the Canadian National Railways, we had an increase in the national debt of $49,000,000. No, he commenced his five-year period after the lapse of that year and three months.

Then he declared that taxation had been substantially reduced. I saw my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) smile blandly as he heard the announcement-he always does smile blandly, but I think he smiled rather more blandly than usual on that occasion, because he knows differently. And there was tumultuous applause from the back benchers on the Liberal side. fMr. Macdougall.]

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

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain

Liberal

Mr. CASGRAIN:

And the front benchers

too.

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

Isaac Duncan MacDougall

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDOUGALL:

Yes, and the front

benchers also. Now, what is the situation in regard to taxation? First, what are taxes? They are merely the amount of money collected by the government from the people either directly or indirectly. If you compare the amount of money taken from the people by the government that held power from 1916 to 1921 with the amount collected during the five-year period selected by the Minister of Finance, you will find that in this latter period the Liberal government extracted from the people in the form of direct and indirect taxes $416,000,000 more than was collected by their predecessors between 1916 and 1921-and two of those were war years. In other words, Mr. Speaker, for every single day that this government have held office they have increased the volume of taxation by $189,000. It is quite true that they did reduce certain specific taxes, but it is also quite true that in the majority of cases they had first raised those taxes. For instance, the Minister of Finance announced with great satisfaction that the government had brought the sales tax down to 3 per cent. That is, after labouring for six years they have brought the sales tax down to the point where they found it under a Conservative government in 1921. Then the minister says, in effect, to the Canadian people: Behold me, may I not stick a feather in my cap and crow, for see what I have accomplished in six years.

During the course of this debate we have had frequent references to the condition of the country, whether or not it is prosperous. In this connection certain hon. gentlemen opposite took a very extreme stand. According to them the millenium has at last arrived- Canada is literally a land overflowing with milk and1 honey; we are basking in the sunshine of prosperity. Certain other hon. gentlemen on this side of the house, not so friendly to the administration, seemed to adopt the ancient attitude that "no good can come out of Nazareth."-that no good works can be performed and no progress achieved under a Grit government. May I be pardoned. Mr. Speaker, if I dissociate myself from both of those views? In medio stat virtus is an ancient dictum, and probably as true as it is old. Whether Canada is prosperous or not will depend very largely on what constitutes a prosperous state. To say that Canada is prosperous because of a reported surplus in national bookkeeping is a dangerous, and oft times a fatal, mistake. A surplus is often illusory like Paddy's flea-when you go to put your finger on it you find it is not there.

The Budget-Mr. Mc.cdougall

Nor, sir, must we judge the prosperity and progress of a country by the annual reports of its large financial institutions. When all is said and done the only correct norm by which to judge real national progress and prosperity is by the conditions existing in the average humble home of the masses. If you want to find a proper standard of living by which to judge the prosperity of a land, you must go, not to the mart, to the financial institution or the mansion of the rich: you must go rather into the homes of the poor. Scotland's national poet might have had nations as well as individuals in mind when he penned these words so full of wholesome philosophy:

To make a happy fireside clime To weans and wife:

This is the true pathos, and Sublime of human life.

Let us see how much happier this government has made the fireside climes of the poor people of this country? There are only two ways in which they could have assisted the poor, namely, by inaugurating and keeping in force policies which would ensure to these people a continuity of employment at good wages, and also by instituting policies which would tend to reduce the cost of living in this land. Let us inquire what has happened in this regard. In 1922 the cost of living for a family budget, including foods, rent, clothing and so forth, was $20.67 per week. In December of last year it was $21.37, a slight increase. In other words, the government have not made happier fireside climes for the poor people of Canada so far as the cost of living is concerned. Well do I remember how the right hon. the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) used to bewail the condition of the poor. His heart used to bleed for the poor when he was in opposition, and he deplored the condition of the masses of the people who had such terrible burdens strapped to their shoulders. But what about wages? Someone may say that even if the cost of living has increased during the last six years wages have increased also, and that consequently the million industrial workers in Canada are better off. Let me point out in this respect that only 2 per cent of the industries of Canada employing over 200 men have not reduced wages during the last six years under this government. There were reductions in wages in 98 per cent of the industries employing more than the number of men I have stated, and some of these reductions ran as high as 50 per cent. That is the situation in regard to wages. Sixty per cent of the one million industrial workers in Canada to-day are receiving on an average only $17 a week, while the cost of living is $21.37.

That is the happy fireside clime which this Liberal government has made for the poor people of Canada during the last five or six years.

We talk a lot about immigration, but it is impossible for us to stimulate immigration, it is needless to expect immigrants to come to Canada, until we are first in a position to take care of our own industrial workers. Let us institute in this country a policy which will revive and tone up industry, a policy under which the working men of Canada can secure continuity of employment and receive good wages. That would be the best immigration advertisement we could give the world. After all, when you go to look for immigrants you do not expect to find them in the ranks of plutocracy; you do not expect wealthy men with large estates in Britain and other countries to come to Canada. You are looking for the poor man who is coming in search of work, and if you cannot provide him with work you will not get him. In the matter of immigration, as in all others, charily should begin at home. Let us first take care of our own industrial workers. Then if we have work to offer in this country, let us go to the United States where there are thousands of Canadian boys and girls, in Boston, New York, Detroit and other cities, and let us try to bring them back. If we have anything in Canada to offer, let us offer it first to our own people. I say that without wishing to disparage those who come from other lands. We want the right kind of immigrants to come to this country, but employment should be provided first for our own people before we undertake to recruit the ranks of the unemployed by bringing in immigrants when we have nothing for them to do. I would suggest that we make an earnest effort to bring back the boys and girls who have left the country. Let no one say that these young people went away because of the wanderlust. A very small percentage of them may have left through that impulse, but the real reason for the departure of the majority of them was the fact that they could not get employment in their native land. Offer them that employment to-morrow and they will return; and I am sure they would make better citizens than any immigrants we could bring from any foreign country. They have that spark of patriotism which they derive from being sons of the soil. After we have stimulated industry by means of a policy which will give employment to our own people, then in the matter of immigration I would urge that we make a thorough study of the work of our immigration agents in all parts of the world. Let us see what they are doing or whether they are doing

The Budget-Mr. Macdougall

anything, and let us have a report on immigration. Let us take immigration out of politics. I do not wish to be in any way offensive; I do not wish to wound the tender sensibilities of any man in this house; I do not wish to be caustic in my remarks regarding the Minister of Immigration. But I do submit that you cannot get blood out of a turnip; you cannot get constructive ideas from a tabula rasa. If, therefore, we want to get results let us have at the head of the immigration department a man who is alive from the neck up.

Coming from the maritime provinces, I can say that conditions there are somewhat better to-day than during the last six years. I am glad to be able to make that statement and I am prouder still of the fact that I wac one of the number who started the movement to secure the rights of those provinces, which movement to some extent has resulted in improved conditions. There is no doubt that the recommendations of the Duncan report which have been so far carried out have assisted the people of the maritime provinces very materially, and more important than anything else, perhaps, has been the psychological effect. But I notice that hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces supporting the government in this house-they are very few and they will be fewer the next time-when speaking, both in the house and outside, seem to take to themselves the whole credit for the movement which culminated in securing for the maritime provinces some of the rights to which they are entitled under confederation. I do not wish to play politics in this matter because, while the movement was given the support of the Conservatives in the mari-times, it also received the support of many Liberals. It was not, however, at first accorded the support of those who are the political leaders of Liberalism in the maritime provinces. It was not given the support of a single Liberal newspaper there, and from 1920 on, when the rights of the maritime provinces were being urged, those who said that conditions were deplorable, those who pointed out that our rights within confederation were 'being denied, were criticized, abused and derided in the Liberal press. We were depicted as pessimists, as blue ruinists, as maritime wreckers, and in the words of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), the whole business was Tory propaganda. But, sir, those who started that fight went into it with determniation, and they saw it through; they crystallized public opinion throughout the length and breadth of Canada in favour of the legitimate rights of the maritime provinces within confederation. That public opinion could not be ignored even by

the government, and as a result a commission was appointed to investigate the needs of the maritime provinces. The head of that commission was Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, who was first introduced to the maritime provinces by Hon. Edgar Nelson Rhodes, Premier of Nova Scotia, who had previously brought him to Canada to settle the coal strike in Nova Scotia. That commission was appointed; it went down to the maritime provinces, and I would remind this house that the commission did not pluck its findings out of the atmosphere, but went there as a tribunal to hear the case of the maritimes. A good case was presented, and every bit of evidence given before that commission was presented by representatives of the Conservative party in the maritimes. The only Liberals who appeared before that tribunal were a few men who came to plead the cause of secession, and I do not believe they were even representative of the Liberal party in the maritime provinces, at least, to be charitable I hope they were not.

At all events, as a result of this agitation and the masterly presentation of the case by Hon. Edgar Nelson Rhodes, Hon. J. B. M. Baxter, and the then Premier of Prince Edward Island, the findings of the Duncan commission were made and presented to the government, but as yet they have not been all fulfilled. One of them is of primary importance to the province of Nova Scotia; it vitally affects the industrial life of that province, and as yet it has not been dealt with in any shape or form. The Prime Minister gave his assurance that the recommendations contained in the Duncan report would be carried out in full; that has not been done as yet. Then, as though to make assurance doubly sure the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), the Don Quixote of New Brunswick politics, went down to St. John and delivered a speech in connection with the proposed bounty to the steel industry as recommended by the Duncan commission on page 38 of the report. In that speech the Postmaster General said that within the oourse of a few weeks an announcement would be made which would make every Nova Scotian feel glad. This announcement was to be in connection with the steel industry, and everyone interpreted that to mean an announcement to be delivered in the budget. It may be that the hon. gentleman was misquoted, as public men sometimes are; perhaps what he intended to say was that the budget would be brought down and that it would make every maritimer mad. However, we had the assurance of the Postmaster General that something would be done, and we had the assurance of the Prime

The Budget-Mr. Macdougall

Minister that something would be done with respect to the steel industry. So far nothing has been done.

Just at this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the house the importance of the steel industry to Canada or to the industrial life of any nation. It will be found that the industrial life of a nation is bound up with its steel and its coal. If we consider the industrial history of those nations which to-day occupy prominent places in the world with respect to power, influence, wealth and population, we will find that in every case they owe their commercial and industrial greatness to their vast deposits of coal and their steel industries. I might also point out that the Nova Scotia industry is the only steel industry having all its roots in British soil, the only one indigenous to the British Empire. As great and important as that industry is in times of peace it is much more so in times of war, and are we going to allow that industry to suffer atrophy and die? Would this government or any other Canadian government care to have the iron ore deposits of Newfoundland taken over by Americans? That is a situation which may come about if the industry is not properly fostered and protected. We are demanding that the plighted word of the Prime Minister be carried out with regard to the Duncan report; we demand that the assurance given by the Postmaster General be put into force and that this industry be assisted in the manner suggested by the Duncan report.

Let me point out the situation, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the steel industry in Sydney. My hon. friend the Postmaster General said an announcement would be forthcoming which would make every maritimer glad. Well, the budget does not contain anything for the Nova Scotia steel industry. Will it make the people of Nova Scotia glad, or will it make them mad, to know that six out of seven blast furnaces situated in Sydney are to remain idle, as has been the case ever since this government came into power? Will it make the people of Nova Scotia glad to know that the Sydney steel industry, which to-day is working at only thirty per cent capacity, will continue so to work? Will it make the people of Nova * Scotia glad to know that the shutters will remain on the windows of the homes of those workers who have invested all their savings in their little houses at Sydney Mines and Trenton? I fail to see that this budget will do very much for the steel industry of the maritime provinces, and before it is too late, before that industry is completely ruined, I appeal to the government of the day to do

what they should do and what they are decently bound to do by the professions of the Prime Minister of this country. I appeal to the government to assist this industry in accordance with the report of the Duncan commission.

In the province of Nova Scotia, as in the province of Alberta, we are very vitally interested in the question of a national fuel policy. A short time ago the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning)) asked what a national fuel policy was, just as his leader once asked what maritime rights were. I wish I had been in the house at the time, but I will answer that question now by saying that a national fuel policy is one under which Canadian coal will be burned, as far as humanly possible, by Canadian railways, Canadian industries and on Canadian hearthstones. In advocating such ia policy we in the maritimes join with you in Alberta; it is a crying shame and little less than a disgrace that $100,000,000 of good Canadian money should be sent to the United States year by year to give employment to American miners while our own miners in Alberta and Nova Scotia go idle, often leaving their wives and families without bread. I say that is a situation which should be corrected, and I sincerely hope that some effort will be made by this government to cope with that question. They have done nothing so far; we have brought up the question in this house time and time again, but absolutely nothing has been done. This government should go into conference with the accredited representatives of the Nova Scotia and Alberta governments and find out just what could be done to widen the zones of distribution for Alberta and Nova Scotia coal. I throw this out as a suggestion in the hope that the government will bestir themselves and do something for the solution of this problem which is, in the truest and best sense of the word, a national one.

Now although we are a little bit better satisfied in the maritime provinces on account of the somewhat more or less successful issue of the fight which we put up for maritime rights, I may say that the people of the maritime provinces have other requirements to be met besides those which have received attention under the report of the Duncan commission. We need an extensive program of branch line railway construction. In Nova Scotia four different branch lines at least are a necessity, because our transportation facilities are altogether inadequate. One is needed in the county of Richmond, one in the county of Colchester, one in Guys-

The Budget-Mr. Macdougall

borough, and one particularly in the county which I have the honour to represent and of which I wish to speak for a moment. I have the privilege of representing in this parliament a county which, perhaps, is just as rich in potential wealth as any county in this Dominion. It is estimated that we have in that county over two billion tons of coal, we have a variety of other mineral wealth, we have agricultural wealth, and our fisheries are very important. But unfortunately, there are in that county only sixty miles of railway extending from Point Tup-per to the town of Inverness. The other half of the county, containing extensive mineral wealth, important fisheries and excellent farming facilities, has no transportation facilities whatever. I appeal to the government, when they are making provision for the construction of branch railway lines, to give some consideration to the question of extending the railroad in question from Inverness to Cheticamp in order that the great deposits of mineral wealth already-referred to may be developed, and that the people may attain a greater degree of progress and prosperity than it is now possible for them to enjoy owing to the lack of transportation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my time is about up. But before I conclude there is one thought which I wish to express; it comes to me. perhaps, on account of the reference to my native county. If you visit that county you will not be impressed with industrial development owing to the failure of the government to adopt any policy calculated to bring that about. You will not be struck with the transportation facilities because the present government has failed to provide them. But there is one thing with which you will not fail to be impressed, and that is the spirit of cooperation, of amity, and of friendship which exists between the different races in that county. Four races are represented among the people-Irish, French, English and Scotch. Although of different racial origin, the people always co-operate and work together; and perhaps the most edifying thing is to see the rose, the fleur de lis, the thistle and the shamrock side by side and giving their sweetly blending aroma to that county, which claims those races as its own. That is the picture I should like to draw of Canada as a whole. We have different races, we have different groups, and different views; but when all is said and done-although we may not think so with the government at present in office-we have certainly a great country, a country of vast possibilities, a country which should present a myriad of op-

portunities to young Canadians so that they may play their part in helping this country to achieve its great and exalted destiny. I would ask in conclusion, that no matter to what party we give our political allegiance in Canada we should spread the message of confidence in our own country, the message of faith in its resources. I would ask further that we should try to spread the message of goodwill amongst our people so that no matter how they may differ in their outlook they may live at peace with their neighbours and cooperate to achieve the happy realization of our common hopes and wishes.

Mr. EDMOND G. ODETTE (East Essex): Mr. Speaker, before I entered the portals of this house I used to marvel at the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite in criticizing the budget brought down by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). This year I have marvelled anew at the contentions of hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly those on the front benches, who have undertaken to criticize the budget we are now considering. For instance the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), criticized the head of the Canadian National Railways. That hon. gentleman is an outstanding member of the legal profession, an ornament to the Canadian bar. Nevertheless he undertook to delve into the realms of railroad administration. Then there was the hon. member for Fort William, a soldier of renown, who criticized the department charged with the reestablishment of returned soldiers on the ground of increased expenditure. The same hon. member, who is a physician of distinction, and who saw service overseas, attempted to make a diagnosis of the ills of the automobile industry. We thus had two professional gentlemen criticizing the administration of public business in channels foreign to those with which they are supposed to be familiar. Finally one of the Toronto members, an outstanding business man, while engaged in the criticism of the budget, entered upon a consideration of the restaurant business.

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

It sounded pretty bad too.

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

Edmond George Odette

Liberal

Mr. ODETTE:

I shall have a word to say to the ex-minister from Lincoln before I conclude. The argument has been advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite that there is no surplus, and that our debt has not been reduced. These contentions were dealt with very effectively yesterday by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning). Now, in business, we are interested in quick results and tangible assets. Not one member opposite stated that the surplus of $55,000,000 did not

The Budged-Mr. Odette

exist. Well, it is a fact that that surplus does exist, and the estimates brought down cover appropriations to the extent of only $7,000,000 more than last year. Any school boy with a rudimentary knowledge of arithmetic can see, in the face of existing conditions, that this country is in a pretty healthy condition.

We find the hon. member for Fort William criticizing the government for appointing commissions and the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) asking the government to appoint another commission to study unemployment in his county. How is the government going to please hon. gentlemen opposite when one of them asks for a reduction in the number of commissions and criticizes them for appointing such bodies at all, and another gentleman on the same side asks for the appointment of still another commission with respect to bis own district?

The hon. member for Fort William took credit to himself for uttering a "destructive" speech, as he called it. I may say that as a new member I am amazed that any member of the Canadian parliament would take credit to himself for uttering a destructive speech. I want to tell the hon. member that the people of Canada would be inclined to consider his speech humorous rather than destructive.

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

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

The only way to deal with this government is humorously.

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

Edmond George Odette

Liberal

Mr. ODETTE:

I regret very much the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) was not in his seat when the hon. member for Fort William quoted the lines " Me and Gott."

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

Eccles James Gott

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOTT:

What does the hon. gentleman mean to be inferred from that?

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

Edmond George Odette

Liberal

Mr. ODETTE:

The hon. member for South Essex was not in the house or he would know the inference.

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

Eccles James Gott

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOTT:

What inference does he wish to draw?

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

Edmond George Odette

Liberal

Mr. ODETTE:

The hon. member for Fort William-

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

Eccles James Gott

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOTT:

I should like to have that retracted, Mr. Speaker.

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

March 1, 1928