April 11, 1929

IMPORTATIONS OP MOTOR CARS

CON

Mr. CANTLEY:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. What was the number of motor cars imported into Canada during the calendar year 1928?

2. What was the invoice value of such cars?

3. What was the total amount paid by way of duty and sales tax on such motor cars during the year 1928?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPORTATIONS OP MOTOR CARS
Permalink
LIB

William Daum Euler (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

1, 2, 3. Statement of imports of automobiles entered for consumption in Canada during the calendar year 1928, showing number and value of cars and the amount of import

duties collected:

Item

Automobiles, freight

Automobiles for conveying passengers only, valued at retail, when new, with standard equipment complete at not

more than $1,200 each

Automobiles, passenger, n.o.p

3. Sales tax collections are not recorded as applied to separate commodities and figures are not available therefore, of sales taxes collected on imports of automobiles.

DEPUTY MINISTERS-SALARIES On the orders of the day:

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPORTATIONS OP MOTOR CARS
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):

May I refer the government to questions Nos. 7 and 8 on to-day's order paper? They were placed on the order paper on March 21, and it is now the 11th of April. The questions are very simple, and I do not think it should take very long to answer them.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPORTATIONS OP MOTOR CARS
Permalink
LIB

Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):

These two questions relate to all departments, and the various answers are assembled by my department. The replies, however, were not all made in the same spirit. In certain cases the salaries of the deputy ministers were given as they existed last year, and in other cases the increases in the main estimates for the current year were taken into account. I am endeavouring to have the replies coordinated, and the answers to the questions should be available very soon.

INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS On the orders of the day:

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPORTATIONS OP MOTOR CARS
Permalink
CON

Milton Edgar Maybee

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. M. E. MAYBEE (Northumberland, Ont.):

On March 13th last a question which I had on the order paper concerning the Customs department was passed as an order for a return. I should like to know when I may expect the return to be brought down.

No. Value Duty collected7,182 $ 8,305,235 $1,644,166 9527,957 15,998,828 3,365,800 8812,269 16,528,813 4,365,421 76

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPORTATIONS OP MOTOR CARS
Permalink
LIB

William Daum Euler (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):

I shall make inquiries and give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPORTATIONS OP MOTOR CARS
Permalink
CON

Edward Armour Peck

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. E. A. PECK (Peterborough):

I would like to remind the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) of an order of the house which was passed on March 11th last for the return of correspondence relating to repairs to the Lindsay arsenal. The return has not yet been brought down.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPORTATIONS OP MOTOR CARS
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):

I shall make inquiries. I feel sure that the return will be brought down immediately.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPORTATIONS OP MOTOR CARS
Permalink

VESSELS CARRYING LIQUOR TO UNITED STATES


On the orders of the day:


CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :

I should like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister a question which I intimated I would ask him to-day, namely, whether any correspondence has taken place between the United States and Canada with respect to the clearance of vessels laden wholly or partly with alcoholic liquors for transport to the ports of the United States of America.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VESSELS CARRYING LIQUOR TO UNITED STATES
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

There has been correspondence with reference to the clearance of vessels. It would be proper, I think, that any correspondence brought down should be brought down simultaneously here and in the United States. I will take steps to arrange to try and have the correspondence brought down at an early date.

The Budget-Mr. Church

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VESSELS CARRYING LIQUOR TO UNITED STATES
Permalink

THE BUDGET


The house resumed from Wednesday, April 10, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Hugh Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Spencer.


CON

Thomas Langton Church

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):

The sifbamendlment which has been moved to the 'budget brings up the whale question of better trade relations between this country and the motherland, and concerns boitlh British preferential trade and inter-rmiperial trade. With all due respect to the government, I would ask if they think the people of this country are satisfied to allow the present condition of affairs to continue and for us to go on importing from the United States every year $900,000,000 worth of high-priced manufactured goods, while our own sons and daughters have to leave our shores in large numbers to seek employment in the United States. Conditions in the old land are very similar.

The subamendment urges upon the consideration of the government an immediate and substantial increase in the British preference. The subamendment reads:

That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after "house" and substituting therefor the following: _ _

"urges upon the government the consideration of an immediate and substantial increase of the British preference as a step towards freer trade relations between Canada and other nations."

In other words, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), who has moved this amendment, is following the line which was suggested by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that when we are shut out from the United States market we should look elsewhere. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) referred to Russia as a country to which we might look for increased trade when we are virtually kicked out of the United States by the new tariff changes and he also spoke about Great Britain. The tariff policy of the United States is based on the principle that charity begins at home. That principle in fiscal matters has been enunciated by all the great presidents of the United States from Lincoln down to Roosevelt and Hoover. They have always taken the stand that in matters of tariff charity begins at home, that the

home market belongs to their own manufacturers and working men. But unfortunately for this country the government at Ottawa seems to be asleep. It has given preferential treatment to twenty-eight countries bordering on the seven seas; but when it comes to the motherland, oh, what a difference. If Canada is to be a self-respecting country the government should write an economic note instead of a peace note to the government of the United States to the effect that we can no longer continue-the present one-sided reciprocity under which we buy nine hundred million dollars' worth of high-priced manufactured goods from our neighbours and pay for them with our raw materials; that we can no longer squander the capital and labour of future generations in this manner; that if the United States government desires to enter into an equitable reciprocity arrangement with us, it must do so with all convenient speed, otherwise we shall take immediate steps to put in operation such a national policy as will conserve our raw materials for our own manufacturers and our own workmen and to deal with the United States as they deal with us by making our duties the equal of theirs and intimating to them that we will have a proper reciprocity or none.

A few days ago the Prime Minister said that in dealing with the United States we must keep cool heads. Well, it seems to me that the government has not only a cool head, it has got cold feet too. No self-respecting country in the world would tolerate what Canada has had to put up with in the past in the shape of the various tariff barriers which have been erected by our neighbours. The government of the United States is well able to take care of the economic and other interests of its own people. Would that we had a government as fully alive to the interests, economic and otherwise, of the Canadian people; then our working men would be more fairly dealt with. This government turns a deaf ear to any proposal to give really preferential treatment to Great Britain. Within the confines of the British Empire there are several hundred millions of people, and we should put into force a system of interimperial trade. That day cannot come too soon. The Prime Minister may know Ottawa, he may know the White House; but the leader of the opposition knows all Canada and all England, he knows what Canada and the empire need-an economic tariff. He knows that in an imperial fiscal sense charity begins at home. Instead of the Prime Minister talking about our keeping cool heads and giving the United States a chance, why does he not take steps to give Canada a

The Budget-Mr. Church

chance, the British Empire a chance, interimperial trade a chance? We have had too much government from Washington and altogether too little from Ottawa in a fiscal sense.

This government has established a Canadian embassy at Washington. It would seem to me, judging from the speeches delivered in the United States by our splendid minister extraordinary-and I say he is extraordinary -that our embassy is just an agency for boosting pan-American trade at the expense of the British Empire. Only the other day this extraordinary plenipotentiary took the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) in hand-a minister who is the "glass of fashion "-and walked him up to the White House to see President Hoover. It was also announced that our minister plenipotentiary down there would be happy to introduce any other member of the House of Commons to Washington and to the present occupant of the White House. I do not know if I am likely to be in Washington any time this year, but if I am our minister extraordinary will not have an opportunity of walking me up to the White House. Of course, I may not be the " glass of fashion " like some hon. gentlemen who are driven around in ten-thousand-dollar high-powered cars. In 1925 I accompanied Mr. Hoover and his friends over the Welland canal and St. Lawrence waterway for two days and gave a banquet in Toronto to him and about two hundred other people in connection with the harbour development there.

From my contact with him then I became convinced that he is a man of exceptional ability, and I am sure he will prove himself to be one of the greatest presidents that the United States has ever had. But besides his intimate knowledge of his own country he knows the British Empire as no other American knows it. He lived for 23 years in the British Empire. Of course, he recognizes the right of every country to shape its own fiscal policy so as to ensure markets for its own people and work for its own working men. I know he is very friendly in his attitude towards the British Empire and wishes to see it become even more abundantly prosperous.

Last year we were visited by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Baldwin, by Mr. Amery, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and last but not least, by Mr. Chamberlain, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and by Sir William Clark. Each of them urged Canada to stay within the British Empire to foster inter-imperial trade, and to buy in other parts of the empire such products

as she did not produce herself. No one can take exception to their advice. It is good Conservative doctrine. But what can we expect from this government? In reply to the kid-glove platitudes of the hon. Minister of Justice, I submit that we are not retaliating against the United States if we keep on buying nine hundred million dollars' worth of goods, notwithstanding the avowed purpose of the United States government still further to raise its tariff barriers against Canada. The policy of this government seems to be, if they smite you on the left cheek, turn to them your right. Talk about keeping coo! heads! Every member of the government from the Prime Minister downwards seems to have cold feet. They refuse to do anything for the motherland in the way of an adequate British preference that would expand our trade with the British people and would mean diverting to them the thirty or forty per cent of trade and of money that is now going to the United States for high-priced goods. The policy of the government has made us hewers of wood and drawers of water for the United States. What does this government care about a proper British preference which will assist the motherland? Hon. gentlemen opposite care nothing about it. They are indifferent to farm relief and rural depopulation in this country, indifferent to unemployment so long as they can continue their policy of semi-free trade with the United States. They have simply pursued a policy of laissez faire towards the British Empire and the motherland and the British preference. The next general election cannot come too soon in the interests of this country; it will, I believe, put an end to this policy on the part of the government. Tens of thousands of tons of Welsh coal could be brought to this country, providing employment for the miners in the old country, and thus implementing the British preference; but instead of that the government are content to have this country send millions of dollars over to the United States to provide employment for the miners of Pennsylvania. It was not free trade and Cobdenism that made England the great country she became; it was the union of coal and steel one hundred and fifty years ago. That was what made England great, and if the government in office here have the interests of the Canadian people at heart they will inaugurate a policy which will have for its object the development of the coal and steel industry of this Dominion and the encouragement of preferential interimperial trade. The government do not seem to realize that this country is a heritage which must 'be safeguarded for those who are to follow. Mussolini, the great leader of Italy,

The Budget-Division

speaking of a country, says: A country does not belong to those who inhabit it to-day; it is an inheritance from the past, a possession for the present, and a trust for the future. The same thing applies to Canada. But what do hon. gentlemen opposite care about the future prosperity of Canada or the trust they hold to-day to foster inter-imperial trade and advance our empire.

The policy of this government, in their attitude towards Canadian development and Canada's relations with the motherland and with the British Empire generally, seems to be twofold: First, that nothing that can be bought in the United States should be made in Canada, especially in eastern Canada ; and, secondly, that everything that cannot be bought in the United States shall be imported from continental Europe, preferably Germany and not from England. That is the preferential policy of the present government. The Conservative party on the other hand believes in a tariff which will, in the first place, develop the industries of this country and, after that, promote trade within the empire. The government are wasting a lot of money on research. The first thing is to search and research for a proper tariff policy and dig up a policy that will help the British Empire, preserve our markets and our work for our own people, and encourage the manufacturing industries of Canada. So far as encouraging trade within the empire is concerned, and particularly assisting the_ mother country, this government's policy may be called "I'm alone." The Prime Minister talks about keeping a cool head; he says we must have a coolheaded policy with the United States. That is a favourite expression of the Prime Minister's. His policy is full of doubts and fears and "ifs" and "buts," provisos and whereases and wherefores, and that he calls keeping a cool head. Well, the government's policy towards the mother country has been very cool; the mother country has always got a very cool reception from this government.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Eccles James Gott

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOTT:

Before the vote is announced I would like to ask if the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) voted?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

Yes, I voted.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
?

Clarence Joseph Veniot

Mr. YENIOT:

I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Robert Edwy Ryerson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYERSON:

I was paired with the

hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OP THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OP THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

April 11, 1929