Mr. SANDERSON:

Will the hon. member sit down for a moment? All I want is the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I already have given a ruling. In my own knowledge, when considering matters of urgent importance, the House of Commons has sat even on Sunday,

1S40

Divorce Court for Ontario

though the house does not sit on Sunday. Notwithstanding standing order 15, in view of the announcement which has been made that parliament will soon be dissolved, I think that it is only fair to the house and to the sponsor of this bill that the procedure should be completed.

Mr. McGIBBON:

Will Your Honour be good enough to say whether you consider this bill a matter of urgent importance?

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have no desire to discuss my ruling.

Mr. ERNST:

I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted, I would have voted for the bill.

Mr. GEARY:

I was paired with the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mer-cier). Had I voted, I would have voted against both amendments.

Mr. BOTHWELL:

I was paired with the hon. member for East West Peterborough (Mr. Peck). Had I voted, I would have voted for the third reading of this bill.

Mr. VALLANCE:

I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). Had I voted, I would have voted for the third reading of this bill.

Mr. BOURGEOIS:

I was paired with the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price). Had I voted, I would have voted against the third reading of this bill.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Mr. Woodsworth moves, seconded by Mr. Evans, that the said bill do now pass and the title be as on the order paper.

Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):

Mr. Speaker, a strange thing has happened- at last the calm of unanimity has fallen upon the troubled sea of Canadian politics. I have never seen a budget as safe as this one; it is going to be safe whether we defeat the government or whether we do not. That is a rather extraordinary situation.

I would refer for a moment to the classical and shall I say sacred allusions of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). When

one sees the malefactors of one party consorting so intimately with the five virgins on the front line benches on the other side, one is at a loss to know just exactly what attitude to take. I have not been able to accommodate myself to this extraordinary situation. I have been so accustomed to the clash of arms on the old historic battlefield that at the moment I am not quite sure how to acquit myself. The budget, however, is with us and it seems to be fairly safe. All budgets of my experience in parliament are political documents rather than business statements. The present budget, drafted as it was by a very astute politician having a view to a coming election, might be expected to serve certain interests, and indeed it would be almost a miracle if there were not found here and there through it a certain amount of political humbug. I cannot work myself into any kind of frenzy over any budget. In my opinion parliament and the people of Canada as a whole attribute to budgets a great deal more than they merit. If we strip them from their political significance and inquire as to what the actual economic position will be in the Dominion of Canada after the application of the budget, we shall find the alterations to be so in-signfieant as to be almost unworthy of mention.

I am free, I think, to speak quite frankly about the budget notwithstanding the rather unusual alterations in the incidence of taxation, because of the fact that I have never been a doctrinaire either of the Manchester school or of protectionism. I have always regarded that question as being not an economic one. Indeed, I have said more than once-and I will say it-that the way in which we raise our revenue does not affect the economic situation in a fundamental way although it does make a great deal of difference as to how the burden of taxation is distributed among the classes within the Dominion of Canada. I have never been able to see how we can bring prosperity to Canada either by raising the tariff a little or by lowering it a little either on this or on that. The politico-economic policy which Canadians are looking for to-day will have to be much more fundamental than merely a tinkering with the tariff, whether that tinkering be up or down. Who will say that the economic solution for the problem which confronts Canada, and for that matter all countries of the civilized world to-day, can be found by merely working with the tariff?

The budget before us just missed being clever by being a little too obvious. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) may, I think, be congratulated upon his herculean efforts to please everybody, even the Tories.

The Budget-Mr. Irvine

I am reminded of this situation: the

Minister o.f Finance says to the people of Canada: Hang up your socks; Santa Claus is about to appear. Then he points to a huge pile of beautiful parcels put up in nice gilded paper and tied with suitable ribbon, and he says: You will get one of those in your

sock, but you must not open it until after the election. I am just afraid that when they open those parcels they will be somewhat disappointed with the contents. I do not mind saying frankly to the minister that the quicker the election comes the better for the budget; for when we begin to investigate its details it does not turn out to be quite as good as it sounded when the minister was delivering his budget speech. It is part of the irony of fate that it should have fallen to the lot of the first western Minister of Finance to drop the cut flowers of British preference on the mangled corpse of free trade. But I have great sympathy with the hon. gentleman in that regard. I am not going to charge him with inconsistency. If I did, I would of course have to quote his classical utterance about going forward cautiously, and so forth. But I am not interested in his consistency in political matters.

The Liberal party in its present policy is, I think, for once at least frankly honest so far as the tariff is concerned; it has come out squarely for protection. The question in Canada is no longer whether we want to have higher or lower tariffs, whether we shall vote for a party that is going to increase the tariff to a very high degree or for one that is going to reduce it gradually until it reaches the vanishing point. The only question before the people of Canada when we go to them very shortly is whether we regard the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) as the better man to carry into effect a protectionist policy in the Dominion. I believe that is rather a good thing in itself in one way, that is that we shall get away at least for one election from the old humbug of tariff discussion which has befuddled the minds of the Canadian .people for sixty years. On the other hand, I frankly state I expected a good deal more from the Liberal party than that. It is probable, however, in view of all the circumstances they have done all they could do with the tariff. But what shall I say of Liberalism?

Miss M ACPHAIL:

It has disappeared.

Mr. IRVINE:

The Prime Minister some years ago described Liberalism as a facing forward. Every little Liberal was bom with his face to the front and every little Tory

was born with his face to the rear. That was the description given by the Prime Minister, if I recall correctly, in telling us what Liberalism stood for. If Liberalism is a facing forward, I wonder where it is in Canada now.

I am asking and I hope that many Canadian people to-day are also asking for a leadership in a new economics that will bring Canada into the forefront of the nations of the world in solving the great problems which the industrial processes have left right on the very step of our door. I am looking for leadership that will break with the past, diutsy, musty, mediaeval policies which have rung through every election of my memory and that for once is really looking forward and is courageous enough to apply a policy which will fit the economic necessities of Canada at this hour.

Where shall I find that leader? May I expect the present Prime Minister to be that leader? I hardly expect the Prime Minister to accept a suggestion from a back bencher in a group which he may regard as an alien one. Nevertheless, I hope that as a reasonable man, when he reads Hansard to-morrow, he will not disparage a suggestion even from such a source without that degree of reflection which he owes to his own intelligence. When he does examine Hansard, as I .have no doubt he will, to discover the pearls of wisdom and truth which I am about to give him, I want to ask him if I may regard him as the new leader of the new economics in Canada, or must I turn to the leader of the opposition for that leadership, or must I come to the little group that sits around me here to find the germ of that new .political philosophy which we have been awaiting for so long?

I insist that Canada needs a new economic policy, and she needs it so badly that some of these days someone is going to arise to provide it. Why not the Prime Minister? He does not lack in courage. He does not, I think, lack in vision. He can see an opportunity waiting for him. If he fails, I hope that the Conservative leader will not fail. But if he does, then all I can say to the people of Canada is that we, the cooperative groups, shall have to take charge of the situation in the future.

Let me indicate very briefly that the old policy of tinkering with tariffs as a means of solving the economic problem would have to be abandoned, I think, if partisans would study conditions in other countries, some of which are protectionist and some of which have been trying to get along with free trade. I have here figures from Great Britain.. I do not think that I shall have time to read them to the house, but I will indicate their import.

The Budget-Mr. Irvine

These figures show that gradually the wealth of Great Britain is being concentrated more and more into the hands of a very few people, leaving the country in general poverty, with a great number of unemployed and millions of people living on the border of starvation. That is an example from a free trade country.

Then I go to the United States and I find that so far as the .concentration of wealth is concerned, the situation there is the same. I find that they also have a very great number of unemployed and that conditions there are similar to those that we find in Great Britain in so far as the masses of the people are concerned.

There you have the fruits of both policies which have hitherto been advocated i^ Canadian politics, and neither of which has proven to be satisfactory, so surely, I say, it is clear from the facts before us that a new policy must be found in Canada.

Let us look for a moment at the situation, for the situation must determine what the policy shall be. I shall enumerate some of the factors which must enter into our studty of a matter of this kind. First we must take cognizance of the vast wealth which Canada possesses in the form of natural resources. These have been talked about at great length all over Canada for many years. The next factor is that we have highly skilled labour, as highly skilled, I believe, as that of any other country in the world. Next we have the plant equipment, real or potential, that is equal to producing all of the goods that are required by the people of Canada. Surely then in the face of these circumstances no Canadian should ever go hungry; no Canadian should ever lack fior a place to sleep; no Canadian should ever lack for an occupation in the production of these necessities of his own life; and1 yet last year in Canada many Canadians did not have enough to eat and had to exist on charity, and' there were very many in this country who had no place to sleep, and very many who had no work to do.

The problem, therefore, to be solved is how to feed a population of nine millions of people and maintain them in comfort and reasonable happiness in ,the midst of our almost incalculable natural wealth. Being heirs as we are of all the ages of industrial wealth and equipment, that dioes not look to be a very difficult problem as we state it, and yet so far it has baffled the Canadian parliament. It has baffled all governments in Canada so far, and hem we are launching into another election with the same old plaster that we stuck on the body politic sixty years ago. It is true that there is an agreement between the

Conservative party and the Liberal party in respect to this policy, but I wish to tell both parties very frankly that I do not agree with that policy. I might agree that they have both perhaps found the very best way of imposing a tariff, and that the tariff in some instances may be necessary. I am not discussing that. But I say that as an economic policy the tariff is pitiably inadequate, and it. certainly canuot satisfy the hon. members who sit around me here. Neither can I see how it will meet with any approval on the part of the working masses in Canada. Certainly it contains little if anything for the agricultural population of the country.

Let me insist, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that we lack much more than a protective tariff is consumers' purchasing power. To-day, under the financial system in vogue in this country and supported by both parties in this house, a financial system which I think neither of the party leaders dare take issue against, credit is issued only in channels of production. Credit is never issued1 to assist consumption, and yet consumption is the only intelligent aim of all production whatsoever. Lacking the purchasing power to make consumption possible, we defeat the ends of production and bring on unemployment and economic chaos, piling up always a surplus of goodls that cannot be soldi; and a surplus under the present system unfortunately means starvation for many. So I say that we need an efficient industrial organization so that we may be able to produce all the necessary goodls. We require a proper and equitable distribution of the opportunity to labour so as to tide ourselves gradually over the period of unemployment which is connecting the individualist and competitive system with the approaching commonwealth.

We need next adequate distribution, providing sufficient purchasing power to buy our production at any given time. That involves the socialization of credit. It involves the socialization of credit because the individualistic control of credit from its very nature cannot give us consumers' purchasing power. I shall not stop to go into an explanation of that, .assuming as I always do that hon. gentlemen of this house are students of credit and understand precisely the implications of the socialization of credit. The present means of issuing credit under private ownership, under which credit is issued not for the purpose of performing its function as a distributor of goods, but for the purpose of performing a particular and specific function for the controllers of credit, namely, the provision of interest and profit, cannot for that very reason give us the necessary purchasing power to

The Budget-Mr. Irvine

which I have referred. So I say that we require a new policy. The present policy is responsible for many of the difficulties of agriculture. What is the use of producing wheat that cannot be sold? What is the use of producing boots that cannot be sold? That is the problem in Canada. The problem really is not whether we should raise the tariff on hay one cent or let straw in free from somewhere else. That is really not the economic problem of Canada. I do not hesitate to say that seriously, even challenging the opposition of my hon. friends opposite-or to my right for that matter. By the way, sir, there is no opposition in this house to-day except myself. I am the opposition; the house has agreed on the national policy of Canada.

Now, the present budget of course is an election budget, as I have pointed out. The election has been announced. I have described how these various parcels have been made up and how the people are in great expectancy respecting them. Let me turn now to brief consideration of some of the main phases of the budget.

Open the parcel first.

Mr. IRVINE:

I am afraid to open the

parcel as my hon. friend suggests, because I would not spoil the joy of surprise. You know, sir, anticipation in many things is really a much greater pleasure than realization, and far be it from me to destroy any joy which may come to any individual from anticipating the budget benefits that may accrue to him.

Let us look first of all at the extension of the British preference. Before I criticize the principal details of the budget, may I say, in fairness to the administration, that I have to congratulate them on having given some consideration to the voice of this house in some matters mentioned in the budget. I am not forgetting that last session we asked for the removal of the tax on a certain type of oonds; the government has now removed that tax. I am also keeping in mind the fact that we asked for the cancellation of the Australian treaty chiefly on the grounds of its extension to New Zealand by order in council, and I am not forgetting that in this matter the government has to a very large extent met our request. I want also to say that we moved last year for an extension of the British preference. I supported the motion myself. To-day the government has provided for its extension in a certain measure.

No, no.

Mr. IRVINE:

Someone says, "No, no." I presume he read the budget in detail. At any rate he has opened the parcel. They have at least extended the scope of the British

preference sentimentally. Having done so, I must give them credit for having listened to some extent to the voice of the house. That, I think, is a creditable thing for any government to do, otherwise this house would be much more foolish than it is,-I hesitate to say how much more.

With regard to the extension of the British preference, while I favoured this last session, as I have just said, I am not as enthusiastic over it now as I was then. I was not at all pleased with the reception of Canadian wheat in the British market. It is all Very well to talk of kith and kin, but I do not think we can build up trade on kith and kin. It appears that the people of the Argentine were more kith than we were kin, for they sold more of their wheat to Great Britain than we were able to. As to the extension of the British preference, when the best that can be done has been done, I am afraid it will remain more of a sentiment than a commercial reality. Nevertheless, I am glad to buy any commodity from Great Britain which I can receive at a price and of a quality equal to that which I can get anywhere else. Without that there can be no trade with any country.

While I am in favour of the sentiment underlying the British preference, and would go as far as may be practicable in extending it, yet I do not think that any legislative means of bringing about imperial trade is likely to be of very great value. However, it must be said that our people desire the British preference extended, they have expressed themselves in favour of it on numerous occasions, and I cannot see that the government could do anything but respond to their demands in this respect. Moreover, it does provide a very effective reply in some respects to the raising of the tariff by the United States against Canada; at least it provides a sentimental reply.

But the extension of the British preference as announced in the budget unfortunately is much more apparent than real. There are, I think, over five hundred items mentioned by the Minister of Finance as being on the free list. Now, I intended to give that list to the house, but as the hon. leader of the opposition gave it very fully this afternoon, I shall merely refer to a very short list as illustrative of some things hitherto dutiable that are now admitted free: hogs, tallow, buckwheat, buckwheat pancake flour, barley, cornmeal, oats, rye, rye flour, wheat, hay and straw. Now, hon. members will readily see that these things have no meaning except as they enter into the total number of the five hundred items put on the free list; so far as having any value in relation to trade, they have none

The Budget-Mr. Irvine

now, and I cannot conceive a time when they will have any. Does anybody expect that we shall ever import large quantities of hay and straw from Great Britain? I hope that hay and straw are not suggestive in the minister's mind of the animal which he regards imperial trade to exemplify.