May 12, 1930

CON

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

One thing sure is that

I did not vote for the bill-I wanted to vote against it-because on principle I will not vote to give anything to the United States.

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

William Daum Euler (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

Why did my hon. friend

not vote against it?

Mr. VE.NIOT: The hon. member is in

deep water now.

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I am in no deep water

at all and do not find the subject embarrassing in the least. I had my own reasons, and as I heard one hon. gentleman say, it is none of your business. I certainly would not vote for it anyway.

We now have the spectacle of a discredited party ready to go before the country with a policy that is diametrically opposed to what is generally supposed to have been their policy, judging by their actions in the past several sessions. They are now ready to abandon their own principles knowing that the tide of feeling in the country is running against them. They pretend to want to take action against the United States, to put up the tariff against the United States and reduce

the British preference, so that trade may be diverted from the United States to Great Britain. I wish to refer briefly to some of these items.

On the first page of the budget proposals of the Minister of Finance, I find such articles as animals, live hogs, meats, canned meats and other meats, tallow, beeswax, eggs. Let me just say this, that that is a bunk sheet so far as the British preference is concerned.

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

Alexander MacGillivray Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):

What is the

meaning of bunk?

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

It is pure, unadulterated

bunk, and if you dont know what that means you had better get the dictionary. Let me take these items in turn. There were four head of cattle imported into this country under the duty. There were no live hogs imported. And yet Great Britain is being offered the sale of this stuff to us! On canned meats the British preference is reduced by 2J per cent. In other meats Great Britain might have done some business with us, but the government took good care not to reduce the British preference on that item. It remains at two cents a pound as it was before. Why? Because the government has had the experience of reducing the duty on Australian meats and butter, and their friends did not support the government too long on that, and the government had to abandon it.

The next item is tallow. There have been no importations of tallow into this country for years from Great Britain, but we do get a lot from the United States. Of beeswax we import none from the United Kingdom. Of eggs in the shell a few dozen came from Great Britain. But on the second egg item, broken eggs, here is what happened. This is a line of goods in which the British send us nearly 1,000.000 pounds of eggs, $120,000 worth. What did the government do with respect to that business? They raised the tariff. They did not want Great Britain to continue in that line of trade. They were scared. But on the very next item of eggs, in which the trade was not very heavy, only $4,000 of importations, the government reduced the tariff, making the British preferential rate 10 per cent instead of 15. That is exactly why I call these proposals bunk.

Take butter. But what is the use? Does Britain sell us butter? A few pounds came in, but who knows where it came from? Great Britain is a world trader, trading everywhere. What is more, we do not want butter from England any more than we want it from Australia or New Zealand.

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin

I come to the item, compressed yeast. The government is going to force that business over to England, I suppose. At present all the imports come from the United States. The Americans have yeast offices all over this country.

Take buckwheat, and beans. Beans are made free from England. There is a duty under the general and intermediate tariffs, and it is free under the British preference. Why? So that our people can buy beans grown all over the empire to bring in against the beans grown by our own people. That is not the kind of protection that I would like to see. We allow buckwheat and barley and corn-meal to come in free. That is on the second page of the resolutions, another bunk page, and the hon. gentleman need not ask me what bunk means either.

Now I come to oatmeal. We bought from Great Britain in 1929, 438 pounds of oatmeal. Of rye in the last four years our total importations from Great Britain have mounted to 106 bushels. Of rye flour we imported none from Great Britain and these are made free of duty.

The government is also allowing wheat to come in free from Great Britain. That is another bunk proposition. Here is the situation about wheat and wheat flour. We got

75.000 barrels of flour from the United States in 1929, and from Great Britain 134 barrels. The funny thing about it is that that flour came in free from Great Britain. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, we put this on the free list! It was free before so far as Great Britain is concerned, and under a free tariff Great Britain sent us only 134 barrels against

75.000 barrels from the United States who are paying a fifty-cent tariff. If the Minister of Finance really wanted to cut off the trade from the United States and hand it over to Great Britain, he did not go the right way about it.

Let me summarize. There are 387 items in the old tariff printed in the Minister's proposals, 387 items in which no change is made in the American tariff. There is not one cent of change in them; they stand the same. There are 70 items upon which the tariff against the United States is increased, and 105 items on which the tariff against the United States is decreased. Now what is the way to get imports from a country? It is to decrease the tariff. That will bring imports. Now there are 105 items in the Minister's proposals, coming from the United States, on which there has been a decrease of tariff. My figures do not exactly agree with the minister's; I cannot make them gibe, but when we examine the items in detail we shall find out who is nearest correct.

.

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

Charles-Philippe Beaubien

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BEAUBIEN:

It is a low tariff budget then?

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

No, I am not saying that at all. The claim is made by the Minister of Finance that we are putting the Americans out of business in this country, that we are sending the trade that formerly went to the United States over to England. The way to bring that about, as I said before, was to have increased the tariff against American importations, to make it sure that the trade would go to England. I know perfectly well that so far as the articles I deal in are concerned-and it is enough for a person to be acquainted with his own line of business- the minister is wrong. I know he has been wrongly informed on many of the articles. I know it from experience, I do not need anyone to tell me. And I know we will con-tiue to trade with the United States in pretty much the same proportion as we are doing now.

Let us examine this thing a little further. If that proves to be true-and there are protected articles here, there is no doubt about that-if those articles are really protected, then Britain cannot sell them to us, so how is Britain going to increase her trade with us? If our steel mills are now well looked after so far as construction steel, ingots, and other things are concerned, how can the English mills come in here and get that trade? If these things are well protected here very few of them will be imported from Great Britain. That is what I said in the first place, that this government did not know the difference between a protective tariff and revenue tariff. I do not apply that remark to every member of the government, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) knows the difference, and so does the other minister (Mr. Malcolm) who is in the manufacturing business: but evidently they have been

chloroformed, they are not in the running in respect to this tariff.

Now Mr. Speaker, I have not yet begun to get through the list of what I call, and which are, " bunk " items covered by the British preference in this tariff. There is just as much bunk in these items as there was in the French treaty that I quoted. But let me continue with these items. After wheat and wheat flour comes rice-bran. Well, we got S62 worth in 1929, and in the nine months of the present fiscal year not a dollar. Macaroni and vermicelli have been made free; they enjoyed a 75 per hundred weight tariff before. Now, what is the object of putting these articles on the free list? We are making macaroni in this country-there are three macaroni plants in my district. Does the

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin

minister want to put these people out of business? Do the government intend to continue strafing the industries of Canada? Do they want to see a few more men out of jobs? Hay and straw comprise the next item; there is no use saying a word about it. Natural flowers; these are made free coming from Great Britain. Well now, should that item have been inserted? Are any natural flowers imported from the old country?

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

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

They will be imported for the funeral of the government.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

You can bring them in by aeroplane.

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I suppose you get lots

of them out in Winnipeg. Potatoes have been made free all round, but we have got the countervailing duty. In other words, Mr. Speaker, heretofore we have had a duty of this kind, but we always made the tariff ourselves, the rate of duty always appeared in our own tariff book. Now, the duty is not inserted at all. We have a government that is soared to put any duty in the tariff; it is going to let somebody else do that. When the commodity comes from the United States the United States authorities will make the tariff; if the goods come from some other place, their entry through the customs cannot be made until we know what the tariff of the other country is. Apparently we have not got enough nerve ourselves to legislate for our own people, we let somebody else make our tariff. I have no hesitation, Mr. Speaker, in saying that so far as potatoes or any other vegetables are concerned which we produce ourselves, I do not care where they come from, if they interfere with the products raised by our own people, while those native products are available in abundance, I say we should have a tariff to stop the importation of similar vegetables. If high-priced fruits and vegetables are imported out of season, there is all the more reason why there should be a duty on them because only the wealthy people can buy them, and they should pay for the privilege. The same remark applies to imported strawberries and other high-priced stuff. Onions are free from England or British colonies or British possessions. The tariff is 30 per cent on the general tariff which is the same old tariff; but the minister has done something more, he has put on a specific duty, which he says shall not be less than three quarters of a cent a pound.

That puts me in mind of one other matter that probably I can deal with before my time expires. The Minister of Finance says that he has made an orderly tariff. I wonder where we have heard that word before? I think it

has come from the west. I have heard the word out there. I have no doubt that when the minister made these proposals in the first place he had an idea that he could turn a certain amount of trade away from the United States to Great Britain. Let me quote his words about an orderly tariff. He said first:

When this revision is completed the Canadian customs tariff will consist of 1,188 items of which 589 will be free under the British preference.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, he paid more attention to the number of items than he did to the quality of the items, or what the items amounted to. That is one reason why I propose to show the falsity of many of the items. It would take me three hours to go through the full list, but if I had the time I could show on every page a bunch of stuff that is nothing more than junk. It has no right to be in the tariff so far as bringing any business to Great Britain is concerned. He says further:

The importance of this enlargement of the preference is indicated by the fact that Canada imported last year over two hundred million dollars worth of the commodities on which we are now increasing the British preference.

I do not deny that at all. But the minister is very careful not to say. "I predict that as a result of this extension of the British preference so many million dollars worth of goods will come from England." He could have done that had he put a proper tariff on American goods that would have ensured the import of similar goods from Great Britain. But he did not want to do it. Even the reductions that have been made have just been moderate, and the increases are about the same. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, there are 387 items that are not touched at all. Do you mean to say that the people who have been favoured with that business heretofore are going to lose it? Not on your life. I have met some steel people from the United States since this budget has been brought down, and they are not worrying. There may be two or three items that they cannot touch, but the minister knows that if he had increased the tariff on the articles that I am speaking about the goods would be made in this country, and it would only be necessary to see that the people favoured by the tariff did not exploit the domestic consumer.

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

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to

speak after the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin). I have listened with rapt attention to the speech of the hon. gentleman and I must say that it was delivered with the energy

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

of flaming youth. In his opening remarks he said that the government was falling into the footsteps of the Tory party. He was mistaken in that respect and also in the advice which he gave to the government. If such advice were followed the cost of living would be greatly increased.

I think this would be a proper occasion upon which to mention the eloquent speech delivered on Saturday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I read the report of his speech as it appears in the press. His remarks are not new by any means and they are as follows:

*'Countervailing tariff meant" he proceeded, "that the Canadian tariff would be made at Washington." _ "So," Mr. Bennett went on, "You have this beautiful condition that when the President of the United States at Washington signs a tariff ruling, that will be the tariff in Canada."

I wish to make reference to a statement which appeared in the Montreal Star of May 3:

Most of lumber items put back on United States free list. Washington house members on tariff rate-slashing rampage.

The point is that most of the statements made by the leader of the opposition are reversible, and it would be nearer the truth to say that the American tariff was made in Ottawa rather than to say that the Canadian tariff was made in Washington. In answer to the statement of my hon. friend from Lincoln as to the policy of this government and as to the policy of the Tory party, it might be fitting to quote the definition of Liberalism which was given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at the meeting held on March 19, of the Twentieth Century Liberal Association of Canada: Freedom and Equality

Liberalism is above all else identified with freedom and equality. It seeks to destroy the strength of privilege and the restraints which privilege, for its own ends imposes on those who are not permitted to share its rights and enjoyments. You can see that the moment freedom begins to assert itself through its advocates in any given sphere or at any given time, immediately there will arise those who will seek to conserve for themselves, and for those who share their privileged position, the privileges and rights which are already theirs. They, in their turn, come to be known as Conservatives.

The Liberal attitude, in contrast to the Conservative, is based upon a belief in the general interest as being superior to any special interest, the supremacy of general interests over particular interests. It is based upon a belief in the subordination of class interests to the interests of the community. It implies that the good pf all is the good of each; that in our organized social life we are members one of another.

EMr. Poulint.l

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

Felix Patrick Quinn

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. QUINN:

Liberalism is dead, and it

is waiting for the undertaker.

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

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

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

Felix Patrick Quinn

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. QUINN:

The hon. gentleman had

better go down and take a look at the bottom of the sea.

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

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I can see from my hon.

friend's remarks that there are good and bad Irishmen. When my hon. friends get old they can migrate from Nova Scotia to the west and enjoy the benefits of that act. However, I do not think they will have to go to that trouble; soon a Liberal government will be in power in Nova Scotia and will come under the provisions of that measure. The minister is responsible for several orders in council regarding contract 2419-126

labour and the forty-four hour week for Dominion government employees. This year he brought in bill No. 49, which I have advocated several times, with respect to fair wages and the eight-hour day for labour employed, by contract or otherwise, on Dominion public works. During the minister's tenure of office there have been approximately 160 disputes, any one of which might have been disastrous to the country; in all those disputes in which this department has been asked to assist, settlements have been made without loss of time, and the minister has intervened personally in many cases in order to prevent strikes.

2. Then let us consider how industry is represented. Senator Dandurand, Minister of State, leader of the government in the Senate and a former president of the League of Nations, is a banker; he is president of the Montreal City and District Savings Bank and of several other important business concerns. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King), is president of the King Lumber Mills Limited, of Cranbrook, British Columbia. Last year the amount of pensions paid to victims of the great war amounted to about 839,000,000, or $6,000,000 more than when he took charge of this department. This year he will bring in new legislation regarding pensions, based upon the unanimous recommendations of a parliamentary committee which has been working under the very able chairmanship of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). The very efficient Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), has a most ungrateful task; he must collect the money. When he was appointed the total revenue from his department amounted to $361,891,072 -37; he reorganized his department into three branches, customs, excise and income tax, and last year he collected $400,091,784-40, or roughly $38,200,000 more than was collected four years ago. The minister is well known as a first class business man, and certainly deserves hearty congratulations.

Then we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), a young manufacturer, who has done much for the expansion of Canadian trade in many ways. He has been very much interested in research and is responsible for the extent to which the National Research Council has continued and expanded its scholarships, assisted research programs and organized and developed new activities of the greatest importance. He has furthered the post graduate training of research workers, the coordination of research work, the organization of cooperative investigation, the prosecution of research work through assisted re-

19S6

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

search grants and the establishment of national research laboratories. He has increased the efficiency of the commercial intelligence service; during the past eight years the number of offices has been increased by 50 per cent and the personnel by over 100 per cent. Due to the efficiency of this department, which was reorganized last year, our exports have become 28 times what they were in the year of confederation.

3. Let us now consider how agriculture is represented. We have the genial Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), who is a practical farmer and who was formerly Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan. He is very congenial and popular. The most important achievements of his department since he took office have been the winning of the fight against wheat rust on the prairies; the discovery of Garnet and Reward wheat, bred and developed jby Mr. Newman, Dominion Cerealist, which varieties of wheat mature from a week to ten days earlier than marquis wheat and which have extended the seed belt of this country one hundred miles to the north, opening up vast areas hitherto supposed to be useless for that kind of agriculture; the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and the inprove-ment in the Canadian hog. Canadian bacon has improved so very much in quality that Canada is eating very much more of it, and it compares favourably with the Danish article, which is supposed to be the best that reaches the market.

We also have the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), a farmer and a former premier of Alberta who, as the Minister of the Interior, returned the natural resources of the western provinces and who, as acting Minister of Immigration, out out the assisted passage of immigrants, which step had been advocated for a long time throughout this country. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar) was born and raised on a farm and was Minister of Agriculture in the Union government, resigning the year after the war. He was the leader of the Progressive party in the House of Commons until November, 1922, and has been president of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association since 1907. Upon the appointment of the present Minister of Finance the Prime Minister called him to take over the portfolio of Railways and Canals. He is working on the consolidation of the debt of the Canadian National Railways; he is concerning himself with the Montreal terminal; this year he will inaugurate the Welland canal, which is a marvel of civil engineering, and the Hudson Bay railway. He is a fair-minded man and a hard worker,

although apparently he does his work in a very easy way.

The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) was vice-president of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Asosciation and the organizer and general manager of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Elevators. He is a practical business man. The Minister of Finance was born in England in 1885, and is not yet forty-five years old. This young immigrant, who came to Canada in 1902, was appointed provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan when only thirty-one years of age and became premier two years later. He resigned the premiership to come to Ottawa in the dark days of 1926, since when his varied experience, sound judgment and practical views have proved to be of invaluable assistance to the Liberal party, especially with regard to the building of the Hudson Bay railway and the Halifax, Toronto and Vancouver terminals, and the complete reorganization of the Canadian National Railways. Several times the minister has been offered positions in the business world at salaries ranging from $25,000 to $50,000 yearly, but with praiseworthy self denial he has refused these offers. Upon the death of the late Mr. Robb he was chosen Minister of Finance, and his first budget speech has proved the wisdom of that choice. It is the most fair to all, although the most technical budget, since confederation, thanks to the intelligent work of the tariff board, the wise recommendations of different members of the cabinet and many private members, and the clear vision of the new minister, who continues the splendid work of his predecessor in reducing' the debt of this country as well as the taxes.

I have mentioned the ministers who particularly represent industry, agriculture and labour in the cabinet which, however, includes also several other men of great ability. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe! attended the conference in London last fall on the operation of Dominion legislation and merchant shipping legislation, with regard to the disallowance of existing statutory provisions requiring reservation of Dominion legislation for the assent of His Majesty; the present position as to the competence of Dominion parliaments to give their legislation extraterritorial operation and also the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. No one, I am sure, can forget his able leadership as acting premier in the first months of the hectic session of 1926.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) is a very modest man who always chooses to remain in the background, although he is one of the most eloquent plat-

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

form speakers and parliamentary debaters. As Minister of Marine, he had a survey made of the Hudson bay and strait, sufficient to determine what aids and improvements were necessary to enable shipping to navigate the route with safety; hydrographic charts were made and wireless direction finding stations established; a new and powerful icebreaker is now nearing completion in Halifax for service in these waters. Increased activity in the deepening and widening of the river St. Lawrence ship channel between Montreal and the sea is forecast in the proposal for a very much enlarged appropriation now before parliament. Dams have been devised and are now under construction at the head of lake St. Peter with a view to retarding the flow of waters from above. Experiments are being made all the time with a view to keeping these waters free of ice for as long as possible in the spring and fall and to this end an additional icebreaking steamer was placed in commission last fall which helped materially in keeping the channel open. New harbour commissions have been established at various points, where rapid advancement is being made to provide adequate facilities. Efforts are being made towards the production of hydrographic charts of all navigable waters in Canada within as short a time as possible. A complete survey is also being made, as rapidly as possible, of all coastal waters for the determination of ocean currents as they may affect navigation. Persistent effort in recent years has resulted in a material modification of the differential in marine insurance against Canadian ports as compared with United States ports. The meteorological service and radio beacons newly established have proved to be a great help to navigation. In addition to these 161 principal lights, 58 gas and signal buoys and 12 fog alarms have been established within the past four years at various points throughout the country, all with a view to the betterment of navigation.

As Minister of Fisheries, he has done the very best to increase the fisheries production and went personally last year to the maritime provinces in that connection. The marketing value of the fisheries had increased considerably during recent years. I am sorry that the time at my disposal does not permit the opportunity to give more details in this respect but this branch has grown up to such an extent that the government has decided to establish a separate ministry of fisheries.

The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) comes from an old Liberal family of Ontario. As Minister of Public Works, he is the guardian and has to look after the building, 2419-126s

maintenance and upkeep of the houses of parliament and of all the Dominion public buildings throughout this country. He is a very active man. The growth and progress of the country and the following expansion and development of several departments necessitated the erection of the new Confederation buildings, of which he is justly proud.

The Postmaster General (Mr. Yeniot), formerly collector of customs and afterwards premier of New Brunswick, inaugurated the penny postage in this country and extended the same to the British Empire, reduced postage rates between Canada and France and also South America. When he took office, the postage on a parcel of 11 pounds from Canada to South America was $2.75, the same rate as a 20 pound parcel from the United States to South America. Due to his efforts the rates are now the same, which means a great advantage to trade by providing facilities to Canadian merchants to send samples to South American customers at cheaper rates. He is the father of the air mail service in this country.

The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) is a barrister of note. In England the Solicitor General receives a salary of about $20,000, besides his fees in each case, twice as much as that of the Canadian Solicitor General. In Canada, the Solicitor General receives no fees when he argues a case on behalf of the government and I am glad to say that the Solicitor General has been successful in most of the important cases which he has argued before the Supreme Court of Canada and the Privy Council. The last case that he has won before the supreme court was that of the Sun Life, in which case the decision of the superintendent of insurance, Mr. Finlay-son, was supported by the exchequer and supreme courts. I wish to pay that tribute to that honest civil servant who was not impressed by dealing with a big company.

The Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret), a journalist and a former member of the press gallery settled last year a long pending question-the war claims. He was well fitted for such a settlement because he is such a kind, amiable and peaceful citizen. He is presenting legislation to amend the company law in order to fit it to modern exigencies. He increased, in 1927, the salaries of the civil service by $3,000,000, and now he is considering the Beatty report on technicians. Before he reaches a decision I would humbly suggest to him to give a flat increase of $10 per month to everyone in the civil service and to

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

fix a minimum salary of S100 per month for civil servants, who work exclusively for the Dominion government.

The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) went to France on February 10, 1917, and served continuously until the armistice in 1918. He is one of the best debaters in the House of Commons. During his tenure of office, Canada, by actual administration and development, has made a greater and more varied use of aviation than any country in the world. The air services have been reorganized. The station at Camp Borden provides training for officers and airmen. In the prairie provinces where forest fire protection patrols are operated, the stations are all linked up by wireless, so that communication between aircraft and ground stations is maintained during flight. In addition eight photographic detachments operate in various parts of the country taking air photographs for mapping purposes. The work of the civil government air operations also includes exploration and surveys, transportation of men and supplies for survey parties, Indian treaty flights, crop and forest dusting, fishery patrols, airmail investigation, et cetera. This branch, in conjunction with the Department of Marine and Fisheries, was responsibile for carrying out the survey and observation on ice conditions in the Hudson strait. Besides that, there is the excellent work done by the civil aviation branch and the aeronautical engineering branch. With regard to empire communication, the R-100 is about completed and expected to make an initial flight to Canada shortly and, to use the minister's own words: "We hope that the experiment in closer communication between our British brothers and ourselves will be crowned with success." The minister proved to be a very distinguished representative of Canada at the last naval parley on the limitation of armaments at St. James palace and the fact that our Minister of National Defence advocates peace is a great credit to the government.

As Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has attended several imperial conferences in London where his advice was often sought. He also signed in Paris last year the Kellogg pact for peace.

These are the men who have assisted the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in the careful preparation of the budget which has been presented this year, and, to paraphrase the words of Sir Herbert Holt, they aave formulated and executed effective meastMr. Pouliot.]

ures for the maintenance of that equilibrium which will ensure state prosperity.

I am not in favour of high protection, nor am I in favour of free trade; I think a moderate protective policy is the wisest, and that is what this government advocates. The present budget essentially is a technical one, and that is the reason why some of the hon. members on the other side of the house do not understand it. On June 12 of last year the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) said that the tariff board was "a glorified commission to enable the minister to escape responsibility." When he made that statement he did not know the kind of budget which would be presented this year. At that time the government were working on the preparation of this budget, but it would have been impossible to draw up such a budget without the assistance of everyone who was in a position to obtain reliable and complete information from the people, who are the ones interested in this matter. Tribute is due to the tariff board for the amount of information they have supplied to the government. The present budget is not one which gives benefit to certain sections of the country; it is a budget for the whole of Canada and everyone will receive benefits. Even those hon. members who speak against it because they do not understand it will receive benefits as well as all other citizens of this country. Last year we had hon. gentlemen speaking of a "wait and see" policy. We have waited and now we can all see. I believe the result is satisfactory. I am frank enough to say that I do not approve all the appointments that are made by the government ; sometimes I think they could have been better, but we must consider the general policy of the government which is very satisfactory. I trust the present leaders of the Liberal party in this house, because it is the real Liberal party. The leaders that we have here are sound and able.

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

Peter McGibbon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McGIBBON:

What about Quebec?

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

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

In Quebec they might call themselves Liberals, but my hon. friend will remember that last year when I asked hon. gentlemen oposite who was the greatest man in the Tory party, he himself said: "Tasch-ereau." So my hon. friend has the same views as I have with regard to his qualifications. I am glad to support the general policy of this government, although it is not perfect. No one can expect to find anything perfect in this world, but the government is the nearest approach to perfection.

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon

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

Peter McGibbon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario) :

Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue

the debate on the budget I should like first to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on his restoration to health. I am sure most of us who knew of the very serious illness he had last summer were more than glad to see him take his place in the House of Commons this session. Coupled with that I feel it is my duty as a member of parliament to voice my protest at the minister's continued absence from the house. Since coming into parliament in 1917 one thing that has impressed me has been the continued attention ministers of finance have paid to all suggestions coming from any quarter of the house. I remember Sir Thomas White, the Hon. A. K. Maclean, later on Mr. Fielding and Mr. Robb, who were practically always in the house when their budgets were being discussed, trying to get what information they could and gave it that courteous attention which suggestions from any part of the house should receive.

Speaking as a Conservative, I think the Conservative party have had paid to them in this budget one of the greatest compliments that has ever been paid to any party in any legislative hall in the world. For fifty years we have been advocating a policy of adequate protection for industry, the farmers, the labouring men and the consumers. During all that time we have been met with policies that have varied almost with the seasons and that have been discarded almost as often as the birds discard their nests. We had hon. gentlemen advocate unrestricted reciprocity under the treaty of 1911, free trade as they had it in England and, last but not least, the platform of 1919. AH of these were more or less of one nature; that is, they bordered upon free trade. It is true that during the election of 1921 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) disregarded his platform and said that he had a "chart." I suppose we have the fruits of that navigation to-day when in this budget the Prime Minister has practically discarded all the past and has come out for a policy of protection. We are told in history that prophets have been stoned by their lineal descendants. While it may be true that the present Minister of Finance has not stoned all the ministers of finance and lieutenants of the party of the past, he certainly has built their sepulchres and has cremated their policies into ashes.

But you cannot steal other people's brains successfully, and this budget has failed because hon. gentlemen opposite have not the skill, the experience, the ability and the courage to enforce it properly. We who

have been forced to make our living by practising surgery have at times been compelled to ask our clients to undergo severe operations. When we see the stage of

dissolution appearing, when we see their strength fading, we sometimes have to ask them to give us greater liberty to take some risk of their lives. Sometimes it is necessary to cut deep into the vital organs to remove some dangerous growth. At other times we have to transfuse into their arteries lifegiving fluid in order to prolong their lives. In this budget it seems to me that the Minister of Finance has been attempting to transfuse into the old sclerotic arteries of the Liberal party some of the life-giving fluid of the protectionist doctrine which this party has advocated for many years gone by. But he has failed because he lacks the skill, the technique and-and this is the greatest cause of all-because he lacks the courage to do the thing properly.

On one occasion Disraeli, criticising the government of the day, stated that there were three courses open to it: the course they had left, the course they had pursued, and the course they ought to have pursued. I want for a moment or two to view the actions of the government somewhat in that fashion. I will not say much about the course which they have left except that what they have done is a confession that for thirty or forty years they have been preaching false doctrines to the people of Canada and at last they have been converted. It may be a deathbed conversion, as we think it is; and in that case I should like to remind them' that sacred history records only one successful deathbed repentance, that of the thief on the cross. So much for what they have left.

Forgetting for the moment the intermediate course, I want to ask them what they should have done. The answer has been given in the language of my leader when in his speech in the house the other day he said that it was their duty to vacate their seats and give place to Canadians who would produce a Canadian policy for the Canadian people. That is what I conceive was their duty. In place of that we have, as has been pointed out this afternoon and in days gone by, a policy that has its genesis in the city of Washington and that is written by the president of the United States. Sir, we object to that. We think that the policy of this country should be written by Canadians. As far as that limited part of the budget is concerned, all that the finance minister

The Budget-Mr.'McGibbon

has succeeded in doing has been to move the American eagle from Washington to the 49th parallel of latitude, and there he flaps his wings, stretching from the frozen sea of the Arctic to the torrid gulf of Mexico. We on this side of the house object to policies of that kind. We believe in a policy that will start the wheels of industry in this country rolling, that will give the farmer greater remuneration for his toil, that will bring to the home of the labouring man greater comforts and a better standard of living.

If I had to discuss this budget from only one or two standpoints, I would say first that it is a budget of hypocrisy. Second it is a budget of camouflage. It is a budget of hypocrisy because we have in it the great recantation not only of the government but of the whole Liberal party in the house. I must say that the Minister of Finance has a lot of courage when he asks the whole Liberal party to turn their backs on the past and put their heads upon the executioner's block, for that is what it means for many of that party at the next election. When I look back over their history and recall many of their expressions in this house and their protestations throughout the country, as well as their past policies, I am not altogether surprised. Those of us who have been in this house for some years have seen them steadily year after year steal from the Conservative party those principles which we by an educational process have made popular in this country. We have seen them steal the credit for the national railways, although you, Mr. Speaker, will remember that we had to sit nearly all night in the old museum and almost hold a pistol at the heads of hon. gentlemen opposite in order to carry the legislation through making what are now the national railways the property of the people of Canada. Some hon. gentlemen will remember that this country very nearly lost the national railways. There was a plan, and a deep laid plan at that, to retain for the shareholders the Grand Trunk Pacific proper, which was the paying part of the road, and leave upon the hands of the people those white elephants which were fast bringing this country-I was almost going to say into bankruptcy, but at all events were heaping up great deficits. I was told at the time by one of the ablest lawyers in the house that that plan would have come very near to succeeding had they not forgotten one thing, and that was the War Measures Act had not been repealed. It was still in existence, and I was told at the time that it was stretched to the

very limit in order that the country might get possession of the national railways. Now, that the national railways have become successful and are more or less paying the interest on the debt to the public at large, we see that they are taken like a foundling to the bosom of the government who now claim the system as their own child.

We have also seen the government in the Duncan report incorporate a large part of the policies upon which we went to the country in 1925, and we do not hear anybody giving the Conservative party credit for those policies. It is to the Conservative party that credit is due. And now in this budget we have an attempt to steal some part of the Conservatives' protectionist policy. It is true that they have not done it successfully, because, as I said a moment ago, one party cannot steal another party's brains, and the genuine article will always outshine the counterfeit.

I want for a moment to recall some of the statements that have been made in this house by members of the government and of the party opposite. In Hansard of February 24, 1927, I find the present Minister of Finance uttering the following:

That is the fault I have to find, and that is the distinction I draw between our attitude on this side of the house and the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite. Why, we had a plea for the onion growers. There are three hundred of them in Canada, and my hon. friends opposite want to tax all the people of the Dominion for the benefit of those three hundred onion growers.

And yet, sir, what do we find in this budget? We find this same minister who uttered these words bringing down a budget putting a duty of 45 cents a bushel on onions. Was there ever a greater exhibition of hypocrisy than that? Further on in the same speech, the present Minister of Finance said:

Had the Conservative party been in power to-day and honestly carried out what they led the people of Canada to believe is their policy, we would have a tariff as high as the tariff now existing in the United States.

" Brick for brick." He was ridiculing such a policy in 1927, and in 1930 he puts that policy which he ridicules upon the statute books of this country. Further, in the same address he said:

We are between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Mr. Manion: Which is the devil?

Mr. Dunning: Well, if I have to define the

term, I am afraid I shall have to say that the Tories are.

I was reading the other day in the Winnipeg Free Press something that possibly ex-

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon

plains that attitude. The Winnipeg Free Press says:

In some of his western speeches Mr. King is reported to have said that the Progressives were "in the nature of outlaws in parliament," and that they "are simply helping to make the west ridiculous."

I suppose, sir, that that is the reason why the Minister of Finance has turned from the deep sea to the devil of the Tory party,

I have also here some of the statements that have been made in the past by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), who, this afternoon, in a sort of jocular way, amused the house by his address. We all remember his famous statement about the " death knell of protection." He was quite willing to be its executioner. I see my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in his seat. Looking through Hansard I find him designating protection as " bunk." Possibly he might translate that classic word for the benefit of his followers who were so anxious to get at its meaning this afternoon.

Let me also quote some words uttered by the deputy speaker. He used this classical language in the days when we were in the old museum:

I believe that the trouble that exists to-day can be directly traced to the protective tariff that obtains at the present time.

Then, sir, listen to this expression of opinion. The hon. gentleman was then opposing a sales tax of 3 per cent; he afterwards supported one of 6 per cent. On May 18, 1921, he said:

You cannot expect to have the perfume of roses while you have a polecat under the table.

As I say, we had at that time a sales tax of 3 per cent. I wonder how many polecats are under the table to-day.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Who said that?

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

Peter McGibbon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McGIBBON:

The deputy speaker. Let me complete the quotation:

Neither can you expect to have fair methods of taxation imposed by a government whose policy is dictated by and wholly in the interests of the big interests of the country.

Then, sir, I have one more quotation which is of some significance considering that we have behind the ministery a fair number of so-called Liberal Progressives. I do not know whether they are Progressives or not, but the only thing that to my mind qualified them as Liberals in the past was that they seemed to be willing to give away their country and their policy and everything else to retain office. The then member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) had this to say:

I may say that in 1916, shortly after this policy-

That is, the farmers' platform.

[DOT]-had been adopted by the Canadian Council of Agriculture, every candidate in the federal field in Saskatchewan was circularized by the secretary of the grain growers' association there and asked whether, if elected, he would be prepared to support the policy as laid down by the Canadian Council of Agriculture.

That, Mr. Speaker, was practically a policy of free trade. To remove any doubts on the point, let me quote the platform, which, I take it, in the past was supported by all those hon. members sitting to your right, sir, who now are supporting this protectionist budget. This farmers' platform was drafted and issued by the Canadian Council of Agriculture at Winnipeg on November 29, 1918:

A. -By an immediate and substantial allaround reduction in the customs tariff.

I wonder if our friends opposite are getting it in this budget.

B. -By reducing the customs duty on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half the rates charged under the general tariff, and that further gradual, uniform reductions be made in the remaining tariff on British imports that will ensure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada in five years.

I wonder, sir, if they are still supporting that plank.

C. -By endeavouring to secure unrestricted reciprocal trade in natural products with the United States along the lines of the reciprocity agreement of 1911.

I wonder if there are any men in the west to-day who, even if they got the chance, would accept that policy and submit the farmers of this country to the tender mercies of the great trusts of Chicago and other centres in the United States. I venture to say that if a vote was taken not one of them would stand up in favour of it. Here is another plank of the farmers' program:

D. -By placing all foodstuffs on its free list.

Here is another plank:

E. -That agricultural implements, farm and household machinery, vehicles, fertilizers, coal, lumber, cement, gasoline, illuminating fuel and lubricating oil be placed on the free list and that all raw materials and machinery used in their manufacture also be placed on the free list.

Now, sir, if we placed everything from Great Britain on the free list and were getting everything from the United States that was to have been given to us in 1911, we would have the pure free trade policy, that, I take it, everyone of these so-called Liberal Progressives pledged themselves to support in the past. In view of this, is not the Minister of Finance putting a severe strain on their free trade faith when he asks them to come out and support his protectionist budget? It

The Budget-Mr. McGibbon

will be interesting to watch the member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), the member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) and other hon. gentlemen opposite, whose voices were raised heavenward in the past for free trade, and see how they will take this budget. We will watch their course of action with considerable interest. Then there is my good friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) whom I must not forget. I must say that I think he has a very pleasant personality. I supported him once-I hope I may never do it again. I feel like apologizing for that one vote I cast to keep the hon. member in power. We watched him come into office and followed his career there.

I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, as I did at the beginning of this address, to the absolute indifference of the members of this government to getting their budget throught the house. It makes me think that they really do not want it accepted, that it is simply a budget of distress. Well, we shall see before the debate ends. On the government side at the present moment we have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) and three other private members, while on this side we have a pretty fair representation of members who still have the interests of the country at heart and want to do something for Canada.

Now, sir, in order t-o make my record complete I desire to place on Hansard the letter to Sir Robert Borden containing the resignation of the hon. Minister of Railways. It was read to the house the other day by my leader, but I desire again to quote it. The letter was dated June 4, 1919:

The government, in its consideration of the budget to be placed before parliament tomorrow, has reached, I take it, definite and final conclusions as to the form it will take. As you are aware, I am not in accord -with it and therefore cannot support it, either in the house or in the country. Having reached this decision, there is only one course for me to follow, and I therefore tender you herewith my resignation as a member of the government. The reason for my decision shall be given more fully when the subject is under discussion in the house.

That, as I say, was written on the 4th day of June. On the following day the budget was introduced. The Minister of Agriculture admits that he knew it was to be a protectionist budget. There is a significance there, sir, that I shall draw to the attention of this house and of the country before I con-eiude. May I call it six o'clock?

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

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

May 12, 1930