May 13, 1930


Section agreed to. Bill reported. Mr. YOUNG (Toronto) moved the third reading of the bill. Divorce Proceedings-Domicile


LAB

Herbert Bealey Adshead

Labour

Mr. ADSHEAD:

There is one other question I should like to ask the hon. member. Is there anything in the bill in connection with the fair wage clause? I do not see it here.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   CALGARY AND FERNIE RAILWAY COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG (Toronto):

When this bill

comes before the Senate committee to-morrow the principals of the company will be there and I think they will give my hon. friend ample assurance that the fair wage clause will be observed.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   CALGARY AND FERNIE RAILWAY COMPANY
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS

RIGHT OF MARRIED WOMEN TO ESTABLISH DOMICILE


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin), moved the third reading of Bill No. 31, respecting jurisdiction in proceedings for divorce.


LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, on the second reading

of this bill I gave my views in connection with it and my objections to it. As I stated then, this bill is a departure from the well-known principle of British and international law which provides that the test of jurisdiction in matters of divorce is the domicile of the parties, which is the domicile of the husband so long as the marriage bond exists. I do not desire to repeat what I then said, but once more I wish to register my objection to this bill.

Topic:   DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RIGHT OF MARRIED WOMEN TO ESTABLISH DOMICILE
Permalink
CON

Edmond Baird Ryckman

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RYCKMAN:

I was paired with the

hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.

Adshead,

Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Bancroft,

Barber,

Bell (Hamilton West), Bennett,

Bird,

Black (Yukon),

Bock,

Brown,

Campbell,

Cayley,

Chaplin,

Charters,

Coote,

Crerar,

Donnelly,

Esling,

Euler,

Evans,

Fansher (Last Mountain),

Fansher (Lambton East),

Fraser,

Garland (BowRiver), Gershaw,

Glen,

Gray,

Hall,

Harris,

Hay,

Hepburn,

Ilsley,

Irvine,

Jelliff,

Johnston (LongLake), Kaiser,

Kellner,

Kennedy,

King, Mackenzie (Prince Albert), Ladner,

Lawson,

Lovie,

Lucas,

McLean (Melfort), Macphail (Miss), McDiarmid,

Topic:   DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RIGHT OF MARRIED WOMEN TO ESTABLISH DOMICILE
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.

Topic:   DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   RIGHT OF MARRIED WOMEN TO ESTABLISH DOMICILE
Permalink

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS


The house resumed from Friday, April 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Guerin for the second reading of Bill No. 39, respecting government contracts.


LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I understand

that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) desires to be here while this bill is being discussed. Would it inconvenience my hon. friend to have it stand over?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Permalink
LIB

James John Edmund Guérin

Liberal

Mr. GUERIN:

I am very anxious that this bill should pass, as it will have considerable effect upon labour, especially in so far as Montreal is concerned. It will affect the con-

2042 ' COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Boss (Kingston)

tracts which have been given in connection with the building of the new Canadian National railway terminal. Demolition now is going on and the rule still prevails that young men only are to obtain work. I wish either to see the bill go through, or to have some guarantee given that action will be taken which will ensure people obtaining employment independent of their age. The system prevailing at the present time is very bad, and unless something is done the session will close without action being taken.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Permalink

Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations.


THE BUDGET

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE


The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Charles A. Dunning that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, the amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett, and the amendment to the amendment thereto of Mr. Fansher (Last Mountain).


CON

Arthur Edward Ross

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROSS (Kingston City):

Mr. Speaker,

when the house rose at six o'clock I was dealing with what I considered to be the third feature in this budget-countervailing duties. The word " countervailing " frequently is used instead of the word " retaliation " or " protection." I was referring to some remarks made by some of the members who led that great exodus from this side of the house to support a government which they believed to be a low tariff government. I was reminding some of those members of the statements which they had made in the house in former . days, and I have one more to which I would like to refer. The following statement, made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) will be found on page 1012 of Hansard of 1929. In dealing with the matter of retaliation, he said:

In closing I wish to say something on the doctrine of retaliation as preached by the Conservatives. I heard with dismay the other night the astounding proposal of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), that the government be given authority to make immediate tariff changes to meet any fiscal changes that may take place in the United States. I can hardly imagine that any responsible member on the Conservative benches would support or even countenance a proposal so preposterous. Let me say to the hon. member that I cannot understand how under any conceivable circumstances any western member would delegate to any government such an exclusive parliamentary privilege in connection with so contentious a subject as the tariff.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Marquette how he can be so inconsistent as to delegate to the government by means of his vote that same kind of privilege.

The next point I would like to discuss is in connection with the figures I quoted this afternoon and w'hich showed that the government had followed for nine years a policy of trade w'hich they now intend to destroy on the assumption that that trade would be turned over to Great Britain. I pointed out the fact that in many of these articles there was no possibility of the trade being turned over to Great Britain. I might be asked the question: Well, what would you do? And I would reply that in these schedules there are certain articles which might be taken up and on w'hich the duties might be so arranged that Great Britain might have the exclusive trade in them. For instance, I find that Great Britain is at present supplying nearly all the anchors required in Canada, but this article is on the free list. Why not make it free for Great Britain with a tariff against any other country that might compete? Another article is fish-hooks, w'hich w'ere made free by the government a year or two ago. I find that Great Britain is supplying 820,000 worth and Norway 819,000 w'orth of these articles. This is another commodity which might very well be handed over exclusively to Great Britain, because evidently fish-hooks are not made in this country and we are not trading in them with the United States.

According to the trade returns, table knives, forks and spoons are articles that Great Britain wishes to trade in with us and arrangements might very well be made to give her the preference in that regard. As for pins, $58,000 worth come from Great Britain and only

836.000 worth from the United States. Why not give Great Britain a preference on this commodity, and the same with needles,

8146.000 worth of which come from Great Britain and $193,000 worth from the United States? These exemplify certain articles mentioned in these schedules which the government could reasonably take in hand and by arrangement give the trade to Great Britain, but as regards many of those I have mentioned this afternoon there is no possibility of their coming from Great Britain.

But that is not our policy. Our policy is this, that all these articles should be made in Canada. Let me point out certain other articles that are mentioned, and ask the house

1'he Budget-Miss Macphail

if there is any reason why they should not

be made in Canada? These are the articles: Articles- Importations

Piano parts $ 185,000

Trunks 314,000

Toys 2,250,000

Soaps 1,160,000

Picture and photo frames.. .. 194,000

Tube pipe union fittings 3.208,000

Ship repairs 221,000

Spectacles, knife frames, eyeglass frames 182,000

Lead pencils 933,000

Just think of it: these lead pencils can be made in Canada, and yet every lead pencil supplied to the members of the house comes from outside of this country. I shall not take up any more time in dealing with the list, but it can be enlarged three or four times. If the government were alive to the situation all these articles could be made in Canada, thus providing work and preventing for all time unemployment in the Dominion.

The statement has been made this afternoon that Canada for the first time has been giving a lead in strengthening the ties that bind the British Empire. Whoever made that statement has misread the history of this country of nearly 160 years. Canada has never failed the empire; Canada has led the way; Canada has spent millions of dollars to encourage trade within the empire. She has done this by the construction of the Canadian Pacific steamship lines and the Canadian National steamship lines. She led the way in the great war, when the name of Canada was put on the map. Canada has led the way in providing millions of dollars for steamship lines to the West Indies. Surely in doing that we might be excused from taking the vegetable trade away from the white farmers of this country and sending it down to the West Indies.

This afternoon we had the apology of the consumers' league or at least, a statement from the president of that league. But will anyone say that these few members have provided all the financial assistance to enable Mr. Deachman to present these cases before the tariff board? No, I am afraid a good deal of that has come from the party across the floor. They advocated the same policy for years, and they provided the means in this indirect manner, as they did not want to do so openly, to bring these cases before the tariff board. Just twenty-four or forty-eight hours before the great betrayal of the consumers' league, Mr. Deachman was addressing a women's Liberal meeting in the neighbouring village of Westboro, and only twenty-four or forty-eight hours later he learned of the great betrayal; that all his years of work and teaching before the tariff board had been

destroyed, had passed away and had been thrown into the scrap heap by the party opposite. .

We have heard from the consumers' league. There is however, silence from the Minister of Railways, who moved this amendment in 1922:

That the Liberal party having been returned to power, the budget proposals of the finance minister now brought down, based as they are, mainly on the principle of protection in respect to the tariff, are wholly inadequate to implement such pledges by legislation.

That while recognizing that changes in fiscal policy should be made in such a way as to give industries affected a reasonable opportunity for readjustment, this house is of opinion that the principle of protection as a basis for fiscal policy in Canada is unsound and not in the best interests of the Dominion.

How can the Minister of Railways come here now in 1930 without giving some explanation of what he meant in 1922 and what he means in 1930?

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):

Mr. Speaker, the few remarks that

I intend to make should really not be dignified by the name of address or speech, but I felt that one could not vote for or against the budget without saying something about it. As a matter of fact, one vote on this budget is no good; one would need half a dozen votes in any case. It is impossible with one vote to say whether one is in favour of or against a budget that ranges all the way from A to Z, from black to white or white to black, whichever way you wish to take it

The budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on the first of May is quite clearly designed to catch votes; I would call it a vote-getting budget. If it does not get the votes, it will certainly disappoint its parents. It is a budget that can be easily picked to pieces. Some parts of it look very attractive to certain sections of Canada. For instance, one can imagine supporters of the government waxing eloquent in the east on the iron and steel protection; in the west they could make a very good speech on the British preference, both what is real and a larger portion of it that is only apparent. The protection on vegetables and fruit will go well in British Columbia in spite of the speeches that we had this afternoon, though it may be that they would like best to have the Conservatives bring down the protectionist policy. In the Niagara district the same protection on fruits and vegetables will, I suppose, sound well to the ears of those who want it.

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

May 13, 1930