April 8, 1935

PC

Errick French Willis

Progressive Conservative

Mr. WILLIS:

What about "sityation"?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. REID:

There will be lots of bad

"sityations" before we get through. I know what the hon. member has referred to. You just try to say " Bur-r-r-naby."

I protest very seriously against the proposed long adjournment, because there are many things we could and should be doing. Even without the leader of the government being present we have progressed very well. Due to the seriousness of the unemployment situation the mayors of the different cities held a meeting in this city only a short time ago. May I point out to hon. members who have not served on municipal councils that in my view the reeves, mayors and councils are in the front line of this depression because they are meeting the people every minute of the day and so are in the very best position to understand conditions. Members of the government are in a different position, because they are further removed and people wishing to see them have to pass secretaries before an interview is possible. I for one am very sorry they were not allowed to address hon. members in this chamber. May I close my observations by repeating that I strenuously protest against and oppose any adjournment for four, five or six weeks.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

William Pate Mulock

Liberal

Mr. W. P. MULOCK (North York):

Mr. Speaker, as a newly elected member of this house I welcome the opportunity briefly to discuss the question of the proposed adjournment until May 20. For nearly three months parliament has been in session, and during that period we have dealt with unemployment insurance, the eight hour day and the weekly day of rest. I believe the government would be prepared to admit that upon the introduction of those measures they received the cooperation of hon. members on this side of the house. Certainly no undue delay was caused by the opposition when these matters were placed before parliament. Still left for consideration are Nos. 26 and 27 on- the order paper, namely a measure to establish a grain

board and another to provide for minimum wages. Undoubtedly we would be well occupied if we were to proceed with the consideration of these measures, the introduction of either or both of which could be left to the acting leader of the government (Sir George Perley).

To-day we are faced with a condition whereby out of a population of about 10,-

500,000 we have -about 1,207,000 on relief. After five sessions of parliament since the elections of 1930-this is the sixth-no constructive measures have been introduced which would have the effect either of improving the conditions or of providing work for the unemployed. Unfortunately the relief problem does not appear to be lessening. We have the evidence of the mayors from the Canadian cities who came to the city of Ottawa to state their difficulties, -and who say that they are unable longer to carry the burden of relief, that they have not the money necessary for that purpose. Those municipal officials have asked for guidance and leadership from the federal authorities.

Throughout the country in the face of very trying conditions we find our farmers striving to retain their farms. Hon. members whohave travelled through that section of Ontario which I have the honour to represent will know that within the last few years many farm buildings have had to go without needed improvements. Many houses, barns andfences are not being kept in a proper state of repair, despite the desire of the farmer to prevent deterioration. Certainly there is no desire on the part of farmers to let theirbuildings go to ruin, but the fact is many have been unable -to obtain enough money from the sale of their produce to purchase the necessary materials -and to prevent this condition from arising. On- the other hand when the farmer goes out to buy he finds that due to

tariffs, the prices of the necessities of life and implements of production have been artificially kept at -an unreasonable -height. It may be true that the prices of many articles have decreased, but certainly not to the same extent that farm produce has come down. The unreasonable tariffs imposed by the present government have had the effect of depriving the farmer of a great part of his purchasing power. From year to year the standard of living formerly enjoyed by the people in the rural communities has been forced down. Until the farmer receives his fair share of purchasing power, there can be no real or lasting prosperity in Canada.

Some considerable time has been taken in this house in a discussion of the Ottawa agreements which we made over two years ago, and

Long Adjournment-Mr. Mulock

since that time have been put into effect. Day after day the matter was discussed-[DOT] something that happened two years ago, not something that was to be done now to help the farmers or the unemployed. Regardless of what the decision of this house on that subject might be, it was not going to help the people of Canada one iota, not to mention the expense that the prolonged debate entailed.

May I remind this house that we are going into debt in this country at a tremendous pace. According to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) the debt of this country since this government took office has been increased by $812,000,000. The situation is one that calls for immediate action. We cannot go on borrowing principal to pay interest. The facts must be faced, and the sooner we face them the sooner shall we get out of our difficulties; but if we do not face them we shall sink further and further into debt with each day.

This government has been in office now for nearly five years, and with all due respect to my hon. friends opposite I would say that to many it seems more like ten years. This is their sixth session. I understand that the report of the price spreads commission is to be signed to-morrow, and I understood the minister to say this afternoon that it would take from two to three weeks to prepare the legislation based on that report. But if the report is signed to-morrow it will be immediately available to the government, and if an adjournment were obtained until the twenty-ninth of April, that would give the government three weeks all but one day in which to prepare that legislation. So it does not help the government's position very much for the minister to say that this long adjournment is necessary to prepare that legislation.

There is another point of view, and that is that having regard to the financial position of this country at the present time the long adjournment which the government suggests is going to cost the taxpayers of Canada a very large sum of money. The Minister of Finance will no doubt be able1 to give to the house particulars of that expense when the accounts have been paid, if the government proceeds with this lopg adjournment.

I do not wish to deal with the budget at any length because it has already been dealt with so ably by the financial critic of the opposition, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) but there is one thing I should like to point out in view of the reference of the Minister of Justice this afternoon to this budget being a popular budget. May I say that in my opinion the

sugar tax is one of the most unpopular taxes that was ever placed on the statute books of Canada. It is an absolutely unjust tax because it bears hardest on those least able to pay. The larger a man's family the more he has to pay in that form of taxation. It is not a fair principle of taxation, and I submit that sugar tax should be removed just as soon as possible even if its removal necessitates more taxation being placed on those who are better able to bear it.

The Minister of Justice also said that the government would go to the country when it thought it could win the election. The first inference was that if they went to the country now they knew they would be defeated, and they were hoping that something would turn up in the meantime. But I hope that the constitution of this country will not bp wrecked to such an extent that this government will refrain from going to the country until they believe they can win, because if they carry out that threat I believe a good many members of this house are here for life.

The Minister of Justice also stated this afternoon that the conditions in 1926 in regard to an adjournment could not reasonably be compared with the present conditions because in 1926 the Liberals had been slaughtered at the polls. May I remind my hon. friends opposite that there was a miniature general election in this country last September, during *which a by-election was held in the riding of North York. This constituency I now have the honour to represent in this house by virtue of having the support not only of the Liberals of North York but of the people of the riding as a whole, who have come to the conclusion that this government has failed in its duty and has not carried out in any substantial particular the promises it made in 1930; and the people of that riding at least want a general election at the earliest possible moment.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
CON

Ira Delbert Cotnam

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COTNAM:

They do not need it. They have got you.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

William Pate Mulock

Liberal

Mr. MULOCK:

You should know. A number of the members of the government came into the riding of North York and spoke in that by-election: the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), and the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), who delivered several speeches; the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton), and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) were amongst the most prominent. I should like to refer to one statement which the Minister of National Revenue made during that

Long Adjournment-Mr. Mulock

by-election in North York as reported in the Mail and Empire of September 17 last. He spoke in part as follows:

Non-partisan statistics .showed that Canada led the United States in recovery because Bennett had sought markets in empire countries .after world markets had been closed to Canadians during the King regime. He urged the *electors to not believe in the "trash" which they read in the newspapers and heard from Liberal platforms-

And this is the part I want hon. gentlemen to listen to:

-and1 to not slap the Bennett government in the face after a successful administration.

The people of North York, perhaps as a Tesult of that appeal to some extent, decided in no uncertain .terms by giving a member of the present opposition a majority three and a half times the record majority for that riding, and defeating the government in 110 polls out of 117. If that is not a slaughter, I do not know to what the Minister of Justice was .referring this afternoon.

The people consider that this government has failed. They have lost confidence in the government. They want a general election at the earliest possible moment, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this adjournment is asked for the purpose of delaying an appeal to the people. For these reasons I shall protest against the long adjournment being granted at this time, when there are so many urgent problems facing this parliament.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Colin Alexander Campbell

Liberal

Mr. C. A. CAMPBELL (Frontenac-Adding-ton):

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to join with other members, particularly my roommate, the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) who has just taken his seat, in protesting against this proposed long adjournment. Like my colleague I also entered this house in the miniature general election last fall. I am sorry there are not more western members and eastern members on the other side at the moment to hear what happened in my riding on that occasion. I want to remind them that that riding had never returned a Liberal until September 24 last since 1791. It was not so much a vote for me personally or a vote for the Liberal party, because in June of last year, when there was a Liberal landslide in the province, I was defeated by the very same electors who elected me on September 24. But the fact is that the people voted against the Bennett policies, and especially against the most autocratic government we have had in Canada for a long time. The people of the riding of Fronfenac-Addington are mostly United Empire Loyalist stock, as

the bon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) well knows. He however left there before the people saw the light politically.

I would remind the house that one of the planks in our platform during the contest last fall was the fact that responsible government in Canada was endangered as long as the present government held office. The people of Frontenac-Addington considered this plank very seriously and I am glad to say the result is that I now represent that riding behind the leader of a party which supports the principles we feel will soon restore responsible government to Canada.

I should like to say something further about my riding but I do not want to trespass too long upon the good graces of the house. I would remind the house that the government of the day thought nothing about reforms until after the miniature general election of last fall. This is not the first time the people in this section of the country have started a move for reform. Back in the days of 1827 a very small portion of my riding and a portion of the riding now represented by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Weese) elected a reformer in the person of Marshall Bidwell to the Upper Canada legislature. Certain Tories then held power in Ontario and this gentleman was not allowed to take his seat. Elections were held on different occasions for the next few months and eventually his son was elected along with a man by the name of Peter Perry. The leadership and fighting qualities of these men, coupled with those of the grandfather of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) brought about responsible government in Ontario which we have preserved to the present time.

During the by-election in Frontenac-Addington the policies of the government were placed fairly before the people. I remember that these policies were enunciated by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and the Minister of National Health (Mr. Sutherland). The former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) appeared in the riding on two occasions, and then we had the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam), the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Mac-Nicol), the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney), the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross), the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Shaver), the hon. member [DOT] for Lanark (Mr. Thompson), the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon), the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox and the

___________Long Adjournment-Mr, Campbell

hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman). These were the forces arrayed against the forces of Liberalism, but the people of Frontenac-Addington said that this government must change.

We have been hearing a lot about the former Minister of Trade and Commerce as a spellbinder. I do not want to take up much time but I would remind hon. members that the hon. gentleman was brought back to try to save the riding for the government. At that time he was a minister, and as he has done on many other occasions, he did not stick to the ethics of parliament. He spoke of those things which he thought ought to be done when he knew evidence was still being called before the price spreads commission and about which we in this parliament will not be told officially until after we have reassembled on May 20. During the last provincial election I lost by thirty-five votes the polling division of Harrowsmith, in which the minister spoke and the former minister was brought back to try to save the situation. I had no occasion to visit this division but I lost it by only six votes in the by-election. I should like to quote some of the arguments put forward by members of the government. During the joint nomination debate on the official nomination day at Sydenham, the Minister of Railways and Canals had this to say:

The by-elections have a double purpose in all of these constituencies. It is the day for voters to choose their representative, whom they believe would serve them the best. You have the opportunity of culling out some of the people. In other words, you have the opportunity of either preventing the Bennett government from continuing their policy and voting against the government and against what they have been doing.

The bon. member for Toronto Northwest had this to say a few nights afterwards at Newburgh:

The issue in this campaign is the Bennett tariff policy, and as a business man, interested in business for 25 years, I will try to prove to you that the tariff policy of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett is infinitely better than the freer trade policy of the old government of Mackenzie King.

A few nights later the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said at Odessa:

Ask yourself, why has Canada secured better prices for her commodities? Ask yourself if our credit is better than other countries in the world, as against those who have preached inflation and reciprocity. I urge upon you to support the government that is steadily returning the country to normal and prosperity.

I would remind hon. members, especially those who come from the west, that I was criticized during the campaign because I

spoke in favour of freer trade arrangements with the United States. Members of the government came down to my constituency to try to keep me from being elected to this house, and, as indicated by the quotations I have just given, the people were led to believe the government of the day was not in favour of reciprocity with the United States. Therefore the people of Frontenac-Addington and of the other three constituencies which sent Liberal members to this house on September 24 take the credit for forcing this government to seek better trade arrangements with the United States.

The first thing I know I will be making a speech, and I did not intend to do that tonight. I should like to refer to some of the statements made this afternoon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). I have often wondered why a general election was not held last fall, because I know it has always been felt in the country that there should bo an election every four years, and this is the feeling of hon. gentlemen opposite. I should like to quote from a letter written by the former Conservative organizer, and chief whip, Senator A. D. McRae. This letter is dated April 17, 1930, and the first paragraph reads as follows:

We are now in the fourth session of the sixteenth parliament. Only twice since Confederation has any government had the temerity to stay five full sessions and in both cases they were decisively defeated on appeal to the country. Mr. Mackenzie King, a very shrewd politician, will not voluntarily repeat this experiment.

And a few sentences further on he said:

Although unemployment is very serious in Canada our government has taken no action.

And again:

The Canadian people have every reason to feel "it is time for a change."

Everything there stated still holds good to-day. Until the Minister of Justice told us this afternoon I did not know why the government had not gone to the country. He said that the governments of which he had been a member had gone to the country only when they felt that they could win. Perhaps we should thank God for the constitution which provides that we shall eventually have an election whether or not the government is going to win.

The Minister also referred to what he regarded as the parallel of 1911 with the present day. I want to remind the house that in 1911 the then government had been in power for only three years. The present government have been in power five years. It is tme they have not gone the full limit to which they are legally entitled, but, as

2532 COMMONS

Long Adjournment-Mr. Campbell

pointed out by their organizer in 1930, they have outrun the length of parliament to which by practice they are entitled, namely, four sessions, and now are on the sixth. We on this side of the house and I think everyone in the dominion feel that Canada should certainly be represented by the Prime Minister at the silver jubilee of the king's coronation, but I do not believe we should at this time have a parallel drawn between conditions in Canada in 1911 and those of the present day. As I pointed out, the government of that day had two years to run, and moreover it had no unemployment problem such as exists at present. It had no financial crisis to face in the municipalities or the provinces or the dominion, and to-day we find that we have to face all these conditions, yet by the adjournment now proposed we in this parliament who were elected to represent the Canadian people admit that we cannot carry on because one man has to leave Canada. We wish the Prime Minister to go to Great Britain, but he has ministers here quite capable of carrying on the business of the country while he is away, and as other hon. members have stated, I fail to see why we should agree to anything more than the usual adjournment over what we may call Holy Week or the Holy Sabbath.

I want to add this to what the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) has just stated: we are not at the point where we are waiting for legislation, but we have some already on the order paper and there are still some fifty-three items of supply to be called. According to the order paper, a grain board is to be set up; some amendments have been sent back to us from the Senate in connection with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, as well as other matters. All these matters have to come before us. Why then are we asked to pass these over, to take an adjournment for a long period at considerable cost to the people of Canada, and above all to refuse to try to solve the worst problem we have confronting us, that of unemployment?

I should like now to remind members of the government what they stood for in 1930. On June 26 of that year the Ottawa Journal printed an editorial which was put into pamphlet form, sent out all over Canada and used b3' the speakers of the then opposition and its canvassers as the principle on which the opposition of that day, now the government then stood. This pamphlet is very interesting to read five years later, and I should like to read a few parts of it, as follows:

Mr. Bennett At Cobourg

Back in Ontario after his trip to the Pacific coast, Mr. Bennett on Tuesday night at Cobourg spoke with a power and a conviction that must have profoundly impressed countless thousands who heard him. Always a power on the hustings, Mr. Bennett in his first Ontario speech reached an extraordinary high degree of platform eloquence, an eloquence which, reinforced by vital truths, cannot be without effect throughout the country.

The opposition leader was at his best when dealing with the issue of unemployment. Moved by the spectacle of thousands of workless men tramping the streets of western cities, he was desolating in his criticism of the Prime Minister's extraordinary incapacity to grasp the meaning of such things. What, he asked, was the policy of Canada's Prime Minister, when tens of thousands of Canadians were in distress? His policy rvas that he would call-a conference. Men and women might be craving work, children might be hungry, cities might be setting up_ soup kitchens; Mr. King's answer to all of this was: "Vote me back to office, and some time next fall I will call a meeting to see what can be done." This from the sometime great crusader for labour, the author of Industry and Humanity!

Why, as Mr. Bennett well asked1-why a conference? What is it that a conference would find out? Does it require a conference to discover that men are unemployed? That there is distress? That cities like Winnipeg are spending $3,000 a week to feed workless workers? The proposition is simply a fraud. It is subterfuge to enable Mr. King to dodge his responsibility.

Mr. Bennett's policy-an honest, humane policy-is to meet parliament, to cut through red-tape and legalisms and constitutional hairsplitting, to take prompt and vigorous measures to see to it that in this country people do not starve. That is not merely the policy of a statesman; it is the policy of a human being; the policy of a man who has some sympathy with the masses, who is big enough and honest enough not to let petty politics and pettier legalisms stand in the way when Canadians are in want.

What sense, what humanity, in claiming that unemployment is not a federal responsibility? If the lawyers and the constitutional pundits want to argue about that, let them argue. What is true, and what everybody knows, is that if unemployment is not a dominion legal responsibility, it is a dominion moral responsibility. There can be no argument about that

And so the people throughout Canada, who knew what unemployment relief was costing each individual taxpayer when he paid his tax bill in the fall or at some other period in the year to the township or village or town or city, believed they were going to be relieved of that direct tax if only they voted for the then opposition, the present government. But at the present time we find it is not a matter merely of Winnipeg paying S3,000 a week, which at that time was, according to the present Prime Minister himself, a staggering figure, but small cities like St. Thomas, with

Long Adjournment-Mr. Campbell

only about 14,000 people, paying $4,500 a week last year for unemployment relief. Kingston, which boasts the highest record for any city in the dominion for paid up taxes, last year paid over $3,000 a week for unemployment relief, yet it is a city a little less than one-tenth the size of Winnipeg. Moreover we have witnessed this government passing on to the provinces and they in turn being forced to pass on to the municipalities more of the cost of unemployment relief on account of men being compelled to go on relief because of the policies of the present administration.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

No; you do not believe that.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Colin Alexander Campbell

Liberal

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Well, the only branch of industry that could have benefited by the high tariffs about which the hon. member for Northwest Toronto (Mr. MacNicol) spoke in the by-election of September 24, must have been the manufacturing industry. In 1930 in the manufacturing industry alone there were about 644,000 employees who were drawing $738,000,000 in wages and salaries and producing about $3,500,000,000 worth of commodities. But in 1933, the last year for which there are any figures-and these are from the bureau of statistics-there were less than 500,000 emploj'ees who were drawing $465,000,000 in wages and salaries and producing just a little over $2,000,000,000 worth of goods. Therefore by the policies of the present government, the manufacturing industry, the only branch of industry which could benefit thereby, lost $1,500,000,000 worth of business and about 150,000 employees were thrown out of work on account of voting as they did in 1930 for what they thought was going to be a benefit to themselves. And now we have been forced to receive from the present government through the Minister of Labour an admission that they have no policy regarding unemployment relief, that their policy is going to depend upon what requests they get from the provinces. And I know they must receive many. Representing a riding which is fairly close to Ottawa I am able to journey there every week-end, and I can assure the house that although the Prime Minister in 1930 said it was going to be his duty to see that no one should starve, there are many men in this country who are wondering where or how they are going to get food or clothing or fuel to keep their children and themselves from starving.

I have spoken longer than I felt I should but I want to remind the house that last fall the people of Frontenac-Addington, as

well as of other ridings in Ontario, in a campaign in which one of the main points was that the people of those ridings were given a chance, as the Minister of Railways intimated at Sydenham, to vote against the policies of the Bennett government, intimated to the government that they no longer felt that it had the right to govern, that they did not agree with its policies or the way it was governing. Yet now we have the spectacle of this government trying to carry on even until the last. Representing this old United Empire Loyalist constituency many of the people of which have been Conservatives since they were born, I respectfully say that I feel sorry for these farmers on account of the policies of this government.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
CON

William John Loucks

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LOUCKS:

Were you born in Frontenac?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Colin Alexander Campbell

Liberal

Mr. CAMPBELL:

No, I was not fortunate enough to have that privilege. But the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) had the privilege of being born in the village of Battersea, which is in a fine part of the county of Frontenac, a very good farming section; and that fine village, although it has been Conservative on many occasions, gave me a majority of 127. Let me tell the hon. member why they did that. I have before me the returns showing the price of milk each year since 1929 at the cheese factory at Battersea, in the month of July, which we take as the average month for the year in the cheese business. In 1929 they received $1.26 per hundred pounds; in 1930, $1.17; in 1931, 83-1 cents; and in 1932, 60-3 cents. In 1933, even with the depreciated currency they received only 71" 3 cents and last year they received 70-4 cents, or one cent less than 1933, notwithstanding the empire agreements and trade policies of which this government boasts. That shows why the people of Frontenac decided that this government had outlived its usefulness.

I therefore join at this time with my colleagues in saying that the people of Canada do not wish a long adjournment of the house. They want an election, so that regardless of who is elected they may know that the government is to be stable for the next five years, and so that exporters and importers will be able to buy and sell goods and make contracts for more than a few days ahead. Not only that; we all know that in an election year in the United States business falls off almost to the stagnation point, and much of our business follows theirs. The government are forcing us to go at slow speed in business for all this year, and next

Long Adjournment-Mr. Elliott

year we will have to slow up along with the United States for their election year; so I say the actions of this government are forcing the business and working people of this country to face two hard years. I agree with my colleagues that we should have an election at the earliest possible time, and in order to do that we should stay here and finish the business and then bring on the election without delay.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):

My hon. friends opposite premised their speeches on the budget, by saying that they would not have taken part in the debate had it not been for something said by someone else. I wish for a few minutes to refer to some things mentioned by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) in his address this afternoon.

We are now in the sixth session of the seventeenth parliament. As has already been said, in only one other parliament besides this, except the war parliament, have six sessions been held. That occasion was the memorable session which ended on June 23, 1896. I say to my hon. friends, and I think this argument ought to appeal to them as much as any argument that can be made, that conditions now and with this government are very similar to what they were with that parliament and that government prior to 1896. Times were bad then. The government had lost the confidence of the people, and the members of the government had lost confidence in one another. They carried on until the legitimate life of parliament expired by effluxion of time and they were swept out of office. They were followed by a great Liberal government under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who for fifteen years gave to this country the greatest era of prosperity it had ever had until my leader came into power in 1921.

I think the last two hon. gentlemen who have spoken are the best evidence that this government could have of how completely they have lost the confidence of the people of this country. The hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) was elected in a riding which had become almost a Conservative stronghold. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Campbell), who was defeated by a majority of over a thousand when he was a candidate against the Henry government in June last, was elected by a majority of about three thousand. I want to say in all kindness to this government that that shows how much more unpopular this government is than the Henry government was last June.

He was a pretty good organizer who wrote that letter read by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington. I think he was much more successful than his successor is going to be in the present campaign. He was absolutely right when he referred to the fact that a government that had stayed in power for four years, even if they had not had the intimations and suggestions and kicks from the electors that this government have had, should know that they should not cling to power any longer. Why is it done? Why did the Henry government remain in power in Ontario as long as it did? Of course it is true that there was a very close alliance between the Henry administration and this administration; there is no question about that. The best evidence that the leader of this government did not very well sense public opinion last June was the fact that just a couple of nights before the election he recommended the Henry government to the people of Ontario and predicted their return on election day. He practically made it a federal issue. As a matter of fact for some time there was a very close working arrangement between the federal government and the various provincial governments. That I think was one of the greatest reasons for these provincial governments faring as badly as they did. Perhaps you can think feelingly in that regard, Mr. Speaker, coming from the province from which you do come; I believe one of the greatest obstacles that confronted them was the fact that they were known to be in very close alignment with this government, which has outworn its welcome more rapidly, if I may say so, than any other government that has ever been in power in Canada. Consider the government that was turned out in 1896. It had not had the intimations of how it stood with the people to the extent that this government have had them. I wonder now if the government-would do the same if they had it all to do over again, with these six by-elections facing them, forced upon them by members of the opposition, because none of them was held until it had to be held. This government have shown less appetite for by-elections than any other government in this country. They do not seem even very enthusiastic about filling any of the vacancies that exist at the present time. Would it not have been better to carry that miniature election last September a little farther and make it a general election and have their troubles over with? Would it not have been better to let the people know just what were the policies of

Long Adjournment-Mr. Elliott

the government that was to administer the affairs of this country for the next few years?

I was very greatly interested in the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) this afternoon. As usual he made the very best out of a very bad case, and I do not think I ever heard him with a worse case than he had this afternoon. However, he pointed out that this case was similar to the situation that existed in 1926. I should like to know the similarity. The Minister of Justice said the situation in 1926 affords only a very slight parallel to the present situation, and I quite agree. As has been stated so well already by my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in 1926 there was a vote of the elected representatives of the people in this house as to whom they wanted to carry on the government of this country, and they decided in favour of the party led by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King). True, they decided that only by the very small majority of three, but I want to point out to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that a majority of three is a great deal better than a minority of three, and that was just the difference between the two parties at that time.

That having taken place, what was the situation which confronted this house? The leader of the party did not have a seat in the house and there were no ministers from Ontario, the province from which the very best ministers come. It was necessary first of all to have the Prime Minister elected and to elect some other ministers. One would have thought that with a house fresh from the country-there could be no question of its having i-ost any of its popularity between the time of the election and the time of this vote-this government which speaks of -chivalry, generosity and good sportsmanship would have said, "Follow the practice that is followed in England; go ahead and complete the government, organize it and carry on the work of the house." They did mot do that; they objected, and right here I want to read a statement that was not read this afternoon by my hon- friend from Quebec East. I think perhaps it describes the situation at -the present time better than any of the other remarks made on that occasion. I refer to the remarks made by my revered friend the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White). Of course the statement was not applicable to the facts as they existed at that time but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree that it is very applicable to conditions as they exist, at the present time. If I may say so with the greatest respect for my hon. friends opposite, though I do think they

are trying to hang on after they have been invited to get out, I think it accurately describes the situation as it exists to-day. The statement is to be found at page 653 of Hansard for 1926, and is as follows:

I am opposed to the motion for a long adjournment for this reason-and I endeavour to voice so far as I can the feeling of the man on the street, the outside public-

That is the man whose feeling I am trying to voice now.

-that parliament was called for the dispatch of business, not for ah adjournment of six weeks. I venture to state that no more shocking spectacle has ever been presented in connection with parliamentary government than that which we have witnessed recently in this very country. It recalls to my mind a gibe of Disraeli under somewhat similar circumstances, when he pictured the government of that day in this way.

I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to pay particular attention to this because I think it is a very accurate description of the present government.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
CON

Thomas Cantley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CANTLEY:

Go on.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I will go on; my hon. friend need not worry.

He said that from a certain point along the shores of South America you can see a range of extinct volcanoes, from which not one flame flickers from a single pallid crest. So the government sit to-day.

That w-as the unkind expression used by the hon. member for Mount Royal in regard t-o a freshly elected government which enjoyed the confidence of the people at that time. What would he have said if he were attempting to describe this government to-day? Then he goes on, and I think this is also very eloquent in regard to the present situation:

I believe rightly or wrongly that the nerves of the people of Canada are in a state of tension. I believe that the business of this country is being halted for lack of confidence in the stability of government, and the longer we delay getting on with business and determining who are to form the government and manage the affairs of Canada for some years to come, the longer will business be in a state of uncertainty, and the longer will capital hesitate to invest.

If in 1926 the nerves of the people of Canada were in a state of tension, I wonder what state they would be in to-day, after all they have gone through in the last four and a half years. He follows up with a delightful peroration, as follows:

Is there anyone in this house who does not know the purpose of the adjournment? It is to endeavour to reanimate a moribund government, and for no other purpose, and if that be so, and this is a point I would like to stress-[DOT]

Long Adjournment-Mr. Elliott

And I, too, would like to stress it-

-why is it that this so-called' government has met parliament?

It would have been- so easy before the byelections last fall for this government to fulfil its constitutional duty. They knew the feelings .of the people, and instead of having by-elections they should have had the general elections. However, we know they decided not to do so, and chose rather to meet parliament. Before calling parliament it would seem the government felt some work was necessary to make parliament receptive to the great reform measures to be introduced. These measures were not forecast in the ordinary manner in which measures are made known, namely, in the speech from the throne. In this instance they were heralded and broadcast throughout the land by radio. We were told of the great reforms contemplated and the great change of heart which had been experienced by people whose hearts prior to that time had not shown any pronounced reform tendencies.

Well, the house met and the speech from the throne was delivered. We heard1 more about the legislation to be brought before parliament. The indications both in the radio addresses and in the speech from the throne were that for over a year these matters had been in the hearts and minds of hon. members of the government and their followers. We understood the government had given the measures serious consideration, and my recollection is that the suggestion was made that some of the legislation had been ready for a year. Following the delivery of the speech from the throne my right hon. leader suggested that if, as was claimed, the reforms were ready, if such reforms were to be of such great benefit to the Canadian people, in view of the fact that undoubtedly reforms were needed, we should have such measures placed before us as rapidly as possible. But, following the adoption of the address we witnessed the remarkable spectacle of a supporter of the government, instead of introducing new legislation, moving a resolution in. an attempt to prove that some previous legislation, namely empire agreements which had been passed1 years before, was good legislation. The government seemed to have some doubt about the matter, with the result that my good farmer friend from Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) moved the resolution, and in his observations indicated the great benefits accruing to the farmers of Toronto-Searborough and the rest of Canada, from the trade agreements. Hours-yes, days-were taken up in an argument about legislation which had been passed, and the resolution, strange to say, has not yet been voted upon. At that time it did not appear

as though the government was at all enthusiastic about its reform program or that it was ready to proceed with the legislation about which the Prime Minister had spoken.

As the Minister of Railways and Canale (Mr. Manion) is in his seat I should like to describe that which appeared to me as the next most interesting and ingenious method of killing time which has been adopted since the beginning of the session. As the first item to be considered in the estimates for the Department of Railways and 'Canals we had for discussion an item respecting tourist traffic. Apparently realizing that all the people in the various countries of the world who contemplated travelling were constant readers of Canadian- Hansard, the minister evidently concluded that in order to be successful in the development of touriisti trade he must place on Hansard the great advantages offered to tourists visiting 'Canada. He did it spendidly, and so inspired his followers that nearly every hon. member who had a stream running through his riding or a small clump of trees situated thereon felt constrained to rise in his place and state that, he, too, knew of a wonderful place for the tourist to visit.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

Quite a few hon. members opposite spoke, too.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Yes, but not as many as my hon. friend would have wished.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

They do not come from as fine parts of the country.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Well, may I say to the minister, who undoubtedly knows the county of Middlesex, that if he came from a county like Middlesex he would not need to tell the the world about the beauties of his constituency; they would know. That debate continued for some time.

I believe you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, due to the expense and to the fact that you have work to do at home, that it would be well as soon as possible to terminate the present session. When estimates were offered for consideration my right hon. leader agreed to their passage so that ample opportunity would be afforded to proceed with the reform legislation. Despite that fact, however, hon. members on the government benches proceeded to discuss their own estimates in a manner whidi to my mind appeared quite novel. When on a former occasion I was charged with the passage of estimates I did not occupy any more of the time of the house than was necessary, a practice which I believe is followed in every well regulated government.

Long Adjournment*-Mr. Elliott

Undoubtedly every hon. member of every shade of political thought deeply regrets the illness which has overtaken the Prime Minister. We are all of one mind in giving sincere thanks for the fact that he is recovering and, according to present indications, will be in fit physical condition to attend the jubilee ceremonies to be held in London in the month of May. May I point out however that there are sixteen other ministers in the government. No person has stressed to a greater degree than has the Prime Minister the necessity fol reasonable economies in the transaction of the country's business. All members of this house will join in an expression of thankfulness for his recovery and will share the hope of seeing him in the house before the end of the session.

May I just point out what this adjournment means?

The Prime Minister, speaking in this house on November 10, 1932, as reported at page 1065 of Hansard, said:

Why waste $15,000 per day of the taxpayers money, $100,000 a week, in reiterating statements not one word of which adds any new information ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Who was it

said that?

Mr. 'ELLIOTT: The present Prime Minister. He said:

Why waste $15,000 per day of the taxpayers' money, $100,000 a week?

After all, Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers of this country have come through just about all that they can bear. I wonder if this government has considered what it is going to mean to have this house adjourn for four or five extra weeks. I am not now referring to the legislation with respect to the price spreads commission, because I understand that their report is ready to table at the present time. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) assumed that after that report was tabled it would take two or three weeks to prepare the necessary legislation. That seems a long time, but it is important legislation. That would bring us to the Tuesday after Easter Monday. We could then resume and go on with that business, and that I submit to this house with very great earnestness is what I believe we should do.

The Minister of Justice quoted the precedent of 1911 when Sir Robert Borden, then Mr. Borden, moved that a two months' adjournment should take place so as to enable the Prime Minister to attend, as he said, the coronation. But I want to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that it was not the coronation alone, but the coronation and the imperial conference that was

taking place at the same time, and which it was necessary for the Prime Minister of Canada to attend, and it was the unanimous opinion of members of this house that he should go. The Minister of Justice has referred to the great chivalry displayed in that motion being made by a member of the opposition, a gentleman for whom we all have the greatest respect. But I should call attention to this fact, that while the Prime Minister was away in London, those who before his leaving had spoken in favour of a reciprocity arrangement started a campaign against it and enunciated the policy of "no truck or trade with the Yankees." Those who now profess to be so much in favour of reciprocity left no stone unturned at that time to defeat what would have been one of the greatest blessings ever offered to this country, and which the present government have not been very successful in getting if their efforts have been just as diligent as this house has been led to believe they have been in recent years.

It is interesting to recall that during that campaign-of course I was very young at the time, but I remember the speeches made by the present Minister of Justice in favour of reciprocity and I remember his denunciation of the noble eighteen who opposed it and of all the rest who talked this silly nonsense, as he described it, of having no truck or trade with the Yankees.

I think perhaps I have overstepped the time I intended to take up, but I do wish to urge upon the government that they reconsider their decision with regard to the proposed adjournment. After all every member of this house has duties and responsibilities and obligations at the present time, and every member of this house knows perfectly well that if we adjourn until the twentieth of May, thus getting into a season when this chamber becomes at times almost unbearable, business that we could now dispose of in an extra week or ten days will occupy the time of the house for three weeks or more. Many members of the house will have an election campaign to fight, and the demands upon them are pretty strenuous financially and physically at the' present time. I do hope that the government will reconsider their decision. If it is going to take two weeks to prepare the price spreads legislation-I know it is an important matter and should receive all the attention it demands-it could be ready for the house to proceed with on the Tuesday after Easter Monday. We could then get through with the work of the house in a very short time, and the members could

Long Adjournment[DOT]-Mr. Brown

go to their homes and look after the good of the country by trying to get reelected in the best way they could.

There is not much more that I have to say. No business institution in Canada would make a suggestion of the kind now put forward by the government. I regret that the acting iPrime Minister is not in his seat at the moment, but I do ask his colleagues who are here to reconsider the decision at which apparently they have arrived to have this long adjournment. Let us come back after the ordinary Easter recess, conclude the business of the session, and thereby save the very serious drain upon the taxpayers of this country of the S15,000 a day to which the Prime Minister referred, and which undoubtedly is a very serious matter at the present time.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB-PRO

John Livingstone Brown

Liberal Progressive

Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisga.r):

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that have been suggested by the various debates that have taken place during the session that might call for remarks, font it is not my intention to discuss the past debates at any length. Rather would I confine myself to giving a few reasons why it would seem inadvisable that a long adjournment of the house should be taken.

There is one thing, however, to which I should like to refer, and that was suggested by the number of references that have been made this evening to reciprocity. I met a friend, a personal friend but a political opponent with whom I have had political controversies in the past, and I told him that the best joke of the session was that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) had said that the Conservative party had never been opposed to reciprocity. I said to him, "How would you have liked to go back home during the controversy we had in 1911 and tell the people that the Conservative party had never been opposed to reciprocity?" He said, "I thought we were." That reminded me of a story told of an adherent to a certain sect which does not believe in, the realities of evil or sin. This man once met a little girl and he asked her how her father was. She replied, "Oh, he is very sick." He said, "He only thinks he is sack." A few weeks later he met the little girl again, and inquired as to her fathers' health. She said, "He thinks he is dead and the neighbours thought so too for they came and took him away to bury him." It is evident that the Conservatives only thought they were opposed to reciprocity. It would be interesting to know whether they were really opposed to it, whether they only thought they were or just what their real attitude was. However, this gentleman said to me, "We

thought we were opposed to reciprocity." We certainly thought they were, and I still think there is abundant evidence that the Conservatives were opposed to reciprocity in 1911.

In connection with the proposed adjournment, personally I have no objection to it as it meets my own plans fairly well. However, it does place an undue burden upon hon. members who come from distant places and who have taken up residences in Ottawa for a definite time. This objection has been urged quite strongly. The request for a long adjournment is quite in harmony with the attitude of this government throughout this session. It has been evident on more than one occasion that the government was stalling for time. I would refer to the instance 'when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) moved a vote of want of confidence in the government. After hon. members on this side had finished the debate, it was continued by hon. members apposite far a full day, indicating that they were stalling for time.

One reason why I would protest against a long adjournment is illustrated by a matter which I brought to the notice of the government. I pointed out that a motion for a return asking for the increases and decreases made in duties during the sessions of 1929 and 1930 was passed but the return had not been made. I pointed out that the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) had asked for a return giving only the increases, and that this had been tabled. I think it desirable, before hon. members are allowed to go into the west to spread these stories about the number of increases in the tariff made in those particular sessions, that the full facts be placed before the house. Evidently the government does not want to give these full facts; it wants to lay stress upon the increases made in the tariff. This is quite in harmony with the practices of the past. I doubt if the government will say anything more about the decreases which were made in the tariff during the sessions of 1929 and 1930 than the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) said the other day when he referred to the reductions in the British preference on hay, straw and such things. The Minister of Railways said that this was one of the things out of which he got a good laugh-the loud laugh that speaks the vacant mind. Hon. members opposite like to refer to the putting of hay and straw on the free list, but I think we should discuss this matter sanely and intelligently. When the Minister of Finance of that day, Hon. Charles Dunning, presented his budget, it

Long Adjournment-Mr. Brown

was stated quite plainly that about fifty articles had been put on the free list because under no circumstances would any of them be imported from Great Britain. This fact was made abundantly clear. Is it any more foolish to put these articles on the free list than to continue them as dutiable under the British preference? Is it any more foolish to put hay and straw on the free list than to keep them on the tariff schedule with a duty of about SI .60? That is all that was done, yet hon. gentlemen went through the country and tried to create a great laugh because of this.

One of the greatest offenders in this respect was the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), the gentleman who has been talking so much about ethics in business. He forgot there was such a thing as ethics in political controversy. At a meeting in my constituency he referred to the sinister joke and gesture of the so-called Dunning budget, whereas if the facts had been stated properly the explanation would have been that the sheets had been wiped clear of fifty articles which under no circumstances would be imported from Great Britain. It was more sensible to put them on the free list than to allow them to remain in the tariff schedules. I would like to have this return showing the decreases made in the tariff during those sessions before hon. members go out through the country to make their tariff speeches and repeat the misrepresentations they have made in the past. However, I am afraid I will not get this before adjournment.

There is a stronger reason why we should not have this long adjournment. The farm loan bill is now before the senate, and I should like to know if it will come back to us, with possible senate amendments, before *we adjourn at Easter. It is of the greatest importance that this bill should be passed and placed upon the statute books at the earliest possible date. The farmers all through the country are waiting for this legislation in order that they may receive its benefits. All the legislation to be offered at this session should be completed as speedily as possible. Any relief measures which this government proposes to bring down should receive immediate sanction. What happened last year? We passed a works program of $40,000,000, but this could not be passed before the end of June, at which time over half the season for the carrying on of public works had passed. We had been told since that only $8,000,000 of this amount was spent. It seems absurd to allow half the summer season

to pass, the season for the construction of public works, before passing such legislation. However, that was the situation that prevailed last year and it will prevail again this year if these measures are not presented immediately. What was the use of providing for $40,000,000 to relieve unemployment and then spending only about $8,000,000? I contend it is absolutely necessary that the business of this parliament should be concluded as speedily as possible in order that these very important measures may be placed on the statute books and that the people of Canada who are dependent upon relief may know just what relief it will be possible for them to obtain. This cannot be done until these measures are finally given effect to according to the rules of procedure.

It has been contended that there is no demand for an immediate election. I had a letter from one of my constituents to-day in which he says: "Is there no way by which the Liberals can force an immediate election?" He pointed to the rumours that were reported in the newspapers that an election was not likely to be held until (September, and said that the Conservatives always liked to choose for an election the time when the producers, the farmers, would not be able to attend to it, being engaged with their farm work. Perhaps that is the thought that was in the mind of the Minister of Justice when he said that the government would choose the time when they thought they could win. Undoubtedly the month of September is about the poorest time it is possible to choose for an election in the prairie provinces. The farmers are busily engaged with their harvests, and in many cases it is not possible for them to get help to carry on their work. The threshing machines are all running, and in order to get men out to the polls it is necessary for the party workers on both sides to provide extra men to keep the gangs working while the other men are away at the polls. It is about the worst month possible for holding an election in the west. The proper time to hold an election in the prairie provinces is the month of June.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Almon Secord Rennie

Liberal

Mr. A. S. RENNIE (South Oxford):

I

have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made in the debate on the amendment; I have enjoyed them very much, and in my rambling observations I may possibly cover some of the ground that has been traversed by previous speakers. Let me say first that to my mind three important factors stand out very strongly as to why at this time there should not be a long adjournment of the house. Those three factors are: first, the

2540 COMMONS

Long Adjournment-Mr. Rennie

cost involved; second, the inconvenience to the members and those interested in the government of the country, and, third, the demoralizing effect upon the trade of the dominion. We are all interested in present economic conditions in Canada, and we on this side of the house all feel that those who are bearing the burden of taxation to-day should not be asked to bear any more. The cost involved in a long adjournment will mean that the farmers especially and the taxpayers generally will be again burdened with unnecessary taxes. That is one reason why a long adjournment should not be considered at this time. .Another reason is, as I have said, the inconvenience and expense which will be occasioned to members from the west or other points a long distance from Ottawa through their having to go home for a five weeks vacation and afterwards return for the remaining period of the session.

There is another reason, and possibly one of the most important that we as members of the House of Commons should consider. I recall in days gone by in the mercantile business in Ontario the stagnant condition which prevailed during the period before a presidential election in the United States, and I believe in this province to-day a pending election has a great tendency to demoralize the mercantile business. Therefore I think a long adjournment will give the people the idea that the time elapsing before the election is to be prolonged, and such a condition will demoralize trade. That to my mind is a very bad situation for the country to be in.

In my short experience in the House of Commons there has been introduced a resolution which in my opinion is an absurd one. I refer to a motion moved last February by my good friend the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) in connection with the Ottawa trade agreements. May I just retrace my steps to my constituency for a moment? It is my pleasure and privilege to represent South Oxford, which in days gone by has sent to this house such men as Sir Richard Cartwright, the late Malcolm Schell, the late Thomas Cayley, and my good friend Hon. Donald Sutherland, who was of the same political views as those of my hon. friends opposite. Those were citizens from the good old constituency of Oxford who had the respect of everyone in the riding and who were men of high ideals. Coming from that riding, which is practically a farming one, where there has never been any failure of crops and where we find a very fine type of farmers, may I say that during the last couple of years those farmers who were prosperous in

fMr. Rennie.]

days gone by are experiencing most difficult conditions under the policies of the present government. They find they cannot sell their products for the price they should get for them. I was quite interested last year at tax paying time when one of the good farmers in my constituency, one who happens to be a Conservative in politics, said to me: "Rennie, this is the first time in the thirty years that I have been farming that I have found it difficult- to pay my taxes. I have the grain in the barn, but it seems almost impossible to sell it." If the Ottawa agreements appealed to the farmers in the days when they were first introduced, I think they would have appealed to the farming people of my constituency. But the people of South Oxford have at least a couple of grievances with regard to the present government. Possibly the house will recall that in 1932 a certain resident of South Oxford was selected by 'the government to make an investigation into the tobacco situation. I make bold to say that had that report been brought down in the House of Commons long before it was, the tobacco people in the southern part of Ontario would have benefited a great deal thereby. So I say that in that particular case the present government is not one of action, but I believe we might well call it a government of delays.

I should like briefly to outline conditions in my constituency. My predecessor, Mr. Cayley, who was a fine type of gentleman, was elected in South Oxford in the election of 1920. He died in May 1933, and I appreciate the remarks made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as recorded in Hansard of January 25, 1934, when in paying tribute to Mr. Cayley, he said:

He was a representative of the very finest type of citizenship of the old province of Ontario.

South Oxford had no representation in this house from May, 1933, until May, 1934. If the fine type of citizenship about which the Prime Minister was speaking came from that constituency, why was South Oxford so disfranchised? I think the principal reason was that the government of the day had not enough confidence in their policies to give the farmers of South Oxford an opportunity to express their opinion at the polls. However, an election was brought on in April, 1'934. Why do I bring this up? Simply because if there is any evidence from the farmers of what they think of the Ottawa agreements you have it -from the farmers of South Oxford. Remember that in that campaign the policies of the present administration were very well expounded. I remember my genial friend the hon. member for

Long Adjournment-Mr. Rennie

Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) going up and down the highways and byways of South Oxford telling the people of the great good that the Ottawa agreements were going to be to them. After all this, and after several of the cabinet ministers had come into the constituency, what was the result of the byelection in 1934? It gave the Liberal candidate and the policies of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King the largest majority ever accorded to any candidate there since confederation. I leave it to the house, therefore, to draw a conclusion as to the views of the farmers of that great constituency with respect to the Ottawa agreements and what benefit those agreements have been to them.

Last February the hon. member for Toron-to-Scarborough introduced in the house a resolution which it is not necessary for me to repeat. I know what the South Oxford farmers did in 1934, but in order to be perfectly fair I thought it desirable to ascertain what the farmers there think of the situation to-day, so I took the opportunity of writing to a couple of men and I have here telegrams from them. They are men of that standard of citizenship that most counties admire, men who are above reproach; one of them happens to be an ex-warden of the county. I asked him to give me his candid opinion of the Ottawa agreements, and this is what Harry II. Scott, ex-warden of Oxford, said regarding the Ottawa agreements:

Re Ottawa agreements, my candid opinion is we have benefited some by our bacon quota with Great Britain. Our cattle, wheat and dairy products have suffered by the Ottawa agreements.

I also wrote to one who is a large producer of milk in another part of the riding and asked his candid opinion. This is what Mr. Colin A. Hawkins, one of the fine farmers of South Oxford, said:

The dairy industry has been practically ruined; dairy products of all kinds are being sold far below cost of production; hence the longer the dairy farmers follow their occupation the further they are becoming in debt.

So that reveals the situation as far as the general farmer in South Oxford is concerned.

I have been looking into the statistics to find what benefit the Ottawa agreements have been to the Canadian farmer. We are thinking now pretty much of wheat, and on checking up the record I find that in 1932, for the twelve months ended November, which covers pretty closely the year before the agreements went into effect, the total export of wheat from Canada was 222,000,000 bushels. In 1933 it had dropped to 202,000,000 bushels, and by 1934 it had fallen to 108,000,000 bushels. I am dealing here with exports to 92582-162

all countries. After all, what the farmer wants is a market for his product; he is not very particular as to the destination of his grain once it leaves his hands. If however we turn to the exports to the United Kingdom we find this situation:

Exports of Wheat to the United Kingdom (Twelve months ending in November in each year)

Bushels

1932 135,500,000

1933 124,800,000

1934 118,614,000

It is interesting to compare these exports with our exports to the United States during the same period:

Exports of Wheat to the United States (Twelve months ending in November in each year)

Bushels

1932 1,080,000

1933 374,000

1934 6,181,000

So it would seem that the more the present government tries to direct trade in one direction the more it goes in another.

It was supposed that when we adopted the empire trade agreements our imports from the United Kingdom would increase and our imports from the United States would fall off. But the fact has been quite the opposite.

I have here a table showing the imports of dutiable goods from the United Kingdom and from the United States which I would like to [DOT] put on Hansard. The facts tell the story.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink

April 8, 1935