May 8, 1924

CON

Horatio Clarence Hocken

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HOCKEN:

If there is any member

who should not be regarded seriously in this House I think it is the hon. gentleman himself. This statement may be by a Conservative paper, but no paper would dare to go as far as it has gone and mention the names of men who gave those secret assurances if it had not sufficient ground to warrant its assertions. Besides, the article confirms the statement made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Hugh Guthrie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GUTHRIE:

And the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond).

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Horatio Clarence Hocken

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HOCKEN:

Yes, and the hon. member for Brantford too. I have another quotation from a paper published at Three Rivers, Le Nouvelliste. I do not know whether it is a Conservative paper or not. However, it says:

The present budget is like a finger placed in the wheel. The act is always exceedingly dangerous. If the whole arm is not drawn in, there is the risk of leaving at least a part of the skin. What will be the result of this new orientation? It will please the Progressives as much as it will displease the protectionists, not only the Conservatives, but the Liberals also. It outlines in advance the ground on which the next political battle will be fought. The immediate result is that it will increase the uneasiness from which a number of our industries already suffer. The workman who finds his source of livelihood in the work which the industries provide for him will not be the last to resent the reaction. Then there will be the farmer producer, of whom the workman, in the role of consumer, is the client. His buying power being further reduced, the workman will consume less of the farm products.

That is the opinion, evidently, that prevails in the province of Quebec-that this budget is. a desertion of the Laurier. policy. I am not surprised at the business men of the province of Quebec accepting the representations made to them, as was stated by Le Nouvelliste, giving the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. These same men, Mr. Speaker, had received similar pledges and promises from Sir Wilfrid Laurier years back. In 1896 assurances were given to the manufacturing interests of this country that they were in no danger from the lowering of the tariff. They acted upon that; they took Sir Wilfrid Laurier at his word. Sir Wilfrid was a man of his word and he carried out the undertakings that weTe given at that time. Naturally these same men or their successors in the industries of the country would suppose that similar assurances given at this time would be similarly carried out, but they quickly discovered that they had a different set of men to deal with.

I stated, Mr. Speaker, that while the duties have been reduced on agricultural implements,

the agricultural implement manufacturers are not the ones to suffer; the burden has been placed upon others. I want to read a paragraph from an interview given by the secretary treasurer of the Steel Company of Canada, located at Hamilton. He says:

Our industry is absolutely dependent upon an adequate protective tariff. In the past we have sold the International Harvester Company as much as $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 worth in one year. It seems to me as if the government has made a butt of tjie steel and iron industry*! The budget certainly strikes us hard. Under the conditions imposed upon us by the budget I don't see how we can hope to compete with the United States.

So the relief to the farmer is a reduction of duties on implements, and the implement manufacturer is relieved by the handing of this burden over to the steel maker-the whole thing done in such a way as, I am sure, will convince the people of the country of the insincerity of the government.

But the worst feature of this budget, as I see it, is the widespread unrest that it has caused throughout the country. No manufacturer in Canada feels so sure of the immediate future that he would invest $10,000 in any enterprise at this time. These men have been living on their reserves for the last three years, and. in many cases those reserves are exhausted, they certainly cannot hang out much longer. This threat of the "death knell of protection" has put all our manufacturers and many of our business men who are nol manufacturers, in such a position that thej are afraid to make any investments, afraid to make any expansion of their bus-

5 p.m. iness, and they are retrenching in every possible way. Could any other result have occurred than an exodus from the country such as is now going on, and has been going on almost ever since this government got into power? If you go to the Detroit river you find the ferry boats crowded with Canadians who are going over to work in the United States, the trains are filled with the settlers' effects of Canadians who have gone to that country, to reside permanently. This exodus is not going to be stopped by lowering duties, by putting the manufacturers of Canada in such a position that they are afraid to make any extensions and are forced to retrench.

That.it is the intention of the government to. continue the lowering of duties until we get approximately free trade must be taken, I think, as an accepted fact. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) read a carefully prepared memorandum which must be accepted as a declaration of government policy. While it is unnecessary to follow his remarks

in detail, one phrase he used stands out with great vividness, namely, that the "death knell of protection" had been sounded.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO
CON

Horatio Clarence Hocken

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HOCKEN:

My hon. friend says, "hear, hear." What do hon. gentlemen to my left care whether the people of Toronto or of the county of York-as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters) pointed out the other night, having as many people as there are in the whole [DOT] province of Alberta-what do they care whether they drive those people over to the United States? What does my hon. friend care as long as he can save $5 this year on his implements? That kind of spirit will never build up a great country, you must have something different from that.

The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) spoke of protection as an appetite. Well, I would describe free trade as a delusion. My hon. friend will know how futile it is to argue with the man who is suffering from a delusion; in fact, when he reaches a certain point he is put under restraint. A man who is deluded with the theory of free trade is just about as hopeless to argue with as a child who knows nothing about it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Daniel Webster Warner

Progressive

Mr. WARNER:

I would like to ask a question. Does my hon. friend think that rhe Massey-Harris Company is under a delusion ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

They are under a bonus.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Horatio Clarence Hocken

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HOCKEN:

Not at all; I thought I

had made it plain to my hon. friend that while this budget ostensibly hits at companies such as these, it increases their protection. It relieves them of the 5 per cent sales tax. It give them the benefit of 3 per cent in freight rates.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Will the hon. gentleman tell us if he is complaining about-

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Horatio Clarence Hocken

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HOCKEN:

Just a moment;. one at

a time. It gives them 3 per cent advantage in freight rates; it gives them their raw material free. Their protection, I should think, would be at least 30 or 40 per cent more thai. it was before the budget came down, but the burden is carried by other industries which have to rest more or less upon the implement industry.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

It may be an advantage, but it is not protection. *

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON
PRO
CON

Horatio Clarence Hocken

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HOCKEN:

I do not care what you

call it; it is a concession that enables the Massey-Harris Company to make more money under this budget than they made under the previous budget. Call it anything you like, but if that is not protecting industry then I do not know how to do it.

I will tell you how it came about that the western men got this free trade bug into their heads. For a good many years the Grain Growers' Guide talked free trade. The farmers of the West-the grain growers' organization, of course-grew up; they started a great weekly paper, and that paper talked free trade, free trade, free trade, to the people of the West day in and day out. The people never heard the other side of the argument. Nobody ever said to them that it was better to have a moderate tariff to build up industries, to have diversified industry in this country, than to try to make the whole country rest upon the agricultural industry. Nobody ever went that far, and by the propaganda carried on by the Grain Growers' Guide the people of the three prairie provinces have got it into their heads that no matter what the government does the only thing that will help them is free trade. A greater fallacy could not possibly exist. If free trade were inaugurated in this country tomorrow I am perfectly satisfied that those who would ultimately suffer the most would be the farmers of the western prairies. This is the way it would work out: In the first

place, the. industries of Canada would be destroyed and then they would be at the mercy of the great trusts of the United States, and those great trusts might be under some restraint by their own government, but could not be restrained by the Canadian government.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

I am not objecting to the

hon. member's argument so much as to his statement as to the ignorance of the people in the prairie west.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Horatio Clarence Hocken

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HOCKEN:

I think the hon. gentleman is hardly fair in saying that I called them ignorant.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

You said they read nothing but the Grain Growers' Guide.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Horatio Clarence Hocken

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HOCKEN:

I say they never hear

the other side of the story, and in my judgment the manufacturers of this country are to blame for that, for while the people of the West are being fed free trade there should have been some antidote administered to keep their minds from being poisoned. It

The Budget-Mr. Hocken

would have been much to their own advantage.

Now Mr. Speaker, I venture to make this assertion: There is no nation in the world

to-day that is great, and no nation can become great, without a policy of protection to build it up. There is no great nation in the world to-day that has not got a protective policy except Great Britain, and Great Britain established its industrial pre-eminence through protection.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PRO
CON

Horatio Clarence Hocken

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HOCKEN:

But it seems necessary to repeat it to get it through the thick head of my hon. friend from Brandon.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

May 8, 1924