May 15, 1924

LIB

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

Liberal

Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:

My reason for

objecting to this resolution is that in many cases such reports contain the names of persons who are only suspects and, perhaps it is found out afterwards that they may not be guilty. It would not be fair to make such reports public. On the other hand, when a person is subsequently found guilty of infraction of the act, the making public of the information which led to the apprenhension of the guilty person would render the subsequent work of the police officers more difficult. It is against the public interest to disclose such reports.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT-VIOLATIONS
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

I would not ask for that class of information. That could easily be deleted from the report. It is the general report which is asked for in this particular motion.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT-VIOLATIONS
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

It is "a copy of all reports received from the officer commanding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Vancouver, regarding the violation of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act."

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT-VIOLATIONS
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

The minister could delete from the report what he regards as against the public interest to disclose.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT-VIOLATIONS
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Perhaps my hon. friend

will allow his resolution to stand and we may find a solution possible.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT-VIOLATIONS
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The resolution stands.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT-VIOLATIONS
Permalink

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND MERCHANT MARINE


On the Orders of the Day:


CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I should like to ask the Minister of Railways if he has yet received the annual report for 1923 of the Canadian National Railways, and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?

Mr* GRAHAM: The report of the

merchant marine is not yet to hand. An advance copy of the railway report is at hand.

I hope in a few days to lay on the Table a copy for each member of the House.

The Budget-Mr. Hoey

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND MERCHANT MARINE
Permalink

REMUNERATION TO INFORMANTS


On the Orders of the Day.


LIB

Lewis Herbert Martell

Liberal

Mr. MARTELL:

In reference to resolution No. 25 which stands in my name, can the.Prime Minister tell me when I will have an opportunity of discussing before the House the question of paying to informants a moiety of the fines imposed in the cases referred to in the resolution.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REMUNERATION TO INFORMANTS
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think the

resolution has been called a number of times when the hon. member was not here.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REMUNERATION TO INFORMANTS
Permalink

THE BUDGET


The House resumed from Tuesday, May 13, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.


PRO

Robert Alexander Hoey

Progressive

Mr. R. A. HOEY (Springfield):

Before

undertaking a discussion of the proposals submitted by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in his annual budget, and the subject matter relevant thereto, there are one or two matters, perhaps of minor importance, with which I would like to deal. The first, Mr. Speaker, is a letter by Mr. John Stuart Mill quoted in the course of this debate by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) with the object of showing that that eminent authority, at a certain stage in his career at least, was in favour of a protective policy provided the conditions were not normal and the circumstances somewhat unusual. I have in my hand The Letters of John Stuart Mill, edited by Hugh Elliot. In the second volume at page 27 appears a letter written by John Stuart Mill to a friend in Australia, in which he seeks to explain just what he had in mind in his former communication and places his own interpretation thereon. The letter is brief, and I should like to quote it in full:

I have just received your letter dated 25th February. It is a great compliment to me that my supposed opinions should have had the influence you ascribe to them in Australia. But there seems to have been a considerable degree of misunderstanding about what they are. The fault probably lies with myself in not having explained them sufficiently. I have entered rather more fully into the subject in the new editions published this spring, but not to give you the trouble of referring to them, I can have no difficulty in saying that I never for a moment thought of recommending or countenancing in a new colony more than

132i

elsewhere a general protective policy or a system of duties on imported commodities, such as that which has recently passed the representative assembly of your colony. What* I had in view was this: If there is some particular branch of industry not hitherto carried on in the country, but which individuals or associations possessed of the necessary capital are ready and desirous to naturalize; and if these persons can satisfy the legislature that after their workpeople are fully trained, and the difficulties of the first introduction surmounted they shall probably be able to produce the article as cheap or cheaper than the price at which it can be imported, but that they cannot do so without the temporary aid either of a subsidy from the government or of a protecting duty; then it maj' sometimes be a good calculation for the future interests of the country to make a temporary sacrifice by granting a moderate protecting duty for a certain limited number of years, say ten or at the very most twenty, during the latter part of which the duty should be on a gradually diminishing scale* and at the end of which it should expire. You see how far this doctrine is from supporting the fabric of protectionist' doctrine in behalf of which its aid has been invoked.

There is just another quotation which is very brief. This letter was written to the New York Liberal Club. In response to a hint from the secretary, Mr. Mill responded by a letter on protection as follows:

I hold every form of what is called protection to be an employment of the powers of government to tax the many with the intention of promoting the pecuniary gains of a few. I see the intention, because even that desired object is very often not attained, and never to the extent that is expected, but whatever gain there is is made by the few and them alone, for the labouring people employed in the protective branches of industry are not benefited. Wages do not range higher in the protected than in other employments; they depend on the general rate of the remuneration of labour in the country, and if the demand for particular kinds of labour is artificially increased the consequence is merely that labour is attracted from other occupations, so that employment is given in the protected trades to a greater number but not at higher remuneration. The gain by protection, when there is gain is for the employers alone. Such legislation was worthy of Great Britain under her uniformed constitution when the powers of legislation were in the hands of a limited class of great landowners and wealthy manufacturers. But in a democratic nation like the United States it is a signal instance of dupery, and I have a higher opinion of the intelligence of the American many than to believe that a handful of manufacturers will be able to retain by fallacy and sophistry that power of levying a toll on every other, person's earnings, which the powerful aristocracy of England, with all their political ascendancy and social prestige, have not been able to keep possession of.

The next quotation was one referred to a few days ago. It was ascribed to the venerable American statesman, Abraham Lincoln, which ascription I contend has absolutely no basis in historic fact. This quotation played a very important part in the campaign of 1921. There was scarcely a Conservative committee room, Mr. Speaker, in the city of Winnipeg in which this quotation was not displayed in large and conspicuous letters. I challenged its authenticity then, but I little thought that I would

The Budget-Mr. Hoey

ever be called upon to challenge such a pseudo-quotation on the floor of the Canadian parliament. I have in my hand the Journal of Economics published by Harvard University, volume 28, 1913. On page 18 in that volume there is an article by Professor Taussig entitled; "Abraham Lincoln on the tariff

A Myth." Those who have followed the campaign literature on the tariff during recent years will have become familiar with a phrase attributed to Abraham Lincoln. The following version is taken from Curtiss's Industrial Development of Nations, 1912, a pretentious three-volume publication, in which are collected indiscriminately all sorts of protectionist arguments. Under a portrait of Lincoln this is printed:

I do not know much about the tariff, but I know this much, when we buy manufactured goods abroad, we get' the goods and the foreigner gets the money. When we buy the manufactured goods at home, we get both the goods and the money.

No reference is given by Curtiss to Lincoln's writings : nor is such a reference given in any place where I have found the phrase quoted. A careful examination of the various editions of Lincoln's published works brings to light nothing that remotely resembles it. There is nothing in either of-the two editions of his writings put together by Nicolay and Hay, nor is there anything in the so-called Federal edition. Nicolay and Hay's Life yields nothing of the sort, nor does any of the biographies. So with Lincoln's Speeches in Congress and his Messages to Congress.

Now, what is the history of the phrase? The very first mention which we have found is 1894, in the American Economist, a weekly protectionist sheet published in New York. In that periodical for June 29, 1894, the quotation is given as having been copiel from the Independent of Howard, Illinois, of June 9, 1894:

Then Professor Taussig concludes his article with this statement:

It seems certain that the phrase is apocryphal. There is no evidence that Lincoln ever used it. Further search may show just how it originated. Possibly the claptrap about the goods and the money, was invented before it was foisted on Lincoln; possibly it was ascribed to him at an earlier date than the first here noted (1894). By dint of repetition it has come to be associated with Lincoln almost as much as the cherry tree is associated with Washington. So crude is the reasoning (if such it can be called), so vulgarly fallacious is the antithesis, that we must hope that it will cease to be invested with [DOT] the sanction of a venerated name.

Then there is an interesting foot note:

Since this note was prepared, my attention has been called to a letter of Mr. Horace White's in the New York Evening Post of April 10, 1914. Mr. White points out that nothing like the oft-cited passage is to be found in Lincoln's writings, and pungently concludes: 'My reason for 'thinking that Lincoln never said this is that he was not a fool.'

Following Professor F. W. Taussig's article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, a writer in the Boston Transcript, Mr. Calvin W. Lewis, followed up the clues. He found that although there was no Howard Independ-

.

ent, there was a Harvard Independent published at Harvard, 111., and in the issue of that paper for June 9, 1894, he found the passage that had been quoted by the American Economist.

The next question was: Where did the

Harvard Independent get it from? In the works of Colonel Ingersoll, there is an oration on Lincoln which bears the date 1894. The orator in that speech says:

It is better for Americans to purchase from Americans even if the things purchased cost more. If we purchase a ton of steel rails from England for $20, then we have the rails and England has the money, but if we buy a ton of steel rails from an American at $25, the American has the rails, and the money both.

This, it will be noticed, differs from the Lincoln saying, in that the English price is given at S20, and the American at $25. Ingersoll does not quote this statement. It is his own argument. There is now no doubt whatever that the Harvard Independent mixed up Ingersoll and Lincoln. There is not a shadow of excuse for those who are now misusing a great and venerable name for mere selfish ends. It has been abundantly proved that Lincoln never used the words attributed to him by protectionists, both in the United States and Canada, and it is worthy of note that the Republican party has now absolutely ceased to use or recognize this pseudo-quotation.

These arguments, coming as they do from time to time and irritating one beyond measure, indicate the straits to which hon. gentlemen are driven in an attempt to defend a policy that is as archaic as the old ox cart The older the ox cart, the louder the squeak. I have been interested, indeed, I might say astounded, at times by the amount of time_ taken up by hon. members in an attempt to show that the tariff is one of the chief factors, if not the chief factor that is likely to make for industrial stability and, consequently, for industrial progress. In these expostulations they choose invariably as their text a statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his budget speech of last year.

I have no desire to quote the statement; it has been quoted again and again and again, and some hon. members seem to derive a great deal of comfort from even the repetition of it. First of all, let me say that when the Minister of Finance made that statement, in my humble judgment, he meant exactly what he said. That is to say, he meant that the tariff schedules as then revised were, in his judgment, moderate; that in the interests of Canadian industry they should be allowed to remain, with one or two minor changes, just

The Budget-Mr. Hoey

as they then were. I -sat opposite or almost opposite to the Minister of Finance when that statement fell from his lips, and I thought of another statement to which the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) referred, the statement made by Mr. Bonar Law when he took over the reins of office in Great Britain and promised the people a period of tranquility. He failed to bring about that condition, though he gave his life in a heroic attempt. I thought of the last presidential election in the United States when the great issue was won between idealism and normalcy; the forces that stood for the re-establishment of normal conditions proved victorious, and a great leader gave his life in an attempt to bring about normal conditions, but he failed. The truth of the matter is that mere pronouncements, even though they fall from the lips of eminent men, are meaningless if such pronouncements cannot be reconciled or brought into harmony with fundamental economic laws. But the statement at its best was the statement of a Minister of Finance attached to a government in a minority. To be carried out, that statement would involve, on the part of the government of which he was a member, the violation of the sacred pledges upon which they were elected. I should like to ask in all sincerity: Do the manufacturers

of this country or hon. members to my right, want that pledge fulfilled by the violation of sacred pledges, by the refusal on the part of the government to carry out a programme upon which they were elected? So it seems to me that the supreme and paramount question is: Is the government going to be responsible to the will of the people in this country, a majority will, or obedient to a minority in this House? Let us ask for a moment: Is industrial stability desirable? I do not think there can be any division of opinion on that subject; industrial stability is desirable. That being so, what, are the factors that contribute thereto, and what part does the tariff play therein? Well, it seems to me that we can determine with a fair degree of accuracy just what these contributory factors are in the matter of industrial stability. First of all, industries must have immediate access to a normal and uniform supply of raw material, and they must have up to date machinery, which in my judgment should enter the country at this stage free of duty. They should have also a normal supply of labour, the cost of which will always depend on the purchasing power of the employee's dollar. They should have, further, executive skill, coupled with the most efficient management. And then

there is a factor most important of all: Before you can have industrial stability in this country you must have a measure of stabilization so far as the purchasing power of the people is concerned. And that factor is one almost wholly beyond our control. Let me take this illustration, which I draw from western Canada, inasmuch as I am more familiar with conditions there. A certain acreage is sown to wheat in the province of Manitoba in a given year. Harvest time is approaching, and the crop experts estimate that the harvest will yield 35 bushels No. 1 Northern to the acre. Just about eight days before the time of reaping, evidences of rust appear, bringing dismay with them. Climatic conditions rapidly promote the development of this defect, and that crop, valued at approximately one hundred million dollars, is cut down to forty million dollars; the estimate of 35 bushels to the acre, No 1, dwindles to 12 bushels of feed wheat, which does not come within the commercial classifications at all. Now, I -want you to think for a moment of the effect of such a failure-and such failures are periodical. I want you to think of its effect first of all, on the primary producer fron the standpoint of his stability. His municipa. taxes remain the same; his overhead charges remain approximately the same; his labour costs remain the same. I want you to think, in the second place, of the effect upon certain grain companies, with whom we do not sympathize very frequently in this House. A company has, say, three or four hundred country elevators designed and built to handle a maximum crop and in which they have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested. It has also terminal elevators in which millions of dollars are tied up. And these elevators, I say, are designed to handle, and handle efficiently and with the greatest despatch, a maximum crop. Yet they are forced to be content with a minimum production. Then I want you to think of the effect on our transportation companies, its reflection in higher or lower freight rates. And last of all, but not least, I want you to think of the effect of such failures on our eastern manufacturers in that the purchasing power of the agriculturist is, at least temporarily, demoralized. But, say my hon. friends, the fact that we cannot stabilize all industry in this country is no reason why we should not attempt to stabilize such industries as are capable of stabilization. And that sounds plausible. But my contention is this, that any attempt to stabilize such industries in an absolute sense will not mean stabilization but will mean utter stagnation. Is thpro

The Budget-Mr. Hoey

any manufacturer with any grey matter in his skull who can be discovered anywhere in Canada, and who is not talking mere political piffle, who will sit down beside me and contend that the tariff is the chief factor today? Will such a man contend that the tariff, in this stage of our development, and in view of the fact that we have no power over the tariff schedules of other countries- tariff schedules that may at any time react disastrously against them!-is there, I ask, any manufacturer who will sit down here and contend that the tariff is the chief factor that is likely to contribute to his progress or militate against his success?- I do not think that, apart from politics, such a manufacturer can be discovered. But I go further. Is there any agriculturist to-day who is honest and who is not playing politics who, at this stage in the development of his industry, and having surveyed all the conditions, will sit down and argue that the tariff is, in his case also, the chief factor that is likely to contribute to his success or otherwise? That it is a factor we all agree; that it enters into the conditions no one will dispute; it is the one factor perhaps for which there is the least justification. But it is not the only factor. Why, then, is the tariff emphasized and re-emphasized? Why does it occupy such a position in these discussions from time to time? Well, politicians always have had and always will have a rallying cry, something around which to wage battles, sham and real. Personally I emphasize the tariff because I believe that Canadian civilization is peculiarly and distinctly British; and because it is peculiarly and distinctly British the Canadian people will never remain reticent, will never labour without protest, so long as there is in this country a system of taxation that extends benefits to the few at the expense of the many. I say, being peculiarly and distinctly British, we concede the right to any government to impose taxes from time to time; but we contend also, while making that concession, that it is the prerogative and the duty of the government to prevent the governed from taxing one another.

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

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

Would the hon. memoer therefore entirely eliminate the tariff?

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

Robert Alexander Hoey

Progressive

Mr. HOEY:

I am coming to that.

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

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

Would he do it immediately?

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

Robert Alexander Hoey

Progressive

Mr. HOEY:

Nothing irritates me so much as the impression I get, perhaps from inference, that the Canadian people have not

FMr. Hoey.]

the right at any time to sweep away tariff privileges. Since when did 4 p.m. Britishers claim property rights in privileges? And so, it seems to me that the issue that is becoming more clearly defined in this country is not an issue between protection on the one hand and free trade on the other; the very exigencies of the moment, the financial demands of our treasury, are forcing us to adopt a revenue rather than a protective tariff. The question may be asked, what is the difference? The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) usually interrogates at this stage in an honest attempt to get a clearly outlined definition of just what a revenue tariff is. Let me say that adequate protection, as I see it, means all the protection that manufacturers in your constituency may demand from time to time. A revenue tariff is all that should be extended to them in the interests of national justice and national progress. Let me put upon the pages of Hansard this definition of revenue tariff:

Protective tariffs differ from revenue tariffs in their object, which is not so much that of obtaining revenue as that of protecting home producers from tlie competition .of imported commodities. The two objects, revenue and protection, are not merely distinct, but antagonistic. The same duty may raise some revenue and give some protection, but, past a certain point at least, in proportion as one object is secured the other is sacrificed, since revenue depends on the bringing in of commodities: protection on

keeping them out. So the same tariff may embrace both protective and revenue duties, but while the protective duties lessen its power of collecting revenue, the revenue duties by adding to the cost of home production lessen its power of encouraging home producers.. The duties of a purely revenue tariff should fall only on commodities not produced in the country; or, if levied on commodities partly produced at home should be balanced by equivalent internal taxes to prevent incidental protection. In a purely protective tariff, on the other hand, commodities not produced in the country should be free and duties should be levied on commodities that are or may be produced in the country.

Do. hon. gentlemen to my right advocate the abolition of all duties on commodities that are not manufactured in this country?

And, just in proportion as it accomplishes its object, the less revenue will it yield.

That, to me, Mr. Speaker, is the issue that we are attempting to define at this day in this Chamber and throughout the country.

I said a moment or two ago that industrial stability had a vital and direct relationship to the prosperity of the western agriculturist. I want to read from a document prepared by a man whom you cannot describe as a Progressive no matter how you attempt to stretch your imagination. He says:

The Budget-Mr. Hoey

Never overlook what the fact is, that the source of all wealth is original Mother Earth. That is why the railroad owner, the railroad worker, the manufacturers and their employees, banks and their staffs can only be assured of conserving their own property and their own positions when the grain grower and the cattle breeder are assured of a fair living wage for their labour. In a word, the future success of our country depends upon the prosperity of our farm life. The grain grower is the foundation for a broad and high pyramid of population; he is the ultimate consumer of what the most of the rest of our people produce.

And listen to this:

If we fill our country with happy and contented grain growers and cattle breeders, who are assured of a fair living wage, every man in a factory, every man in a shop, every man in a railway, every man in an office will be in a vastly better and safer position.

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

May 15, 1924