May 6, 1926

CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I must ask the government to answer yes or no. There is no reason why that question cannot be answered. Does the government propose, whether in committee or before, substantial changes in the budget presentation?

Topic:   PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE BUDGET
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Robb (Minister of Trade and Commerce; Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ROBB:

My answer to that question

is no.

Topic:   PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE BUDGET
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

No substantial change?

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin (Kent)

Topic:   PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE BUDGET
Permalink

THE BUDGET

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL


The House resumed from Wednesday, May 5, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. R. J. Manion.


CON

Alexander Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. D. CHAPLIN (Kent, Ont.):

When the House adjourned yesterday, Mr. Speaker,

I was dealing with the sugar beet industry of western Ontario. I would like now to refer to what the sugar beet industry has done for immigration. During the past sugar beet season 3,000 Hollanders and Belgians worked in the beet fields of the county of Kent, and when not employed in those fields, some of these men work in the tobacco fields and also do mixed farming, thus very materially assisting production. Four hundred Hollanders and Belgians are now located on their own farms. These men had to be assisted into Canada by the sugar beet company a few years ago, and arrived with no money at all. They are very thrifty and have their own farms, well cultivated and in splendid condition, and are making the very best of Canadian citizens.

With regard to the Petrolia plant, construction was discontinued after several hundred thousand dollars had been spent by the farmers, due to the action of the government in placing an excise tax on beet sugar in 1922, and in cancelling this tax in 1923, substituting for it a reduction in protection twice the amount of the tax. This gave the cane sugar refineries a little better protection than they had previously enjoyed, at the same time reducing the protection to beet growers by 50 cents per ton. I am not holding any brief for the sugar company, but they have been doing a good work in bringing immigrants to this country, and that industry has been responsible for placing these 400 Hollanders and Belgians on the land.

While on the question of protection I would like to make a reference to the woollen industry of Canada. As a result of the action of this government a great number of our woollen mills' were closed practically over night, which leads us to wonder what business is safe. And what did the reduction in woollen duties mean? In the mill which was closed in Chatham it meant less than 24 cents a yard on suitings and overcoatings, or less than $1 on a completed overcoat. I

believe the same thing would apply to other mills now closed, and for that one dollar no one received any benefit; suits and overcoats cost as much now as they formerly did, and thousands of men have been thrown out of employment. That may not seem quite correct; such a statement may require a little explanation. I would like to draw

attention to the experience of the United States in connection with the woollen industry. Mr. Fordney, of the famous Fordney tariff-the man who put a 42 cent duty against our wheat entering the United States -saw that their woollen manufacturers were in danger as a result of the importation of foreign woollens. He said, "We have the highest standard of living in the world, and we are not going to have it lowered by allowing cheap labour products to come into this country." So Mr. Fordney raised the duty to 100 per cent, and the United States mills are busy to-day.

Now for the explanation I promised. I said that thousands of employees of woollen mills were thrown out of employment. I should have said that they are out of employment in Canada. Many of these men have moved to the United States where they have secured jobs in factories which are sufficiently protected and are running, so they have merely changed their place of employment. It may be argued that there are some woollen mills running in Canada. Some may be running in the hope that a Conservative government may soon be returned to power. Others are running, but it is a safe bet that they are running for cover, and not for profit.

I have heard about the Simcoe mill as one which is running, but I would like to tell this House that the manager of that mill recently passed away. The business of running a woollen mill in this country to-day is enough to kill the most stout-hearted manufacturer. During the late election campaign the Hon. G. N. Gordon, who ran into a Peck of trouble in the late election, asked one of the large woollen manufacturers not to put out any woollen election propaganda, saying "We will fix you all right." This promise was entirely unnecessary, for his government had already fixed the woollen industries, but, unfortunately, it was not "all right"'-it was "all wrong." This same gentleman was slated as Minister of Immigration in the new cabinet. I was greatly, surprised one day to read the Prime Minister's speeches out in the prairie provinces pleading for Liberal supporters instead of Progressive members. He also stated he would like to have his Immigration minister from that part of Canada. I could

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin (Kent)

not understand just what he meant, having already one Minister of Immigration, but it struck me all at once that it was not immigration he had in mind, but emigration. He wanted the Minister of Immigration at Halifax or Montreal to count the immigrants coming in, and a' Minister of Emigration at Windsor or Niagara Falls to count them going out- and the Minister of Emigration, I believe, would be the busier of the two.

The protective policy which I. am advocating for the woollen industry is the policy which will prevent people from leaving this country by providing employment for them in Canada, and thus rendering unnecessary the appointment of a Minister of Emigration.

Speaking of the problem of unemployment. I have been surprised, as a new member of this House, and also greatly struck by the character of the comment which comes from the supporters of the government. I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) advocating government assistance for the unemployed in and around Winnipeg. Now the unemployment must be quite noticeable when a member of this House pleads for aid. On the other hand.

I heard the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) make the remarkable statement that times were prosperous, and that they were building a couple of factories in Sherbrooke to employ around four or five hundred hands. I would like to ask the hon. member what class of goods are to be manufactured in these factories, and also what protective tariff they will have on their goods.

I believe they have a factory in Sherbrooke closed now because they can import goods from Germany cheaper than they can manufacture them. Would the hon. member for Sherbrooke be averse to a tariff that would open up that factory and shut out German goods, even if it was 35 per cent or more?

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

Charles Benjamin Howard

Liberal

Mr. HOWARD:

W ill the hon. member

please name any factory in Sherbrooke that is closed or that has closed down in the last five years?

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

Alexander Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN (Kent):

The hon. member told me himself, in the Chateau Laurier. of one factory in Sherbrooke that had closed down, because the people were buying goods from Germany instead.

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

Charles Benjamin Howard

Liberal

Mr. HOWARD:

I did not make any such statement.

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

Alexander Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN (Kent):

The hon. member for Sherbrooke, when speaking in this debate, gave the best and most concrete argument in favour of protection. His speech [Mr. A. D. Chaplin. [

was notable for two reasons: first, the great volume of sound, which reminded one of the steamboat on the Mississippi with a seven horse-power engine and a ten horsepower whistle-every time the whistle blew the engine stopped. Second, he gave the best argument one could use for the Conservative national policy of protection. He stated that a factory in Sherbrooke making hose was selling its products at the same price as that at which they were being sold in the United States, although they had a tariff of 35 per cent. That clearly shows that they were not taking advantage of that tariff. But the hon. member did not say that the competition came from Canadian plants, and not from factories outside this country. That internal competition is exactly what is advocated by the Conservative policy.

It is an unfortunate fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have too much unemployment in this country. This is shown very clearly by the fact that in the last few years 500,000 of our people have been admitted to the United States and have paid the head tax, to say nothing of those who slipped in without paying that head tax, which would raise the number to probably 700,000. Now, Sir, supposing these 700,000 had refused to go to look for work in the United States. Would the hon. members still say that there was no unemployment in this country? They had jobs here once. Where have their jobs gone? On top of all this, we hear of the great "wave of prosperity" which is spreading over the country. This wave of prosperity seems to be based on the reports of our wonderful exports, and how they so greatly exceed our imports. But the man out of work with a family to support says in regard to these export statistics: They may be good food for the brain, but they are not much good for the stomach. [DOT]

The Liberals cry aloud in this House and in the press when five or ten thousand of our people come back from the United States, but when the five hundred thousand of our people left this country, paid head tax and entered the United States, they wept not. It seems to me that the business of this government is the closing of factories. Dun and Brad-street's will show that. They also seem to make it their business to buy goods from the United States rather than in Canada, as our import statistics will show. Further, I would like to draw the attention of this House to what the government is doing in regard to supplying members of this House with articles of everyday use. If hon. members will look at the penholders on their desks, or at the

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson

lead pencils furnished to the members of parliament and their rulers in their rooms, they will notice that these goods are all made in the United States.

I do not think there is one member who would condone buying our supplies for this House anywhere but in this country. We read in the press all over this Dominion, "Buy at home", "Buy goods made in Canada." Mr. Speaker, the running of this country by parliament is the biggest business in Canada, and we should set a good example to the rest of the people by buying nothing outside that is made in Canada. If it is that these articles can be bought cheaper in the United States, then we need a higher tariff. I will make this statement, that if there were any members or ministers in this House who made pen-holders, pencils or rulers, that order would never have gone to the United States. Now, Sir, the buyer in this department has some reason for going out of the country to buy these goods. It is either precedent or block-headedness. If it is precedent, then for heaven's sake, Mr. Minister of pens and pencils, have it cut out. If it is blockheaded-ness, then all I can say is this: If this buyer

thinks he might lose his head to make pens and pencils, he is in no danger whatever; his head is not wood, it is plain, unadulterated petrified bone.

But that is not all. Not long ago I was riding on the Canadian National railway with a friend of mine, and while in the dining car we asked for jams. We got jams made by Sprague, Warner and Company, Chicago. You have heard of taking coals to Newcastle, but that is a bedtime story to this. Sir, a man who would buy a pound of jam outside of this country when there are millions of pounds made here should be put in that big house at London, and in a padded cell for his own safet3r, and seven of the worst inmates could then be let out and that institution would be still to the good.

May I say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that what we are striving for is a tariff that will give adequate protection to our farmers, that will foster our industries-especially the automobile, the sugar-beet and the woollen industries-and promote the greatest measure of prosperity for the masses.

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

Frederick George Sanderson

Liberal

Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):

Mr. Speaker, I trust the House will bear with me this afternoon in the brief remarks I purpose to make on the budget. First of all I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr Robb) upon the budget he brought down on April 15th. I think it can be fairly and honestly stated that it is a budget which is for the benefit and will tend to promote the

material welfare of the masses of the people of this Dominion-and after all the great masses of the people really form the backbone of any country.

The budget contained, perhaps, the most welcome news this Dominion has received for several years. During the last seven or eight years following the war a commercial depression, not confined to Canada but world-wide in its character, was experienced. The recent deliverance of the Minister of Finance indicates, however, that so far as business conditions are concerned Canada is emerging from darkness into light. He was able to announce a large increase in the trade of the country and, what is of more importance, a decrease in the national debt to the extent of some $23,000,000. Even more vital in its character was the announcement of a drastic cut in taxation the benefit of which will be felt by all persons who are in receipt of moderate salaries or who possess moderate means. Therefore, I say, Mr. Speaker, that the recent budget was one of the most cheerful budgets that has been delivered in this House for many years.

Hon. gentlemen opposite, or at least most of those on that side who have spoken in this debate, have grudgingly admitted that there is an improvement in the trade of Canada and that the financial position of the country has been strengthened in the last year or two. but they all maintain that this improvement is due to a kind Providence. The hon member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) referred to this matter yesterday afternoon, but prior to his speech I had prepared some notes on the same point and notwithstanding that it may involve some repetition I am going to inflict them on the House. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), following the delivery of the budget speech on April 15th, admitted that conditions were improving in Canada, but he said the credit was due to a kind Providence. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) spoke along the same line but went even further. In this connection let me say,-I do not offer the remark in any unkindly spirit, and I hope it is not presumptuous coming from a new member-that I have come to the conclusion that the latter hon. gentleman goes to a greater extreme than any other member opposite when he rises to address the House. For the benefit of the House I shall quote the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William on the occasion referred to. At page 2625 of Hansard of April 20, the hon. member is reported to have made the following statement:

I admit that luck has been with this government; that Providence, by giving Canada these greater crops, has shown some favour to the present administration,

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson

but there is a Providence, they say, which looks after drunken men, and I presume the same Providence looks after governments who are drunken with the desire to hold power in spite of the wishes of the people.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

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

Frederick George Sanderson

Liberal

Mr. SANDERSON:

Some hon. gentlemen across the way say, "hear, hear." I am glad to get that recognition from them. Let me say in reply to the hon. member for Fort William that we on this side believe in Providence, and that we think Providence works sometimes in a most marvellous and mysterious manner, not always as we wish or hope or pray, but in a manner that is for our ultimate good. I think, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps a kind Providence had something to do with defeating the government that went to the country in 1921; that Providence did then operate in a way that worked for the good of Canada. I think also that a kind Providence had something to do with seeing that the Conservatives did not come back to this House after the election in October last in sufficient strength to control the destinies of this country for a few years to come. Furthermore, Providence has had something to do with the votes which have been recorded in this House during the last four months; and it is not unlikely that Providence has kept the hon. member for Fort William from crossing to the treasury benches, because I do not think there is any hon. gentleman opposite who wants to reach those benches more quickly than my hon. friend. It is quite evident that although Providence sometimes works in a mysterious way those operations are for the good of the country.

I do not think I should have injected myself into this debate had it not been for the fact that certain hon. members opposite, especially those from the province of Ontario and in particular the representatives of ridings adjoining the county I have the honour to represent, have stated that they cannot support the budget, and that those who sent them here are not in favour of it. These hon. gentlemen have affirmed the belief that the budget is not for the good of Ontario, or, for that matter, for the good of the Dominion of Canada as a whole. Speaking for the constituency of South Perth I am satisfied that the majority of the people of that riding are not only in favour of the budget, but they think it will be advantageous to the province of Ontario and the whole Dominion also. Coming as I do from the province of Ontario, I am not only going to vote for the budget but I shall exert myself to the utmost in its defence.

The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), who represents a county adjoining

Thia budget as a whole is what might be termed a Saskatchewan budget. That statement deserves a little explanation. The general policies in Saskatchewan seem to be policies of annihilation and assassination rather than protection, and if those members from Saskatchewan who seem to favour those policies get any more power in the House than they have shown they have, there is going to be very serious trouble for this country. The reason why I attribute this to Saskatchewan is as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said this afternoon, because no reference was made in the Speech from the Throne to this reduction in the tariff on automobiles.

I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I speak subject to correction. I did not know that it was usual to incorporate in the Speech from the Throne the specific matters that were to be presented in the budget in regard to reductions or increases of the tariff on this article or that; I would imagine that to be a most peculiar procedure for any government to follow. The statement of the hon. member continues:

I attribute this reduction more to Saskatchewan Liberals even than to our Progressive friends and I base this statement on part of a letter written by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) to his home paper about February 5, when he said-

I will skip two or three lines which have no bearing on the point I am making, and read from further on:

I have noticed for the last two or three days that whenever there is any applause on the other side on account of the budget, the Liberal members applaud income tax reductions and the Saskatchewan members applaud reductions in the tariff on automobiles. That shows what the feeling of the House is on the matter.

As a member from Ontario I desire to say that I hold no brief for hon. members from Saskatchewan. I have noticed that they are well able to take care of themselves in this House when the occasion arises. Nor do I hold any brief for my good friends the Progressives, because they have shown that they are quite able to take care of themselves at all times; and this remark applies equally to my good friends from the province of Quebec. During the four months I have been attending the sittings of parliament I have never seen a single, solitary move by the members from Saskatchewan, the members of the Pro-

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson

gressive group, or the almost solid bloc from the province of Quebec, which in any shape or form was not in the best interests of Can- _ ada as a whole. My answer to the hon. member for North Oxford is that I am not controlled by anybody from the province of Saskatchewan, but I have come to the conclusion, as a humble member from Ontario, that this is one of the best budgets that has ever 'been 'brought down in the Dominion of Canada, in that it is calculated to contribute to the prosperity of the whole country.

Hon. members on the other side of the House have spoken of the desirability of unity; they have emphasized the fact that we must have a united Canada. This statement was made particularly by the Conservative members from Ontario, including that solid bloc of Conservative members who come from the city of Toronto. I say that there is not a single member in this House who does not want a united Canada. We all want it. But, Mr. Speaker, we will get a united Canada sooner if there is a little more compromise and reason on the part of the members of the Conservative party from Ontario. The sooner they realize that Toronto is not the whole of Ontario; that Ontario is not the whole of the Dominion of Canada and that they cannot choke down the throats of the members from all the other provinces their policy of higher and higher protection, the sooner we will have a united Canada.

Coming to the budget, I will not deal at any length on the reductions in the income tax. It is obvious to anybody who has read over the schedule that there is a substantial reduction, which will benefit especially those who receive moderate incomes. I am not very much concerned about what the cut is, if any, on the income of anyone who is in receipt of $50,000, $75,000, $100,000, or $150,000 per year or upwards. But I am concerned about the man with the moderate income, and the Minister of Finance has provided for that class of people and granted for their benefit a substantial reduction. The two-cent postage appeals to everybody and I will not say anything in regard to it. The taking off of the stamp tax appeals to all and is a welcome change.

I come now to what is the most contentious matter in the budget, namely, the reduction in the duty on automobiles. Hon. members who have spoken from the opposite side of the House during this debate have taken this attitude: they do not directly criticize the reduction in the tariff on automobiles, but they hide themselves behind the argument that this is a matter that should have been referred to the Tariff Advisory Board. I am

in favour of a tariff board, and I am only speaking for myself when I say I would like to see a little wider power granted to that board. In regard to referring this question of the reduction of duties to the tariff board, I think this government did the right thing when, off its own bat, it reduced the duty on automobiles. Hon. members on the other side have taunted this House with having no initiative, with hiding- themselves behind commissions, with doing nothing but drift, with not having sufficient strength of character or will power to take any matter into their own hands and come to a decision upon it. When this government on its own initiative virtually decided to make this cut in the duty on automobiles they showed strength of character; they showed that they were prepared to stand or fall on that question. They showed that they had the courage of their convictions in reducing the tariff on automobiles without referring it to the tariff advisory board.

The reduction in the tariff on automobiles is not a new matter. It has been debated in this House, I understand, session after session; it has been discussed by the people, who have demanded that some reduction be made in the duty on automobiles and motor trucks imported into this country. Hon. members opposite have argued that the government had not sufficient knowledge of the automobile industry to be in a position to decide whether or not this cut should be made. While I am on the tariff I may remind the House that we have had in this country before commissions which have investigated the whole subject. In 1920, for instance, the government of that day appointed a commission to study tariff matters and that body, composed of three members of the cabinet, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Tolmie), and the hon. Senator Robertson, then Minister of Labour, travelled up and down the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This morning I was curious enough to look up the history of that commission, but I could find no trace of any order in council appointing it. I did discover, however, that the jaunt of these three hon. gentlemen who toured Canada on that occasion for the purpose of securing information on the tariff, and presumably of giving to parliament and the people the benefit of that information, cost the country the sum of $17,153.39. I am not going to go into the details of that expenditure; I would refer any hon. gentleman interested in the matter to the Auditor General's Report of 1920-21, page F 128. Perhaps it may be observed in pass-

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson

mg that the government appealed to the country in December, 1921, about a year after this commission, or whatever you choose to call it, had travelled up and down the Dominion.

Now, surely these gentlemen gained some information then in regard to the automobile industry along with other industries m Canada. I know, of course, that this was five or six years ago and possibly the condition of the industry now is somewhat different from what it was at that time. But I think I may safely assume that the automobile industry was prospering back in 1920 and I venture to suggest that its prosperity has increased probably fourfold in the meantime. I have been unable to find any report submitted to parliament by that commission. Although I have looked the matter up I have not discovered that there was ever published any of the information they gathered as a result of that trip, but the House will be interested to know what was contained in the Speech from the Throne as submitted on February 14, 1921, in relation to the tariff question. That speech reads in part as follows:

My advisers are convinced of the necessity for revision of the Customs tariff. In order to secure the most complete information a committee has conducted an extensive and thorough inquiry, and has secured the views of all parties and interests in every province. The hearings necessary for this purpose have now been completed, and the conclusions founded thereon will be submitted to you in due course. It is the opinion of my advisers that in such revision regard must be had to the necessities of revenue and as well that the principle of protection to Canadian labour and legitimate Canadian industries, including agriculture, which has prevailed for more than forty years in this country, must be consistently maintained; but that the Customs duties imposed to that end should be no higher than is essential to ensure good standards of living among our working population and to retain and make possible the normal expansion of the industries in which they find employment.

That apparently is the only information that was ever made public in connection with the investigation of that commission into the tariff. That was a commission of the Conservative government's own making. Three ministers of the crown went exhaustively into the subject in all its phases, and as I well remember, they visited the part of my province in which I live, interviewing everybody who might care to give evidence on any point appertaining to the tariff. They heard the views of farmers, manufacturers, bankers, artisans, labourers, mechanics; in fact, anyone at all who cared to volunteer information on the subject of the tariff was heard. It is reasonable therefore to suppose that these three gentlemen gathered, in the vast mass

(Mr. Sanderson.]

of information submitted to them, some knowledge of the automobile industry. In view of. that probability, it is surprising to note what the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., who as I have said was a member of that tariff commission, or board of inquiry, or whatever you may care to call it, said in a speech he delivered in Kingston on April 30 last, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of May 1, 1926:

Doctor Tolmie referred to the cut in the tariff on automobiles made by the government. "Now, I do not propose to say whether the tariff on automobiles is too high or too low," Doctor Tolmie continued. "No one could pass an intelligent opinion on this without a very thorough investigation and hearing both sides, so that I do not know under what grounds the government was able to come to a conclusion, but the general impression in the House of Commons is that they were forced to it as a result of their being under the influence of groups and their effort to run the country with a minority. It will appear to every fairminded citizen that the proper course to have .pursued was to submit this to the tariff board and then abide by the finding of that body."

The hon. member should take this House into his confidence and give us the benefit of the information he gained on that trip in 1920, even if it is five or six years old.

Other hon. gentlemen opposite also have expressed their views on the reduction in the duties on automobiles and motor trucks. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has taken up very many hours of the time of this House during the past four months discussing various industries in Canada. He is a speaker whom we all delight to hear, and he has a wonderful fund of information on practically every industry in Canada. I have heard him discuss the milling industry, the farming industry and, if I mistake not, the textile industry, in regard to which he has given us a good deal of information. But strange to say, when it comes to automobiles, concerning which almost any man in the street can tell you something, the hon. member prefers to have a tariff board report upon the industry. He wants more information than he has at present. He confesses that he is not very well posted on the automobile industry, although he presumes to be thoroughly conversant with almost every other industry discussed in this House.

The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) delivered in this House the other day a speech in which he sidestepped very gingerly the reduction in automobile duties. If I may say so, he made a very good speech in so far as the imposition of a duty on American magazines and periodicals was concerned, but he was not so well versed

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson

in the automobile business. Let me read to the House what he said in regard to the reduction of automobile duties:

We stand to-day, Mr. Speaker, in the position where a great industry in this country, an industry with ramifications through all our commerce, is threatened with serious impairment, and it is threatened without investigation, without taking expert advice, and absolutely contrary to the pledges of the government as contained in the Speech from the Throne.

I have here a newspaper published in the city of Toronto in which there is reproduced an editorial from the Orange Sentinel, a publication edited by the hon. member for Toronto West Centre. This article was published between last session and this. I want to read it for the benefit of the House. For fear some hon. member may ask me what paper I am quoting from, let me say that I find it in the good Tory Evening Telegram published in good Tory Toronto. This is the editorial: [DOT]

Whatever else may be done with the customs tariff at the next session of parliament-

Mark you, that is this session.

-there should be a substantial reduction in the duty on motor cars. It is clear from the price quoted in the United States and Canada that the Canadian manufacturers are charging "all the traffic will stand." The duty of 35 per cent is more than protection, it is in part a government subsidy to the makers of automobiles. As long as the motor car was purely a luxury that only the rich could enjoy, there was not much reason for complaint; but the motor car has become a necessity in business and professional life, and those who are thus compelled to buy one should not be forced to pay excessive profits to the manufacturer. A certain type of car that sells in the United States at $1,875, costs $3,100 in Canada. That is altogether too wide a spread, and is not warranted by any factor in the trade. The American makers have large production, it is true, but they pay higher wages, and there is no reason why their raw materials are any cheaper. The makers of motor cars in Canada are soaking the public unduly, and it is the duty of the government to lower the tariff, and it that way inject a little competition of American firms, which will bring down the prices.

In this good Tory paper from Toronto, the Telegram, there is another article which refers to what the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) said with respect to the duty on automobiles, I think last session. This is how he expressed himself on that occasion, according to the Toronto Telegram:

As I have previously stated, I am not a high protectionist, and I think there are some industries in this country which possibly are too highly protected. One of these, I think, is the automobile industry. This industry is making rapid strides in Canada, and in the last year this country, a country of 9,000,000 people, exported half as many automobiles as did the United States with a population of 110,000,000 people.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) last session voted in favour of a resolution

14011-201j

urging a reduction of the duty on automobiles. I do not know what he intends to do on this budget. The hon. member for Kingston Oity (Mr. Ross) also voted in favour of that resolution. When these hon. gentlemen declare that they do not know anything about this industry and desire full information, it seems rather remarkable that months and months ago they should have put themselves on record in favour of a reduction of the duty on automobiles.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the notice of the House some figures regarding the automobile industry of this country. As I stated a few moments ago, this is not a new industry. As a matter of fact the automobile is no longer a luxury, it has become an absolute necessity to ninety per cent of our people. The farmer must have an automobile and perhaps a motor truck. In business after business these vehicles are just as necessary as hydro power and steam power. I am a protectionist to a certain extent, and always have been, but when an article has become an absolute necessity and is enjoying a protection of 35 per cent, I think it is time the duty was cut for the benefit of our people, particularly when, as is admitted, the industry has passed the creeping and walking stages and is now at the running stage. I have before me statistics of the Canadian automobile industry for 1925, from which I quote the following:

New records were made in the automobile industry in Canada in 1925. In that year the production of motor cars numbered 161,970, as compared with 132,580 in 1924 and 147,202 in 1923, the best previous year in the industry; the value of output at the factories rose to $110,835,380 and exceeded that of any other year; capital employed amounted to $74,678,451,-

I would ask hon. members to note the next sentence:

-an increase of 23 per cent over 1924; -

That is, an increase of capital of 23 per cent over the previous year, 1924. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I suspect that a large portion of that increase was not further money invested in the industry, but represented what is known as stock "melons" to the shareholders-that the companies were pyramiding their profits and divided them to the extent of giving their shareholders further stock. I have no absolute proof that that is the case, but I think it is highly probable. Certainly it happened in the case of the Ford Company of Canada.

-employees numbered 10,301 as against 9,277 in 1924; payments in salaries and wages totalled $17,249,270 as compared with a corresponding figure of $14,219,137 in the previous year; export shipments-

The Budget-Mr. Sanderson

This is a very vital matter, Mr. Speaker.

-export shipments valued at $39,417,614 were the highest on record; imports at $35,240,298 were greater than in any previous year, and registrations of motor vehicles totalled 728,005 as against 652,121 in 1924, when the previous high record was established.

Following that statement is a summary of production in the automobile industry in Canada from 1904 to 1925, and it shows the growth of the industry during that period. I have no doubt these figures will be of interest to hon. members and I will therefore read them:

Summary of Production in the Automobile Industry in Canada 1904-1925

Number of

Year Automobiles

1904-1916.

1917.. ..

1918.. ..

1919.. ..

1920.. ..

1921.. ..

1922.. ..

1923.. ..

1924.. ..

1925.. ..

135,000

93,810

82,408

87,835

94,144

66,246

101,007

147,202

132,580

161,970

Total

1,102,202

That shows an increase of production yearly; there were some 25,000 more automobiles and trucks manufactured in Canada in 1925 than were manufactured during the twelve years from 1904 to 1916. It would therefore appear, Mr. Speaker, that this is an industry which i3 past the stage of pap feeding by a very high tariff; it must be at the stage where it can take care of itself to a certain extent, without being protected against competition by a high duty.. The increase in exports of automobiles and motor trucks shows that these manufacturers do not altogether depend on Canada for a market, but that they have a very wide and substantial market elsewhere. I read the figures showing the exports, which amount to from 40 per cent to 42 per cent of the entire output of these Canadian factories. These automobiles and trucks are exported under very favourable terms, and I do not doubt the price paid shows a profit to the manufacturers.

To bring the purchase of an automobile right down to the individual, has there been a man who purchased an automobile during the last three or four years who, after the deal was made, did not conclude that he was paying almost more than the value of the automobile, and that he was paying an undue profit to the manufacturer of that car? If my information is correct, as I think it is, the manufacturers of automobiles in Canada do not give credit; theirs is an entirely cash business. I under-

:.Mr. Sanderson.]

stand that if you order a car through your local dealer-it does not make any difference what kind of car it may be-he either goes to the factory for that car or has it shipped by rail, and he has to pay spot cash before he receives it. If he goes to the factory for five cars he has to pay for them before leaving the factory; if they are shipped by rail they are shipped with a draft attached to the bill of lading. Therefore the manufacturer runs no risk of bad debts; the poor unfortunate local agent ha3 to carry that burden. He may not get cash from his customer; he may have to take notes running for a term of months; he runs that chance and takes the risk of loss on secondhand cars as well. So the automobile manufacturer is in a different position from the manufacturer of any other article; his is a cash business, and that is a big advantage. Anyone in business knows if a manufacturer has no bad debts on his books and does not have to give credit he is in a position to sell his article very much more cheaply than if he carried a big line of credit and had to wait for the money to come in.

I have perhaps tired the House with my remarks; I have taken longer than I intended, but I want to say a further word about my position on this question of a reduction in the tariff on automobiles. If I honestly believed that the cut in the tariff would wreak havoc, and throw thousands of men out of employment, forcing the automobile manufacturers to close their doors, I would hesitate in giving my support to it. But I see no reason why men should lose their jobs; I see no reason why the automobile manufacturers cannot carry on and still do a profitable business. It should not be necessary for them to cut the pay of their employees; they may threaten to do so; they have bluffed a good deal already in closing their doors, but I sincerely hope that such an event will not occur in reality. If that should be the case, it may be that politics will have entered into the question, which will be a very regrettable and sad thing for the country. I think, however, the government were perfectly justified in making the reduction, and I believe most of the people, irrespective of their political faith, will approve of it also.

I thank the House for their indulgence and for the patience with which they have followed my somewhat rambling remarks.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

The Budget-Mr. Baker

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. R. L. BAKER . (Toronto Northeast)

(Translation): Mr. Speaker, may I, with your kind permission, address the- House on the subject of this debate, it being the first occasion I have of speaking in this Assembly, I ask for your leniency and that of the House. But before broaching the subject matter, Sir, I wish to pay you my respects and offer you my congratulations on the high post you occupy as First Commoner of Canada. I also wish to congratulate the hon. members of this House on their selection of a man so dignified, courteous, capable and possessing such a sense of fairness, as Speaker of this House for a second term. I hope that you will live long as occupant of that position; but, that before long, the hon. gentlemen on this side will be sitting on the other side of the House, on your right, and those hon. gentlemen now on the other side will be here, on your left. I further wish, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, to offer you and the hon. members of this House our congratulations.

It is a pleasure for me to endeavour for a few moments to speak the French language, out of regard for you, Sir, and those other French Canadian members in this House, and further, because as the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) expressed it, there are two official languages in this country. I endorse what the hon. member, said: That French is the most beautiful language born on human lips. I should like to speak more at length in French, however I do not wish to do so to-day, because I am sorry to admit it, I have forgotten much of my French, not having had enough practice within the last thirty years and I naturally fear not to be well understood. However, I trust that, when I have been living here for a year, I shall be more successful and that some day I shall have the pleasure of delivering in the House, a speech in French. The French Canadian members in this House understand the two official languages of this country, but all the English speaking members do not, perhaps, understand the two languages; that is why, Sir, with your kind permission I shall now continue in English. But before I do so, I wish to express a wish: I think it is necessary to have in this city a French speaking club to study and converse in French. I propose that the name "Le Club Lemieux" be given to it, and I would like to have the honour of being a member of this club so as to endeavour to speak the French

language perfectly, and this, for me, would require a long practice. I also endorse the views of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), when he says that it is an excellent thing to speak two or three languages.

In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, as I [DOT]previously pointed out, that this is the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing this or any other parliament, I know you will extend to me the same generous, kind consideration that you have always shown to those who are making their first speech in this House. I trust that hon. members will bear patiently with me while I express my views on the question before the House, to do which, I understand, is my privilege, as well as my duty, as I see it, to my constituents.

I wish to refer to two occasions upon which remarks made by me were referred to in this House. The first occasion was when the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), acting as leader of the House-which duties he performed so well-said that one of the members from Toronto, addressing his constituents, "made the following remarks" to which he took exception. In order that the onus shall not be placed on any of the other Toronto members-I presume they have enough troubles of their own to bear-I think it will be well for me to state that I did make the remarks in question to my constituents before coming to the House. I said at that time that I considered it was inconsistent for the Progressives to vote, because, as I explained to my constituents, they dissented from both the other parties in the House; that the people of the districts which they represent also dissented from the two old parties, and therefore to be consistent they ought not to vote in the original division in the House which sought to determine who had the right to govern the country. I have nothing to withdraw regarding that statement, and although it seemed to annoy some people I thought it expressed my conviction as to what should be the correct course on the part of the Progressives. I still think that if they had followed that course they would have taken the right stand, and by abstaining from voting at that time the business of the House would be further advanced than it is to-day, and they themselves would not have made any less progress than they have to date. I do not feel called upon to withdraw the statement I made at that time, although it seemed to annoy a few hon. members of this House. I am still of the opinion that had the course which I outlined been followed, it would have been the best policy to adopt, having regard to the welfare

The Budget-Mr. Baker

of the country and the best interests, in the long run, of all parties here, including even the Progressive group.

The other occasion when exception was taken in the House to remarks made by me, was when a newspaper report was read here regarding a meeting of my constituents in Toronto Northeast which I addressed. I was speaking at the time of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Dunning), and the ground for the comments which the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) made depends upon which newspaper report he read. And yet there is nothing to find particular fault with in the one report any more than there is in the other. Nor could any particular objection be offered to anything I said on that occasion. I was expressing my views to my constituents with respect to matters in Ottawa. I did not do that with any feeling of ill will or of malice towards anybody, and the use of the word "cub" had no ill intent behind it as respects anyone. I am pleased to recall that on the occasion when the hon. member for Yorkton brought the matter up in the House, Mr. Speaker was good enough to say that there was not much harm in the word "cub." We know that the word "cub'' is used continually by students in a university or college; and it is quite common on their part to make use of the word "freshmen" also with respect to newcomers. I have heard the word used in a much more friendly sense even than this. Of course there are idioms in everyone's language, and idioms are frequently employed in the course of conversation. I have often made use of the expression in speaking to my own grandson: "Come here my little cub, I want to talk to you." In such a case as that the expression would be meant as a term of endearment. Very frequently I have used the word in that sense, so that when I uttered it at the meeting in question there was no thought of malice towards anybody, and no harm was intended.

In bringing me to task the hon. member for Yorkton referred to me as a "denizen" from Toronto. The hon. gentleman, perhaps unintentionally, made an error there; I know he would not have erred intentionally. Now referring to Webster's dictionary, which I found in the library, I found the definition of "denizen" to be: "one admitted to residence with all or part of the rights of citizenship." So my hon. friend was absolutely wrong when he called me a "denizen," because I was born in this country, as were the two generations that preceded me, There was therefore a slight error on the hon. gentleman's part. I do not apply the name

"denizen" to my hon. friend either; but it so happens that the word, as defined in Webster, does apply to a great many of the hon. gentlemen whom my hon. friend was quite unnecessarily defending.

The hon. gentleman used a quotation from Dryden with respect to me, no doubt composed about the year 1650. But there is another quotation from Dryden which reads this way: "As soon as denizenized they

domineer." Well, I thought, after sizing the situation up, that in the days of Dryden they were talking along the same lines that I was endeavouring to follow, without any idea on my part that objection would be raised. Apparently for a long time it has been the tendency of the newcomer to want to domineer. Such a thing as that would not be very well received in the provinces of Quebec or Ontario.

I hope I have offered a full explanation of the incident in question. It was the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton that forced me to refer to the matter in detail so that there might be no misunderstanding.

Now I should like to refer briefly to my constituency, which I believe is the custom on the occasion of making a m'aiden speech. I have noticed that many hon. members have repeatedly proclaimed that they are here to represent the interests of their constituency first. May I say that my constituents did not send me here in that spirit? They fully understand that this is a federal parliament whose duty it is to administer the affairs of the whole Dominion. Their desire is that I should come here and assist, as much as possible, in the carrying out of policies applicable to the whole of Canada, not merely those which will benefit my constituency or any other particular riding. They understand that the only way in which an all-Canada policy can be brought about is on the basis of live and let live, of give and take.

In the last election the policies of the Liberal-Conservative and Liberal parties respectively were presented to my constituents, and the answer was twenty-one thousand votes-and if my opponent had not been such a fine man it would have been 25,000-for the policy of safeguarding the industries of Canada by means of adequate protection, in other words, the policy proclaimed by the Liberal-Conservative party. That is the wish of my constituency. They desire to see protection applied to industry, whether agricultural or manufacturing. The policy declared by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in this House on June 2 last is the policy that I am here

The Budget-Mr. Baker

to uphold, and the policy that my constituents think is for the best welfare of Canada as a whole. The feeling of my constituency in general is that we should work together; let the centre use the coal and iron of the east and the coal and wheat of the west, and let the east and the west in turn use the products of Ontario and Quebec. Such a policy we believe is feasible; that is the only way we can bring about a united Canada and bring prosperity to the whole of the country.

The last speaker this afternoon (Mr. Sanderson) mentioned the great desire along the lines of unity in Canada. I do not think, if I may respectfully say so, that he started very well when he made an attack on Toronto and Toronto members, and to that I consider it my duty to take exception. I do not know that any hon. members from the city of Toronto made any attack on the hon. member or his constituency, nor do I think they have the desire to do so. Toronto in no way considers that its members have any more privileges than any other members in this House. They know they have not, and have never assumed to have, which is quite contrary to the statement made by my hon. friend. The members from Toronto as a rule adhere very closely to the basis of protection and the safeguarding of industry. That is largely the policy of the people of Toronto. But my hon. friend must not think that they are doing it with any ill intention to any other part of the country. They conscientiously believe that that is the one policy that will build up every constituency in Canada, and that is why they uphold that policy. If I may respectfully suggest it, the hon. member, in talking that way, while he made a great appeal for concord, is really talking discord. I am sure it will be agreed that the less discord we have in this House the better.

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

Frederick George Sanderson

Liberal

Mr. SANDERSON:

Will the hon. member permit an interruption? I am glad he has come to that frame of mind, and it is a pity he did not arrive at it before he delivered his speech in Toronto attacking the Liberal members from Saskatchewan.

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

Richard Langton Baker

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BAKER:

I am very sorry if I have annoyed the hon. member in any way. I did not intend to do so

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

Frederick George Sanderson

Liberal

Mr. SANDERSON:

The hon. member has not annoyed me at all.

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

Richard Langton Baker

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BAKER:

Referring to the budget, I think the government ought really to be very grateful to Providence that they were able to do so well for the year ending March 1926. I am quite positive that it was not because

of their fiscal policy, a policy which drove 560,000 registered Canadians to the United States and likely 100,000 to 200,000 more who were unregistered. If we had not been blessed with bountiful crops it would be quite another story. Providence sometimes expect^ us to help ourselves by good judgment and good policy. Some people have said that this is a poor man's budget. I cannot quite see it that way. In fact I claim that if the fiscal policy of this country were correct we would not be in need of any poor man's budget; there would not be any poor man. Why should we have a fiscal policy which will produce the poor man, and then make a budget to help him? I do not think that is good business; it does not sound reasonable.

One hon. member called this budket a "common people's budget." I do not accept that word " common ", I do not think it is up to date in this age at all. Some people say it is the people's budget. In my opinion it is nothing but a straight clean-cut political budget, designed for election purposes, regardless of the results to Canada. It is a political budget designed to catch votes for the government rather than to encourage investments in industry, to improve our internal trade conditions and increase prosperity throughout the country.

There are many arguments which I could present against this budget, -but the points I am bringing forward in discussing it may show why I come to that conclusion. The estimates-which are only estimates-show a credit for the year ending March, 1926, of possibly $22,300,000. That is pretty close sailing; however, it is better than showing a deficit. We must remember, of course, that we paid very heavy taxes to get this amount of $22,300,000. We paid more than that amount in taxes, and we paid more than we should have paid, so that this showing is only made on the excess collection of taxes plus the assistance of prosperity. It is very gratifying to see the improved condition of the National railways. It is good to see that they are gradually coming to the point where the loss is less and less each year, and we hope they will soon be able to show a profit instead of a loss and be in a position to pay the interest they owe the government, meet the commitments involved in the guarantees, and so on. We are glad to see that Providence has helped us in the receipts from the railroad. It has subscribed a good deal, but I think the railways could be assisted to come to a paying basis much quicker, or at least as quickly, by an increase of population, which I suggest can only be brought about by an increase of work in this country for the work-

The Budget-Mr. Baker

ingmen. This can only be accomplished by having a full and adequate tariff to protect the industries in which these men may be employed, whether agricultural or manufacturing. We have an excess of exports over imports to the extent of $402,000,000. If we were to add to the imports the smuggled goods, of course that would make a considerable difference. This is only taking into consideration the visible, and if we were to take into consideration the invisible it would make an even different showing. And by the time you made the addition of invisible imports and exports you might find the $402,000,000 gradually dwindle down to a much lower point. For example, we pay in interest to foreign countries $350,000,000 annually. The lumber, pulp, mining products and so on that we export, amount to $369,000,000. That is produced largely by United States and English companies-more largely by United States companies-and all Canada gets out of it is the labour. The value of the goods less the labour goes to the United States; we do not reap the benefit of that. We have here again an increase in the imports of $131,000,000 over those of last year. I do not think that looks very promising, when we know at the same time that our population is leaving the country for want of employment. Then again a question we should consider in connection with these figures is how much of this $796,000,000 of imported goods we should have made in Canada. That should be considered from the point of view of good business- the excess of exports over imports. That to me is a very vital point. If we bought $400,000,000 less we would have $400,000,000 less to pay to foreigners, and that would give us much more to add to our pay rolls at home.

Regarding the export of $1,350,000,000 of our raw material, this should have been manufactured at home and exported in the finished article, or almost finished article, thereby giving employment and paying wages at home. These are the points that deserve deep study in connection with these figures. It looks very good on the surface to speak about our exports, but to get back to the facts, how much have we exported in the raw that we should not have *So exported, and how much have we imported that we should not have imported in the finished article? A consideration of these points is essential if the country is to be put on a sound basis in the matter of internal trade. The success of a country does not necessarily depend upon excessive exports. We might export more and more of our raw materials until our resources were entirely depleted, and although from the standpoint of statistics we should be in a

Baker.]

prosperous condition it is obvious that the contrary would be the case.

In the matter of income taxation, I am glad to see that married men have been exempted up to $3,000. I am also happy to note that unmarried men will have to pay a little more; I think they should and can afford to. One inconsistency in the budget is in my opinion the simultaneous reduction in duties and in income tax; I do not see how this is going to work out. Of course we shall not know until the end of the year, but it seems to me that., with a reduction in duties, more goods will be imported and consequently there will be less activity in home industry, so that there will be less to collect by way of income tax. I am afraid the government is taking a long chance of having an improvement of conditions in the coming year, but if Providence is not equally as good to us as it was last year in the west, then undoubtedly there will be a nice balance to the bad when the reckoning is made.

The automobile question has provoked considerable controversy, and while I do not intend to deal with it at any length, seeing that it has been very well discussed on both sides of the House, I do not think that anyone will dispute the fact that as a result of the reduction in duties the industry is being, and will be, disturbed. We are all agreed on that point, I think. I am in perfect agreement with the view expressed in the amendment of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) that, had this whole subject been referred to the Tariff Advisory Board which has been appointed, the present serious situation would have been averted. As it is the lack of confidence on the part of investors in industry, due directly to the action of the government, will greatly impair industry with a consequent loss to the Dominion.'

I note that the preferential tariff is to apply only to such goods as are shipped directly through Canadian ports. That is as it should be and always should have been. And as regards the tariff in relation to sugar, I agree with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Chaplin), who went rather fully into the matter, that the present proposal will work to the injury of Canadian beet growers. The hon. member stated his case quite clearly and I did not hear anyone contradict it. Here is another industry which the government is attacking without due investigation. Why should we give a preference to farmers in the West Indies in discrimination against our own Canadian agriculturists?

A good deal has been said about prosperity, several members opposite supporting the government having dealt at length on the point.

The Budget-Mr. Baker

I do not know how the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) figures out that Canada is in so very prosperous a condition to-day. Suppose we have $400,000,000 of exports in excess of imports; does that necessarily imply that we are prosperous? What are the internal conditions of the country? That is the criterion. Are we yearning for people to come in to fill up our workshops to keep the wheels of industry turning? Are we advertising for thousands of men who are badly needed to meet the growing demands of industry for labour? Or, on the other hand, [DOT] are our people leaving Canada to seek work elsewhere? In the answer to that question lies the evidence of prosperity or lack of it. Do not let us ask the Minister of Finance whether we are prosperous; let us go to the chartered accountants throughout the country who make up the annual statements of our business concerns, and to our bank managers. They can tell us just how prosperous we are in industry, merchandising, and so forth. Let us ask, too, the income tax department, according to whose returns we collected in 1921 $100,000,000 as compared with less than $50,000,000 in 1925. It is to such people that we must go to find out whether or not we are prosperous, and not to the speeches of men who look at these things from the political point of view. Let us get down to facts. If I am asked whether we have had prosperity in Canada in the past year I say, yes, in the west where Providence did the work. But in central Canada and the east, where the government did the damage by failing to safeguard industry by means of adequate protection, I answer, no. That is my opinion and I happen to know something about the matter, for I am in a position to learn the conditions throughout the country. I am in touch all the time with the pulse of our internal trade from Halifax to Vancouver. The exodus of our people surely is one evidence that we are not enjoying the prosperity which we are told we are having at present. If this country were as prosperous as hon. members make out, people would be coming into Canada from the United States. That is the natural course for migration. People naturally move from the older to the younger country; they do not go from the younger to the older. That is the unnatural route for people to take when they are seeking to better their conditions, and the fact that Canadians are going to the United States to look for work proves positively that things are not so prosperous in Canada.

This country is not following a rational course in the matter of tariff policies and budgets. Surely the right thing to do in connection with any business or undertaking is first to lay your plan and then to work it out. On that principle, should we not first decide whether we in Canada desire to be an agricultural community, pure and simple, or a nation devoted to a happy combination of agriculture and manufacturing? Should we not decide that question first, and then go ahead? If we settled that point we would be kind enough to stop United States manufacturers coming into Canada and spending large sums of money putting up plants which sooner or later, as a result of interference with tire tariff, will not be required? On the other hand, if we decided that we needed both agriculture and industry, we could stop people coming here with the mistaken idea that we were a free trade country and that we did nothing but grow wheat for export. We could, too, by coming to a clearcut decision let our young people know in time whether it would be worth their while remaining in Canada or saving so many years of their lives by getting out of the country. Just think of the millions of dollars we are spending educating thousands of our young men simply to see them pouring over the line into the United States. We could stop that waste if we had a decisive policy as to what we intended doing. Surely we should have some such policy and pursue it instead of following, as we are doing now, a course that offers no encouragement to industry or business and that holds out no inducement to our workingmen to remain in Canada.

Some people ask the question whether Canada is adapted to manufacturing, and there are those who say that it is essentially an agricultural country. I say that Canada is suitable for manufacturing. Do hon. gentlemen realize that we can produce manufactured goods 300 days in the year, whereas agriculture can produce only for a short period in each year? Some hon. gentlemen say that our climate is a handicap; I think we talk too much against our climate.

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

William John Ward

Progressive

Mr. WARD:

I do not think the hon. member is familiar with agriculture or he would not make that statement, that agriculture is carried on for three or four months of the year.

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

Richard Langton Baker

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BAKER:

Let me substitute for "three

or four months," if I said it the words, "a lesser portion of the year."

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

May 6, 1926