May 7, 1926

LIB

Alfred Stork

Liberal

Mr. STORK:

I will deal with that later

on.

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

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

How much later?

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

Alfred Stork

Liberal

Mr. STORK:

Evidently Mr. Ford has

decided to get along without the assistance of the high tariff saviours in this country. We find that a budget was presented to the House on Thursday, April 15, in which the announcement was made that duties on automobiles would be lowered. The Oshawa automobile factory closed on Friday, and we on this side of the House wonder whether or not the closing of the Oshawa factory was not advised by the famous board of strategy which has been operating in this House. I would imagine, judging from subsequent events, that the board of strategy had something to do with that. We saw a vast delegation parading through Ottawa carrying banners like an army, these banners describing e%]ery physical ill in the country, but there was one that I thought might very well have been carried in that parade, and that would be a banner stating that the Oshawa factory was closed on Friday for political reasons and would be opened on Monday for business reasons. We heard many prophecies in regard to what is going to happen to industries which were favoured by a reduction in tariff. In the last parliament a reduction of duties was made in regard to agricultural implements. I believe that reduction cost this government a seat in the city of Brantford. The election took place in the latter days of October. Strong statements were made in regard to the injury done to the manufacturer of agricultural implements, and yet I find that on January 28, a very few months after the election, the Massey-Harris Company held their annual meeting, and the report of the business year just closed was the best in the whole history of that company barring one particular year. We find that they had an increase of over $1,300,000 in net profits during the year ending November 30, 1925. The report reads:

An increase of $1,300,000 in the net profits of the company during the year ending November 30. 1925, is recorded in the financial statement. Current liabilities during the year were reduced by $5,000,000.

The Budget-Mr. Stork

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

Henry Alfred Mullins

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MULLINS:

Since the tariff has been taken off, how 'much cheaper can you buy a binder?

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

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

Forty-four

dollars.

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

Henry Alfred Mullins

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MULLINS:

The price is higher now than before the change in the tariff.

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

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

You can buy a binder in the city of Regina for $4.4 less.

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

Alfred Stork

Liberal

Mr. STORK:

One great benefit accruing

to the Dominion under the provisions of the present budget is the fact that, for all time to come it places in its grave the ghost of the whisper of death. A great deal of time has been spent ,and a great deal of newspaper ink has been used in trying to prove to the people of Canada that the whisper of death prevails in the whole of this great country. So far as the province of British Columbia is concerned there is no whisper of death west of the Rocky mountains. British Columbia does not swallow propaganda in regard to this country going to smash simply because the Tory party is not in power guiding the affairs of the great Dominion of Canada.

Even the hon. member for East Lambton, brought up again the claim of injury resulting from the Australian treaty. The Australian treaty has had a marvellous effect upon the prosperity of British Columbia. I wish to quote briefly from a newspaper which I think no one can accuse of being particularly favourable to the Liberal party in that province. I quote from the Vancouver Province of Tuesday, November 3, 1925, just a few days after the general election. I will not quote the whole extract. It goes on to outline what will happen in the way of development in British Columbia and it winds up with this statement:

The King government, during its four years in office, has not had many opportunities of serving the country in a Abroad and constructive way, but the negotiation of the treaty with Australia, is one good work which stands to its credit.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

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

PRIVATE BILL SECOND HEADING


Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Red Lake and Northwestern Railway Company-Mr. Heenan.


THE BUDGET

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


The House resumed the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (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 Hon. R. J. Manion.


LIB

Alfred Stork

Liberal

Mr. STORK:

Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was proceeding to say that this government has been largely responsible for the prosperity which the province of British Columbia is now enjoying. I have in my hand a newspaper to which I am sure our friends opposite will take no exception; it is the Mail and Empire. It contains a half page advertisement headed "A young giant still expanding." Appearing in such a paper, I am sure the House will agree with me that it should have the effect of knocking off the funeral plumes from that defunct Canada which the Tory party has been so eager to convey to its political graveyard. After setting forth the prosperity in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, it has this to say of British Columbia :

British Columbia is in the throes of the greatest development in iher history. The visitor of any of her cities or towns feels this the 'moment he steps off the train or steamboat. This great pulsating throb of new life is reflected in heavy investments in buildings and commercial enterprises arising out of her basic wealth in mines, forests, fisheries and the fruits of the Bodl.

That, I believe, is a fair statement of fact. British Columbia is enjoying a wonderful period of prosperity. The Toronto Globe of yesterday contains a short editorial headed, "How it helps the west," and I have no doubt the House will be interested to hear it. It reads:

Additional vindication of the Canadian-Australian preferential treaty, if such were needed, is seen in the impetus which it is giving

Lack of markets has hampered development otf the immense resources of British Columbia. It is credited with having available more than 285,000,000 coTds of pulpwood, consisting chiefly of spruce, western hemlock and balsam. As recently as 1910 not a ton of pulp or paper was manufactured in the province. To-day it ranks next to Ontario and Quebec, with a capital investment of some $41,000,000, giving employment to more than 2,500 persons. The two existing mills are turning out 200 tons of newsprint per day, and this

The Budget-Mr. Stork

will be doubled when the two new mills are operating. It is estimated that the value of this product iwill shortly reach $20,000,000 a year, much of it finding its way to Australia.

This is further evidence of the beneficial effect of the Australian treaty on British Columbia. In the county of Skeena, which I have the honour to represent, there is one of the finest pulp and paper plants to be found anywhere on .the North American continent. It is located at Ocean Falls, and I am credibly informed that the proprietors intend still further to extend their buildings.

The Australian treaty also gives a market for the fish canned in British Columbia. I assert that this government has done more to promote the fishing industry of my province than any preceding government. The budget places sheet tin, which is used in the manufacture of cans, on the free list, thus giving further benefit to one of our basic industries. The county of Skeena is an extensive area and contains vast natural wealth, fishing being one of its basic industries. In this connection I wish to place on Hansard some statistics which I have received to-day from the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and from which it will be apparent that my constituency produces a great deal of the fish taken in the province. This is the statement respecting halibut:

Statement showing the quantity of halibut landed in the province of British Columbia and also District No. 2 during the past five years 1921-1925 inclusive.

Total landings for the Whole province

Cwt.

1921 325,868

1922 293,184

1923 334,667

1924 331,382

1925 309,598

Landings for District No. 2

. Cwt.

1921 252,558

1922 252,753

1923 299,092

1924 293,728

1925!'. 287,415

This gives us some idea, Mr. Speaker, of the important part played by the county of Skeena in the halibut fishing industry of British Columbia. I would now like to read the figures, compiled in the same way, having to do with the salmon fishing industry. Statement showing the quantity of salmon landed in the province of British Columbia and also District No. 2 during the past five years 1921-1925 inclusive.

Total landings for the whole province

Cwt.

jg2i 842,026

1922 1,509,075

1923.. !! .. [DOT]' .*.* 1,514.765

1924 1,965,159

ms/.;;;; ;; 1,711,369

Landings for District No. 2

Cwt.

1921 414,773

1922 828,396

1923'.' 819,517

1924 1,087,094

1925 1,033,870

I have said, Mr. Speaker, that this government has done a great deal for the development of the fishing industry of British Columbia. In 1922 a commission was appointed to investigate the whole of the fishing industry, both halibut and salmon, and every phase of the question was investigated. It was felt that the industry was so important, that so many interests were involved and so many men required consideration, that in place of bringing them all to Ottawa a commission should tour the province and in that way consider every angle of the situation. That commission was very successful; sittings were held in every part of British Columbia, 191 witnesses were examined and a report brought in which was adopted by the government of the day. As a result, the tax on canneries was reduced from $500 to $20; the tax on purse seines was reduced from $300 to $20; the tax on drag seines was reduced from $50 to $20, and the tax of one-half cent per fish caught in seines was abolished. This one item alone meant a tremendous increase in revenue to those engaged in the fishing industry. The license fee was reduced from $5 to $1; the duty on gas engines used for fishing boats was reduced; nets, twine and gear were placed on the free list; the use of gas boats was authorized-

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

Harry Bernard Short

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHORT:

Might I ask a question?

Have not nets and fishing gear always been on the free list?

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

Alfred Stork

Liberal

Mr. STORK:

I think not.

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

Harry Bernard Short

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHORT:

I think so. You will find

that fishing gear of all kinds has been on the free list for many years.

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

Alfred Stork

Liberal

Mr. STORK:

I think I am correct. At

any rate, the use of gas boats was authorized for the first time on the Naas and Skeena rivers. Prior to to that the old method had been employed, while gas boats had been permitted on the Fraser river and in other parts ' of British Columbia. In the north they were still compelled to do their work by those methods which had obtained on the sea of Galilee some two thousand years ago. The fishermen of that country are now permitted to pursue their calling in safety by use of the modern gas boat. A policy was also adopted by the government placing the fishing industry solely in the hands of whites

The Budget-Mr. Stork

and native Indians. In 1923 there was a reduction of 40 per cent in fishing licenses granted to others than whites and native Indians; in the year following there was a further reduction of 15 per cent along that line, and now the total elimination of others than whites and native Indians is definitely in sight.

In the matter of old age pensions I know of no class of citizens which will hail the advent of such a bill with greater delight than will those fishermen who go down to the sea in ships and elce out a hard livelihood. They grow old quickly in the fishing game, esepecially on the stormy, rock-bound coast of the north Pacific, and those men will welcome the announcement that an old age pension system is to be brought into force.

In 1911, Mr. Speaker, we had an election in this country, held in connection with a reciprocity arrangement. The real issues of that election were lost sight of, and the slogan of our friends opposite became, "No truck or trade with the Yankees." Our American friends to the south naturally heard the people of Canada repeating that slogan, and said, "That is fair enough; we will have no truck or trade with the Canadians," and as a result we now have the Fordney tariff. We have heard a good deal recently about this "brick for brick" policy, but it seems to me to be a question of a brickbat for a brickbat, and the first brickbat thrown hit the fishermen on the Skeena river right in the eye. The high tariff has no supporters in the county of Skeena. I have just placed on Hansard a table showing the tremendous amount of halibut taken from the north Pacific, and the people who are catching halibut are free traders; the high tariff _ makes no hit with them. They are shipping this vast amount of halibut largely to the American market; it goes out over the Canadian National railways in refrigerators cars and contributes largely to the revenues of the Canadian National, since each refrigerator car earns about $1,000 in the transportation of fish.

But we are under a very grievous disadvantage ^ in connection with this market. Halibut is sold in the open market by auc- * fdon, and our Canadian fishermen receive two cents per pound less than do the American fishermen who market their catch in that port. All the fish are supposed to be destined for the American market; the buyer, anticipating that he will have to pay the two cent duty, deducts that amount from the price paid the fisherman. Thus this duty of two cents per pound has been for some time

a burning question with those people. Negotiations have been carried on and are still in progress, and we urgently and earnestly hope that they will result in the abolition of this duty.

As a result of the improvement in the fishing industry we find two new canneries being built in the northern part of the county of Skeena, and there is also a newly established biological station, put into operation by the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the study of fish life and the general advantage of the trade. At that station they are discovering new varieties and new species of fish. I have lived for a long time in the north country. I have been in the province of British Columbia for some thirty-seven years, and there are varieties of fish there of which I have never heard before. Only last fall, over on the north shore of Queen Charlotte islands, I found a brand new industry. At a little town called Tow Hill there has been established a new clam canning factory. When we speak of clams we all have in our mind's eye the old style of shell which litters the ocean beach, but this particular clam which they are developing at Tow Hill is a brand new variety, and I would imagine it to be the aristocrat of the clam tribe. It is enclosed in a case which looks very much like a spectacle case that a man might use, made of tortoise shell. The shells are as thin as paper, beautiful in finish and colour, about 7 inches long and If inches wide, with the ends rounded. They make a very beautiful looking shell. These clams are of such a quality that there is an unlimited market for them. It is something entirely new. This is just one instance of what can be procured by scientific research, by investment and by the far-sightedness of the people who live in that country.

I discovered while I was at Tow Hill that they have there one of the finest natural beaches, I should think, on the known globe to-day. It has been my good fortune to have visited the beaches in California, the sands at Blackpool and Ostend, and I say without hesitation that on the north shore of Queen Charlotte islands is a sand beach as hard as a cement floor, fifty miles in extent-the greatest natural speedway that one could find anywhere. Fifty, yes, one hundred, automobiles could race along this speedway for fifty miles, and I am sure that when Sir Henry Thornton gets his eye on this locality, with his desire to attract world tourists and build up the Canadian National railway, when he brings to bear his activity on that section of the country, we shall have an improved steamboat service from Prince

The Budget-Mr. Stork

Rupert to Alaska via the Queen Charlotte islands. This beach I speak of is one of the greatest natural advantages, I think, which the whole of the north country possesses. If Burns or Byron had visited such a spot, it would be interesting to see what they would have produced in the way of description of what I regard as one of the greatest wonders of the North American continent.

Seventeen years ago, in the town of Prince Rupert, Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, who was then the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and also of its subsidiary the Grand Trunk Pacific, made a speech in which he said he regretted the fact that he was an old man with not many more years to live, but that even at his age he hoped to see before he died the fulfilment of the project of the Grand Trunk Pacific. He said he hoped to see going out of the port of Prince Rupert the trade and traffic of the western prairies, and coming back through that port the wealth of the Orient. This grand old man has long since passed to his rest. The defeat of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1911, the death of Charles M. Hays, the change of government in 1911, the stress of war, the further fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific had its throat cut by Mackenzie and Mann,-due to all these things the development of that great country has been temporarily arrested. There was a period of stagnation between 1911 and 1921, but, Sir, under the present Prime Minister, and under the genius of Sir Henry Thornton, this country is now beginning to be developed, and with the tremendous improvement in the situation of the Canadian National Railways, as stated in the budget, and with the improvement of the Grand Trunk Pacific, we can look forward to the future as being bright and promising.

Before I resume my seat I wish to deal for one moment with a matter which received a great deal of adverse criticism and unfavourable advertisement during the last election campaign. From every Tory newspaper in the Dominion of Canada and from every Tory platform throughout this country there was hurled at the Prince Rupert elevator the charge that it was one of the crimes of the Mackenzie King government. Even in the recent by-election in Middlesex, if I am correctly informed, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) took further occasion to refer to this matter. Our Conservative friends, who have had so much to say in denunciation of this proposition, ought to remember that within three months of the day they came into office in 1911 their first act in this despised town of Prince Rupert was

to expropriate from their own friends 100 feet of frontage on Third avenue, at a price, set by their own board of arbitrators, of $95,000. Then out of the native rock they chiselled a basement at an additional cost of $25,000. We have a very wet climate in that part of the country, and this post office site was so located that it acted as a drain pool for the surrounding land, with the result that this basement filled up with water. Then our loyal friends who think so much of Prince Rupert installed an electric pump, operated by one of their own friends. This pump would work night and day pumping out the water, and those of us in the north country who were doing what we could to keep up our courage during the dark days of the war had our courage renewed and our spirits revived by listening night and day to the patriotic heart throbs of the Tory pump working in the government cellar. When they criticize this Prince Rupert elevator they ought to say that they themselves in 1911 gave the people of that north country reason to hope that they had located in a place that would be advantageous. Let me say that this elevator at Prince Rupert has been completed now only a matter of seven or eight weeks. The sawdust and the shavings have scarcely been removed, but still things are moving. The elevator there will be used. The dream of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the speech of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, and the hope of Charles M. Hays will yet be realized. The elevator at Prince Rupert will hold grain that will be exported shortly to the Orient, and in return there will come back to the Canadian National railways for transportation to the east the silk of Japan and of China, and other oriental wealth. The prophecy of the grand old man who has gone to his rest is coming true. It is coming true rapidly, and it is heartening to pioneers of that northern country who have staked their all, and who are living in the hope of seeing the completion of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and of witnessing the prosperity that is bound to come in time to the whole of the northern part of the province of British Columbia.

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

Thomas Langton Church

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):

Mr. Speaker, I believe that any tariff introduced into this House should be based on the principle of protection. In my opinion a proper application of the principle of protection will solve all the economic ills of every province in the Dominion from Vancouver to Halifax. I believe in protection as a principle, not as a privilege. I do not believe in

The Budget-Mr. Church

can prove anything by figures. Then fourth, is the stabilization of currency. They have not accomplished anything in that line. The fifth item is the reorganization of industry. They have accomplished nothing in this regard. There is no way of reversing the order of these steps or of skipping a step. Progress in each stage depends absolutely upon a complete fulfilment of the requirements of the stage preceding. By the application of this yardstick one may be aided in distinguishing between those disturbances Which strike at the foundations of the economic structure and those which represent merely some house cleaning in the upper stories. As I say they failed on all points.

Then I say that a safeguarding of industries act should be applied as a principle to our raw material instead of our exporting them to the United States, to have them manufactured there into the finished product and shipped back to this country for sale. As I said before, unemployment in this country is due to the fact that we have failed to develop our own natural resources and to conserve our own raw material. We are exporting in the raw and crude state to the United States various materials that we could manufacture at home. Take for example the case of asbestos; we are sending out $6,000,000 worth of raw asbestos taken from the bowels of the earth in Quebec, and that material when manufactured in the United States yields a return of some $75,000,000. We are exporting mica, nickel, pulpwood, power and coal. If we manufactured or utilized these articles in this country, it would provide work for tens of thousands of men. Canada supplied 85 per cent of the mica of the world, and 95 per cent to the United States. In 1924 Canada sold 112,000 tons of mica to the United States in the mill fibre state, only one degree removed from the crude. For that we received $5,546,000. When that was manufactured in the United States, it realized $70,000,000 worth of the finer products of asbestos, and another $10,000,000 worth of rough asbestos. Had we developed our own mica, $80,000,000 would have been distributed among Canadians.

Canada controls the world's supply of nickel. We need fear no competition in this particular article. We should develop nickel in our own country and help provide employment here. Canada's great nickel deposits give the United States all its supply and the world 85 per cent of its supply. Canada is limping along on a low tariff while the United States grows prosperous on a high tariff, three times as high as ours. The United States controls seventy-

five per cent of the silk business of the world and seventy-five per cent of the rubber manufacturing, and yet not an ounce of rubber oi silk raw materials is produced in that country. A proper protective tariff would induce growth and expansion here as nothing else in the world could.

No one knows better than the grain growers in the west what need there is for some change in our system. Their grain is being taken across the line to Buffalo where there are now twenty-eight elevators, and it is being milled there, mixed with American wheat and exported overseas, while the identity of Canada's fine hard wheat is destroyed. All the employment that is furnished by those twenty-eight elevators in Buffalo would give work to

15.000 men at Port 'Colborne and other lake Ontario points, if a duty and embargo were placed up to 45 per cent on wheat, having it milled in Canada and exported entirely through Canadian channels. I am glad that we are getting some converts in this regard, one hon. member to my left having advocated this policy.

We are certainly not developing our natural resources in this country as we should, for if we manufactured our mica and utilized our power and our coal in this country we could provide work for tens of thousands of men. Last year Canada sold 4,350,000 cords of pulp-wood to the United States, receiving $13,000,000 for it, while this raw pulpwood was converted in the United States into a value of $67,000,000. We sent one-third as cordwood, one-third as pulp, and one-third as paper. We are also sending $100,000,000 every year to the mine owners in Pennsylvania. We could use $56,000,000 of that sum to provide work and wages in the Maritime provinces, in Alberta and in central Canada. And do not forget that Canada on the other side of the account buys back the manufactured products of these raw mineral materials which are manufactured in other countries. Do not forget that copper, as a raw material, is being exported in bulk and is being manufactured in the United States into articles worth millions of dollars. For example, I know a large firm in Toronto which last Christmas purchased

30.000 radio machines made in New York, Boston and Providence, and the best parts of these sets were manufactured from Canadian copper. Last year Great Britain purchased about 145,000 tons of copper, and Germany took three times that amount.

The Liberal government have done everything by fits and starts; they have not ac-

The Budget-Mr. Church

complished anything with the tariff. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) did not approach the subject from the standpoint of the Liberal platform of 1893, because not one of the planks of that platform has been carried out. Hon. Alexander Mackenzie said:

There is no .policy more consistent with what we call the dark ages of the world than that of protection as a principle.

I would apply protection as a principle all over the country. He says further:

There is no principle more consistent with the advance of human freedom, no principle more in accordance with the great prosperity which prevails in our time, than that of absolute freedom of commerce.

Here is a quotation from a speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the Liberal convention in Winnipeg. He said:

If the National Policy had any basis at all it was that the bread of the peopile should be taxed. It was an inhuman policy that would make bread and fuel dearer. It as always easy to increase the tariff because by so doing you increase the private fortunes of certain individuals.

We stand for freedom. I denounce the policy of protection as bondage-yes bondage; and I refer to bondage in the same manner in which American slavery was bondage; not in the same degree, perhaps, but in the same manner. In the same manner the people of Canada, the inhabitants of the city of Winnipeg especially, are toiling for a master who takes away not every cent of profit but a very large percentage, a very large portion of your earnings for which you sweat and toil.

I will not quote any further regarding that particular convention, but on the tariff issue the Liberals of this country have never had a settled policy since Sir Wilfrid Laurier was their leader in 1897. The principles of Liberalism of which we hear so much from! the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Mackenzie King) produced this state of affairs. It has been a disturbance in the economic life of the nation. The principles of Liberalism, so often on the lips of Mackenzie King, were faithfully applied by him to the tariff question and produced a bluff designed solely to fool a sufficient number of the electors to get into office. There was never any real concern in the mind of Mr. King, as there was never any in the mind of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, of a stable tariff for Canada. The Progressive movement in western Canada has been betrayed by its leaders, who are Liberals first. The sincere Progressives backed the movement in protest against Sir Wilfrid Laurier's failure to carry out his promises of free trade. But the leaders who came to the front in the Progressive party were men with feet of clay. They fell quite readily into the traps set by the Liberals. Instead of punishing the Liberal party, which

furnished the sole reason for starting the Progressive movement, the Progressives have proved themselves a prop and a stay to give the Liberal party a longer lease on life. The only difference between the two is the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee.

I believe the National Policy should further be applied to the patent law of this country. If j'ou look over the Dominion patent office records you will find that a vast number of patents are held by Americans; they come over here Monday, leave on Tuesday with a patent, and go home to the United States and manufacture under the patent. That applies to patents for engines and motor cars. I w:sh to draw the attention of the House to a great grievance in this connection, to an evil that is wrought in any country against its labour and which is every day working in Canada. Our patent laws are absurd. They are pro-American and anti-Canadian; that is all they are. They are very injurious to the labour interests of Canada and have the effect of sending our workmen to the United States. The patent law is framed in a way to give the benefit to all those outside of Canada rvhile our labourers in Canada are suffering. In the majority of the patents granted in the Dominion patent protection is given to persons outside of this country, and the products to which they relate are made or manufactured and shipped in to Canada, giving no labour in the making or manufacturing of the same to the workers of this country-just a case of dump, dump, dump under the protection of the so-called patent law. That is a nice kind of patent law for a national policy country like Canada. Books, periodicals, magazines and a host of other printed matter printed in other countries and having copyright protection in this country are shipped here involving no more labour in Canada than transportation and distribution. A number of automobile manufacturers with patents are only assembling the cars here, giving the labour of making the parts to workmen in other countries.

Machinery of all descriptions, household articles, wearing apparel and other articles toe numerous to mention are patented here and made elsewhere. In regard to chemical processes for the refining of minerals, the raw material is shipped from Canada to the United States to be refined and the finished product is shipped back to this country. Why can that refining not be done in Canada? There is direct and indirect labour involved in the manufacture of all these articles and other countries are reaping the full benefit of

The Budget-Mr. Church

having the labour done by their workmen. I understand that ninety per cent of the patents, trade marks and copyrights that are granted in Canada are granted to persons outside of Canada who manufacture these articles and ship them to this country. This is not a square deal to either our labour or our industries, and as long as this state of thing continues we shall have a large number of our workmen out of employment involving in labour and business a loss of thousands of millions of dollars annually to the Dominion.

These patent laws should provide that if any person applies for patent protection on any article and receives a patent, he must manufacture the article and all the parts leading up to the finished article in Canada, and if the manufacture of the article in Canada is not commenced within six months from the date of the issue of the patent, it shall become void. This will give the person a reasonable time within which to manufacture the article. I firmly believe . that if these patent laws were framed as I have pointed out they would be the means of giving proper and greater protection to our labour and industries, they would encourage new industries to establish here, and in time they would make Canada a much more prosperous nation than she otherwise would be. Those are my views on the question of patents and protection as a principle applied to patents.

I am of opinion that it is just as fair and honourable and we have just the same right for national reasons to use the weapon of the tariff to save, defend and protect our country from the dumping of foreign goods as to call out the militia in our hour of peril to defend our land against the attacks and invasion of an armed foreign foe. The war taught Canada a lesson. If we can carry into peace the lessons learned in war all will be well. A national policy is as essential in peace as in war, and the basis of that policy is protection for the people, diversified and suited to the needs of every province as the local \pircumstances, customs and economic requirements of each province demands; in other words, a national policy brought up to date, a living national policy that will live and move and have its being for the upbuilding of a united Canada. Such a principle of protection alone can make in all the provinces for a united Canada for the Canadians. Such a policy would stop the exodus and bring our boys back from the United States. It would eliminate the deficits on our National railways; it would enable us to promote migration within the empire, solve the unem-

ployment problem, take care of our raw materials and conserve and preserve the magnificent heritage this country has.

I believe in such a tariff, a maximum tariff, not a minimum one, as will prevent Canada from being as it is now the home and happy hunting ground of United States millionaires who are grabbing up our timber, mineral and water power wealth, such a tariff as will stop the exodus, prevent the foolish export of our raw materials and cause them to be manufactured in Canada thus creating employment and keeping our people in this country.

As protection has been attacked so much during the course of this debate, I wish to say a word or two about it. Such attacks are enough to make a Canadian disown his country. Will this never stop? Is it not possible to create an industry of any kind in Canada? Apparently it is not on account of the uncertainty of the tariff. We are fast becoming the five, ten and fifteen cent country of the world the way things are going on at the present time.

During this debate one of the speakers referred to the Mother Country and free trade. I would like to read this article which appeared in one of the British papers which shows how a "little child shall lead them":

London, England, Jan. 21.-A small boy, recently admitted to a local hospital, was weak and near death from hunger. He was one of a family of twelve and his father's wages amounted to about $20 a week.

When the nurse gave the boy a cup of warm milk he asked appealingly, "How far down can I drink?" The crowds that cheered for Gladstone,

The mobs that roared for Bright In tariff-hating Manchester,

Home of the Cobdenite-

They never saw the guerdon won Nor glimpsed the accolade-

A little child has led them To the triumph of free trade.

He never studied theories Nor read the master's rule;

He never heard in high debate The great Manchester school;

The harder school in which he learned Had whips that racked and flayed Where hunger taught the meaning And the glory of free trade.

'Neath their high domes, in lofty halls Where well-fed thousands sat,

To cheer the self-sufficient fools Prating of this and that,

They set no limit to the tongue No boundary to mood-

And now the London urchin Must*set limits to his food!

My lords and gentlemen whose pride The great Gladstone hath fed,

Ye high and mighty doctrinaires,

By Cobden always led,

Doff all your gorgeous uniforms,

Your tinsel and parade;

Learn ye from this lone youngster's plight 'Hie glory of free trade.

The Budget-Mr. Church

Has free trade solved the unemployment situation in the Old Country, where more than a million men are receiving the dole? Has it made unemployment insurance unnecessary? Has it prevented England from becoming the dumping ground of continental Europe for cheap, shoddy German goods? Has it made the poor laws unnecessary? No. England is fast coming round to protection. Even Lloyd George's land bill of the other day is a protectionist bill all along the line.

Coming from an industrial district in which there is much unemployment, I deem it my duty to-day to bring before the House the question of additional protection for the industries of the country, and to urge that what Canada needs at the present time is a proper Safeguarding of Industries Act. The subject of protection is many-sided and should be brought up to date to meet the changed conditions that have taken place since the inception of this great fiscal public boon in 1878. I support it. not for its own sake, but because it is essential for Canada's sake. No one needs to apologize for what protection has done for Canada. I support it for principle's sake, and on the grounds of patriotism.

Canada must choose between protection and free trade, and the difference between them is as wide as the poles. Protection is not and should not be thought of solely as a manufacturers' or bankers' question, or that it exists for the sole benefit of manufacturers. Protection is a great economic question of principle and of patriotism, and of life and death to Canadians. The big interests, who seek to grab all the benefits of protection for themselves, are its worst friends, and do the great movement little good. It should not be a manufacturers' question; or a banking question; or a grain growers' question; or a combine question; or a monopoly question at all. Protection should be brought up to date to meet changed conditions, and extended. Protection will make for a better Canada, and a happier and more contented people, with work plentiful; it will make Canada a country fit for heroes who have fought for Canada to live and die in, instead of being driven to join the exodus.

I am tired of those who, for their own selfish ends, sometimes seek to apologize for protection as a question of expediency. If protection is solely a question of a manufacturer's or banker's profits, it is sure to die. As an honest protectionist, the great question of protection is one which I support, not for the manufacturers' or bankers' sake, but for Canada's sake. It is with me a question of 14011-205

both patriotism and principle, for the building up of a united Canada; and the principle should be extended and maintained so as to extend, conserve, build up, develop, and preserve all the provinces of Canada from coast to coast. I propose later to show how protection, adequate protection, should be developed and built up by additions and conservation, to further develop each of the provinces according to its needs, resources and economic development, and the pyschol-ogy of protection as applied to Canada.

Some forty-seven years have now passed since the dead hero of protection in this country, Sir John Alexander Macdonald1, first placed on the statute books of this country the old National Policy, and Canada can say of Sir John Macdonald as Rudyard Kipling said of the great John Bunyan: "The wisdom that he taught us is proven prophecy." We heard something in this debate about reciprocity. It was part of the Liberal platform

once; it was part of the platform of the Progressives and the Canadian Council of Agriculture. All I can say in reference to that is that free trade and reciprocity with the United States would make a Lazarus out of a country that Sir Wilfrid Laurier professed to have made a nation. That pro-

9 p.m. posal would exhibit the Canada of Queenston Heights, or St. Julien, of Vimy Ridge, or Passchendaele, of Amiens and many other fields of glory, as a beggar for the poor favour of reciprocity and free trade. Canada cannot prosper on the growth and export of wheat alone. This was shown in the case of the United States. Protection was the path of glory to prosperity for the United States. Those are my views on that particular question.

As I said last year in discussing this subject, free trade kills industry, destroys the young rival, then puts up prices. There is no doubt whatever that the United States imports are a deadly menace to Canada. This was proved beyond any dispute in 1925. High tariffs have saved the United States, the whole prosperity of that country having been built up on that policy. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote briefly from what I said on this subject last year:

These are the facts from the fiscal history of that country. England's imports never menaced in 1844 the native industries of the United States the way American imports are menacing the native industries in Canada in 1925.

The free trade assumption is always false that manufactures are eternally and especially in want of protection, while agriculture and commerce need none. The assumption is false in any sense; our commerce and navigation cannot live without protection, never

The Budget-Mr. Church

did live. It is the interest of the whole eoimtrv which demands that that portion of its industry which is most exposed to ruinous foreign rivalry should be cherished and sustained. The wheat grower, the grazier, is protected now by ocean and land, by the fact that no foreign article can be introduced to rival his except at a cost for transportation of some thirty to one hundred per cent on its value; while our manufactures can be inundated by foreign competition at a cost of some two to ten per cent. It is the grain grower, the cattle raiser, who is protected by a duty on foreign manufactures quite as much as the spinner or shoemaker. He who talks of manufactures and nothing else being protected, might just as sensibly complain that we fortify Halifax and Quebec, but not London or Ottawa.

The United States draws the life blood of Canada in 1925 the wray Britain was in economic history charged with drawing the life blood of Portugal in 1844, industrially. Our low tariff is a boon and aid to the United States. Canada suffers at the hands of the United States, the latter taking advantage of our low tariff, Canada is the happy hunting ground of the American millionaire, who is getting the title deeds of our timber, forests, pulpwood and mines.

There never was a time in the industrial history of Canada when the business men of the country and the producing power stood more in need of sympathetic consideration at the hands of the financial administration of the government than to-day. The crushing burdens and taxes on industry to-day constitute a loss and handicap for business men at a period when every nerve is being strained to develop stability and ensure expansion of production on economical lines.

Last year the minister introduced dumping legislation which would have helped business materially, but he yielded to the importunities of the free traders in the House and finally withdrew it. It is heartrending to go into our departmental stores and see all the cheap German and American goods displayed to the exclusion of our own Canadian products. The fact of the matter is that this country is simply a dumping ground for the excess production of foreign manufacturers. The dumping provision was a good enough Liberal doctrine for Laurier and for Fielding, who recognzed how essential it was in order to protect our manufacturers from altogether unfair competition. German goods are produced under such conditions as make it possible for the manufacturers of that country to undersell the Canadian. Labour is cheaper there, hours of work are longer and there is a depreciation in currency that discriminates against the Canadian manufacturer. Is there any wonder, therefore, that industry is languishing in Canada and that factories are being closed up? It is altogether beyond my comprehension why there should be no dumping regulations in Canada just as there are in every other country on the face of the globe.

IMr. Church.] . . .1 : 5

We are said to have a Labour party in this country but the fact of the matter is that the gentlemen composing that party do not represent labour at all. Mr. Gompers was one of the most astute labour leaders this continent has ever seen. He believed in labour working within the two old parties and was a strong protectionist, not only in principle but in practice, and you could not find a single labour union in the United States to-day that would vote for any resolution which had for its object a reduction of the tariff of that country whether as it affects manufactured products or agriculture. The result is that in the United States to-day labour is a real and effective force and gets a real show. The Labour party in the United States is not a political party. I do not believe in the principles of the hon. gentlemen of the Labour party. Here we have two gentlemen who say they represent labour, yet they vote for reductions in the tariff and for instability and for free trade, instead of voting for labour they vote Grit first, last and all the time. Sir Oliver Mowat was a distinguished Liberal and a friend to labour. His successors, Sir William Meredith and Sir James Whitney, were also strong supporters of Labour. The hydro-electric movement, which has meant so much to labour in Ontario, was introduced by the Conservative party. The country always sends for the Conservative party when it is in trouble. I would not call these hon. gentlemen from Winnipeg viceroys, but perhaps they could properly be termed deputy prime ministers, and I would like to see them quote one labour union in the United States to pass a resolution condemning a high tariff. The late Mr. Gompers was always a protectionist, and not one single state legislature has ever asked for the modification of existing duties. The tendency is to go higher all the time.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the question of industrial research. No department of the government is more important to the development of this country than is an up-to-date department of scientific research. Canada has*to-day some of the finest scientists in the world; an outstanding man in the world of medicine is Dr. Banting, the discoverer of the cure for diabetes. The export of raw material is a mere nothing, in my opinion, to the export of brains. Go to any American university, any faculty of medicine, and you will find it largely composed of Canadians. I believe we should have a student policy in this country for the summer; instead of our students seeking work as cooks and waiters we should provide them with

The Budget-Mr. Church

employment in the different departments of government, in industrial and scientific research and in that way hold that student class in Canada. This exportation of brains, our most valuable manufactured product, is going on all the time. The class in electrical engineering at the university of Toronto last year went almost entirely to the United States.

As Premier Baldwin of England says, "shock absorbers" are necessary in industry. Premier Baldwin said that while science might not save industry in England, it could act as a shock absorber to carry the country through. I have been looking over the record of scientific research in Canada, England, the United States and in other countries, and it is extraordinary to find how industrial research can help everyone. I am sorry to see the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), leaving the chamber; I am afraid he may think I am saying too much about scientific research, which is carried out in his department, but I hope there will be an increased vote to cover this item in the estimates. I was speaking of shock absorbers; let us take the radio. It almost ousted the phonograph, but the makers of the latter instrument were forced to make a better product, and it kept its place. Gas illumination was almost ruined by electric light, and the gas mantle saved it. Nickel companies were satisfied to produce for warfare purposes only, but now they are turning to many useful domestic lines. Coal fuel is in a bad way; this industry had iio shock absorbers because it was of the opinion that it had a perpetual monopoly, when along came petroleum and gasoline. Great Britain, United States, Germany and Canada are countries where the coal business is in a bad way. The by-products of coal can and should be utilized, and will give larger profits than the raw product itself; I predict that in twenty years every coal mine in the country will make liquid fuel at the mine. According to the Montreal papers the Canadian Pacific Railway have placed orders for more coal burning locomotives, but the oil burning car has. come to stay. A new type of gasoline which is now being put on the market will revolutionize the type of motors used in automobiles. The vast future of nitrogen will cause a great upheaval in agriculture. Every industry is being revolutionized by new scientific discoveries. If business is not associated with scientific men, business will go to the wall. The National Research Council is doing good work, and can keep industry informed of what is going on. It can show the time to draw in on one business and expand on another, and any banker should know how that information will affect industry.

Now, let me read one paragraph from the report of the Grain Inquiry Commission:

At the present time, the duty on Canadian wheatentering the United States-is 42 cents per bushel. On wheat flour, semolina, crushed or cracked wheat, and similar wheat products, the duty is $1.04 per hundred pounds. These duties are practically prohibitive, in their effect. They prevent Canadian wheat or wheat products having access to the American domestic market. On the other hand, under the provisions governing milling in bond and drawbacks, it is quite possible for the American millers to obtain Canadian wheat virtually free of duty to grind for export. Considerable quantities of Canadian wheat are ground in American mills and exported abroad under -these conditions. This American flour ground in American mills, but the product of Canadian wheat, enters into competition with the output of the Canadian flour mills. The benefits of manufacture are lost to Canada, while at the same time, the general benefits of reciprocal free trade in the wheat and wheat flour do not exist. It was suggested to us that in view of these conditions, an export duty should be levied at the same rate as in the American tariff, upon Canadian wheat and wheat products entering the United States. The American tariff having already closed effectively the domestic market to the Canadian farmers, the result of such a levy would be to eliminate the export of American flour ground from Canadian wheat, and to transfer this market to the Canadian millers. While, as a general thing, export duties are to be deprecated, the exceptional situation that arises in this instance might warrant such an impost.

I believe there should be 3uch an embargo. It would put the milling industry in this country on its feet. Buffalo has twentyjeight mills bootlegging our Canadian wheat, turning it into flour, and shipping it across the water as the Canadian product. I have looked over the situation in Buffalo, Baltimore and New A ork and seen this bootlegging going on. Canada is losing this export trade, and if we imposed an embargo it would put the grain and the milling industry in this country on its feet. Canadian grain would then go through Canadian channels and through Canadian ports and be milled here, and it would be doing the fair thing by the farmer of the west.

I want to say a word on the automobile question. I believe in protection for the automobile industry as a princjiplet-not as a privilege, but as a principle. I would turn the automobile industry in this country into a native key industry,, and have every unit that enters into the automobile manufactured in this country. I refer you to the Patent office where dozens of Canadian patents for engines are owned by Americans. I would apply the proper policy of protection to the Patent office of this country. I believe in the gospel of protection to make the automobile industry a key and native industry in this country, and not a place to assemble cars; so that we would make in Canada everything that goes into the car from A to Z, from Genesis to Revelations,

The Budget-Mr. Church

so that Canada would cease to be an assembling plant for American parts on which the bulk of the labour is done in the United States.

Then after the car is ready to be shipped out of the factory to the retail store, what principle of protection would I apply? I would have somebody attached to the Department of Finance or the Inland Revenue department who would ascertain what that make of car cost to produce in Canada, and what it cost to produce in the United States. Then eliminating the difference in cost of production, owing to differences! in labour costs and local conditions, I would say: Here is ten, fifteen, or eighteen per cent profit for the manufacturer, and the balance goes to the Inland Revenue office to help run the country. That is the principle of protection I would apply as a principle, not as a privilege to the manufacturer. That policy would develop industries in this country that would turn out every kind of motor car, motor truck and motor bus, and bring down prices to the consumer for every car 'and (motor truck purchased.

I regretted very much to see the deputation that came here from Oshawa the other day treated in the manner it was by the government. The government told them that they would not be intimidated by numbers. But there is such a thing as the liberty of the subject in this country, which is sometimes treated too lightly. We have the British constitution in this country, and it has been the right of British subjects to deputize right from the days of King John and Magna Charta down to the present day.

1 am not an enthusiast on the subject of [DOT]deputations. There is one place where men and women who want to keep Canada Canadian, can deputize to advantage, and that is the polling booth. The men and women of Oshawa will not fail in their duty in this respect. The returned soldiers and civilian Workers and their wives imagined that their presence in Ottawa would produce results. Their presence in Ottawa did produce results. The great result the deputation produced was exhibited in the reply of the right hon. Prime Minister. The principles of Liberalism were laid down in the platform at Winnipeg by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but if any of those planks have been carried out, I have not heard of it. Hon. J. Israel

Tarte said that platforms were -made to get-in on, not to stand on, but, Mr. Speaker, I respect Liberal principles. I believe the pioneer Liberal men of this country were good Liberals, reformers and radicals. I believe they did a great deal for Canada in the days

of the Family Compact. On the grounds on which these buildings stand I saw to-day the statues erected to the memory of two of Canada's greatest men, Baldwin and Lafon-1 taine, standing side by side in a peaceful way, as the men to whose memory they are erected stood in the legislature to discuss problems of importance to Upper and Lower Canada with a view to getting some good results for the country.

The deputation from the motor car workers had this great effect that it caused the right hon. gentleman who received them as Prime Minister to repudiate one of the greatest traditions of historic Liberalism. The right hon. gentleman has not a sliver from any plank in that Liberal platform of 1893 to show as proof of his loyalty to the traditions of Liberalism, which abounded in that platform. The right hon. gentleman's association with politics has contributed much to Liberalism going back on the principles of its platform. There is a Liberalism that goes back beyond the Liberal platform of 1893, the Liberalism that rejoiced in that great Liberal tradition of a party that always insisted on the right of petition and the right to send a deputation into the very presence of enthroned tyranny.

I am not in love with the nature of Liberalism as we have it in Canada. As I said before, the word Liberalism no more implies love of liberality in the souls of present day Liberals than the w'ord Progressive implies progess in the souls of Progressives. I am in love with, and never cease to love, the nature of the Liberalism that inspired the freeholders of Buckinghamshire to mount their horses and ride to London to defend John Hampden against the tyranny of Charles Stuart. Macauley has taught us to love the nature of the Liberalism that brought miners from Cornwall on a deputation to defend Trelawney against the tyranny of James II.

The right hon. viceroy of King Robert Forke denied civilian workers and returned soldiers from Oshawa and their wives the opportunity to exercise the great Liberal right of deputation. The right hon. gentleman proceeded to go back on the Liberal principles of his illustrious grandfather. because history tells us that in the dark hour of William Lyon Mackenzie's fortune, a deputation of 1,100 voters in York county insisted on the right to meet the government in Toronto and protest against the injustice inflicted on the grandfather of the present Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman does not believe in deputations. Why? The freeholders who rode from Buckinghamshire to aid John Hampden, the

The Budget-Mr. Church

miners who marched from Cornwall to the help of Bishop Trelawney, never had to fear a more legalized tyranny than the tyranny that spoke in the words of the Liberal leader who tried to rebuke British subjects for seeking help in their hour of need. Some of the voters who rode to Toronto to join the deputation to protest against what they called the destruction of their liberties at the hands of the Family Compact had their homes a few miles from Oshawa. It was from Oshawa that the great deputation came to protest against the destruction of their jobs at the hands of the modern family compact of today, that is to say the farmers' compact. The so-called tyranny that rebuked the deputation sent to Toronto on behalf of the right hon. gentleman's grandfather was dubbed with the name "Toryism." The actual tyranny that dared to rebuke a deputation that came to Ottawa in defence of jobs that keep Canadians in their own country wears the so called name of "Liberalism." The right hon. gentleman, not content with his denial that speaks in the great Liberal tradition of deputations, went back on his grandfather's principles when he suggested to the Oshawa deputation that he was not to be intimidated by numbers. That is what the Family Compact informed the York county deputation when they insisted that William Lyon Mackenzie be given the seat to which the deputation and its supporters had elected him. The right hon. gentleman said and suggested that he did not care for numbers. But he does care for numbers when a vote is on, and the numbers that he cares for are the telephone numbers of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), and the honourable array of "comrades" from Winnipeg. It is an outrage that returned soldiers and civilian workers-Canadian men and women-should be rebuked for coming to Ottawa by right hon. gentlemen whose policy is driving the best men in Canada to the United States, because that policy has taken away their chance of a job in the land that they defended at the hazard of their lives.

We have heard something about vested rights in this country. Does the great British doctrine of vested rights exist on the statute books of this country only for the Canadian Bankers' Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the trust and combines, the railway corporations and the United States millionaires who come into Canada and grab our resources? These interests have vested rights; on the other hand, labour 'has absolutely no vested rights in this country. The

small savings of these workingmen in Oshawa, their modest furniture and their homes; are not all these things vested rights? Is Canada going to become like British Honduras, where under the constitution labour has no vested rights or privileges whatever? The answer to that question, so far as the present government is concerned, is in the affirmative as was evidenced the other day when an important deputation came down here to interview the Minister of Finance in regard to the reduction in the duties on automobiles. When the government intends to expropriate property belonging to any corporation or company in this country it must serve six months' notice, but here the sole means of livelihood of all these workingmen in Oshawa are ruthlessly taken away without any notice or compensation or investigation, and vested rights are denied to Labour. And parliament now decides that Canadian citizens may not petition it! Fortunately, however, there is one recourse left to labour, and that is the ballot box. Our workingmen can still force the hands of a government that will not give them a fair show, as this government will find out some day.

I want to be absolutely fair. I believe in protection and vested rights not only for the capitalist but for labour as well. I believe in equal rights to all and special privileges to none, but I certainly do object to a one-sided protection that leaves the ordinary workingman at the mercy of capitalists abroad who may throw him out into the street whenever it- suits their convenience to do so.

The hon. member for Southeast Grey received a deputation from the women of Oshawa who came and pleaded so that they might save their husbands' jobs. The men for whom they interceded are labouring men. They have the same vested rights as the capitalist, the Canadian Bankers' Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and the railway corporations that are flourishing like the green bay tree. But their vested rights can be taken away from them. They can be deprived of their homes, and t'heir goods and chattels pitched into the streets. The hon. member for Southeast Grey told these women-I am not in a position to quote the hon. member's exact words, but in effect this is what she said-"go home and try it for a year; see how your husbands get along without jobs; come back later and tell us about it." The hon. member for Southeast Grey holds a seat in parliament thanks to the Conservative men and women who went to the polls on election day and forgot partyism in their votes on behalf of a professed independent who never forgets partyism for five

The Budget-Mr. Church

minutes in her vote. He who wrote about man's inhumanity to man should have had a successor with that Oshawa deputation, and he might have found a new theme for tears in the truth disclosed in woman's answer to woman. The answer that the hon. member for Southeast Grey offered to those women from Oshawa was a hardhearted performance, disclosing a sad lack of knowledge and a sadder lack of sympathy with the problems of women who are anxious about their husbands' jobs and with good reason. The trouble is that the anxiety of these men and women, like the anxiety of the Conservative men and women in Southeast Grey, was too long delayed. The Conservative men and women of Southeast Grey are not free traders. They are not anxious to make Ontario a land of empty pay envelopes, and to send the sons and daughters of Ontario to seek homes in Michigan and pay envelopes in Detroit. The hon. member for Southeast Grey seems anxious to produce that position, but the Conservatives who sent her to Ottawa do not share that anxiety. The Conservative men and women of Southeast Grey were fooled when they voted for the free trade fanaticism, the Liberal-first bigotry of the hon. member for the constituency. They imagined that they were voting for a new kind of Independent, instead of voting for the same kind of Grit.

The men and women of Oshawa might not have had to come here on a deputation if they had not given their support to the Toronto Star in its campaign for the destruction of Canadian towns and Canadian tariff. Oshawa depends for life on the motor industry. Oshawa has supported the Toronto Star, and in every election the Star and Hon. W. E. Raney have vied with the de facto prime minister of this country, the successor to the Hon. T. A. Crerar, and his "assistant prime minister" from Winnipeg, in their policy of preaching a doctrine of hatred for the factory under the Union Jack and of love for the country under the stars and stripes. That is the sad feature of this whole attempt to bring about the wreck and ruin of the very foundations of Canada's industrial life.

The hon. member for Southeast Grey suggested that the motor industry would get along all right. Al'l the motor industry needed was three years' trial of this tariff; all the women from Oshawa needed was jobs for their husbands. This tariff degrades Canada and puts Canada out of the running for the prizes for industrial growth. It is a sad thing that a parliament at Ottawa should isolate Canada, not only from the possibilities of growth but from the chances of continued

existence in one of the world's great industries, present and future, the motor industry. There is not an hon. member in this House who would put a dollar in the extension of an old industry or in the establishment of a new industry in a country that supports the doctrines of the Toronto Star and the Hon. W. E. Raneys, Hon. T. A. Crerars, and all branches of their following in this House. These doctrines teach the people to believe, and have too largely succeeded in making the people believe, that a factory in Canada is a source of plunder to the consumers of Canada, and that a factory in the United States is a source of deliverance to the people of Canada; that the manufacturer who employs aliens in an alien land is a benefactor of Canada, and that the manufacturer who employs British subjects in a British land is the oppressor of Canada.

This tariff iniquity puts the United States in the most favoured nation position as against Canada. The Canadian who wants to start an industry can go to the United States and manufacture for two markets. If the Canadian stays in Canada the Canadian will not even be given a fair chance for one market. The people of Oshawa and the people of Toronto have supported such features as hatred of Canadian industry and love of American industry as the Toronto Star, Hon. W. E. Raney and their followers or dupes in this House. Oshawa may be greatly comforted by the Toronto Star's interview in which Henry Ford says he likes to see the faces of the Canadian workmen. The Toronto Star, and the bosses of this government here at Ottawa compel Canadian workmen to leave this country. The enemies of Canada never saw the backs of the returned soldiers who are being driven out of Canada by this tariff. This government are permitting their own fellow countrymen to be driven from the land they love to_the land in which they are forced to seek a living. I have just this to say to the people of Oshawa who have been reading the Star and the people of Toronto who have been reading the Star and thereby helping the Star to wreck Oshawa: If the Toronto Star were published in Detroit and the United States had a government as bad as Canada's govern-' ment, that government might introduce a policy to close factories in Michigan and open factories in Ontario. If a paper published in Detroit, as the Toronto Star is published in Toronto, dared to quote a Canadian manufacturer, as the Toronto Star quotes a Yankee manufacturer, in support of a policy

The Budget-Mr. Parent

that drove American citizens from Detroit to seek a living in Toronto, as the Toronto Star's policy is driving British subjects to seek a living in Detroit, what would happen? The Toronto Star would cease publication, either because support was withdrawn by the merchants whose custom was being driven from Toronto, or because there would not be enough policemen in Detroit to protect the Star's place of publication against the women who sought a reckoning with the sheet that had served as champion of a policy that took the jobs away from their husbands and drove them into a foreign land.

I regret, Mr. Speaker, that in the face of the economic ills of this country to-day, a condition attributable to the ill-advised policies of the Liberal party, the government has failed to bring down in the budget such a tariff as would cure those ills and safeguard the industries of Canada, including the great agricultural industry.

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

Georges Parent

Liberal

Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West):

Since the beginning of the present debate, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to many speeches, and I find that we are now in the very same situation as that in which we have found ourselves for several days. One member will advance the views of his own party, and another will answer and represent the views of the party to which he belongs. The speech just delivered by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) does not differ from other speeches we have heard, except to the extent that he was possibly more prolific, and if I should attempt to follow him in all the details of his address it would probably take me as long as it took him, namely about two hours and a half. The hon. member dealt with many subjects, going from doctors to coal mines, from coal mines to lawyers and other professional men, and so on, in such a way that it would be impossible for me to answer him in a short time. I hope, however, in the course of my remarks to express in a general way my own views in the matter and generally to answer what he said during the course of his speech.

My remarks will be very brief, and they would be much shorter were it not for the fact that I have a few quotations to make in respect to the general situation, and especially with reference to railway conditions affecting the city of Quebec, coupled with Maritime rights; for to my mind these two are one and the same.

I am not in the habit of paying useless compliments to anyone, and I do not intend

to do so on the present occasion. However, we have to face the proposals as presented by the government in the budget and either accept or reject them.

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

May 7, 1926