March 4, 1936

LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General) :

I think I can give the same answer to this as I did to the question put by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). The building is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works, and consideration is being given to the matter referred to by my hon. friend.

HAGGIS IMPORT RESTRICTIONS On the orders of the day:

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   PENSION APPEAL COURT
Permalink
LIB

William Alexander Fraser

Liberal

Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland):

I should like to direct a question expressly to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) A matter of national importance arises out of a communication I have received to-day from a prominent Canadian Citizen:

As a Scotchman born in Dumfriesshire of sheep stealing ancestors, I am passionately fond of the national dish of Scotland, namely, the haggis, and it always used to be my practice until a year or so ago to bring these out from Scotland in tins and consume them accompanied by the necessary neat Scotch whiskey.

Early last spring I was told that a permit was necessary from the Department of Agriculture of the dominion government to bring haggis into Canada-

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   PENSION APPEAL COURT
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Shame!

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   PENSION APPEAL COURT
Permalink
LIB

William Alexander Fraser

Liberal

Mr. FRASER:

-and after voluminous correspondence with that department I was informed that the permit would be issued by a certain health officer in Edinburgh who looked after such things for the Canadian government.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   PENSION APPEAL COURT
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Order.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   PENSION APPEAL COURT
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Reading this letter is highly improper.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   PENSION APPEAL COURT
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I ask the hon. member to confine himself to putting his question.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   PENSION APPEAL COURT
Permalink
LIB

William Alexander Fraser

Liberal

Mr. FRASER:

My question is, what steps will the Minister of Agriculture take in order that Scotchmen in Canada may be permitted to import haggis direct from Scotland instead of its having to come from France under the present regulation? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, a matter of national importance.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   PENSION APPEAL COURT
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Older.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   PENSION APPEAL COURT
Permalink

CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE


The house resumed from Tuesday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the trade agreement entered into at Washington on the 15th day of November, 1935, between His Majesty's government in the Dominion of Canada, and the government of the United' States of America, and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.


LIB

Harry Leader

Liberal

Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):

In rising to continue the debate

on this motion the first statement I want to make is that I intend to vote for the resolution. I am doing this not because I think this agreement is the last word in reciprocal trade arrangements, but because I believe it is a step in the right direction. I believe it points the road that the nations of the world must follow if we are to regain our lost prosperity. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches so far made. One thing has been made very clear to me, and that is that the Conservative party is opposed to reciprocity with the United States. Not that I had any doubt in the matter, because I took the view during the last election campaign, and expressed it, that we had no assurance of a fair trade arrangement with our great neighbour to the south if a Conservative government should be returned to power.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

James Houston Spence

Liberal

Mr. SPENCE:

You have got one now

that you will be sorry for.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

Harry Leader

Liberal

Mr. LEADER:

On the other hand I was

sure that if a Liberal government were returned we had reasonable assurance that we would have a trade arrangement with the United States. In view of the attitude that has been taken by members of the Conservative party, and particularly by the leader of that party, it seems to me that my attitude :at that time has been vindicated. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) yesterday afternoon was frank enough to state that after serving twenty-four years with the Conservative party he never was con-winced that his party believed in reciprocity *with the United States. I am glad the hon. [DOT]member was manly enough to come out and make that statement. I want also to congratulate him on his assurance to the house :that he intends to vote for this resolution.

I have a political background that perhaps is not known to all hon. members of this house. Some may remember that I sat with the Progressive group in this house for four years.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

James Houston Spence

Liberal

Mr. SPENCE:

You bet we do.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

Harry Leader

Liberal

Mr. LEADER:

A good many years

Ibefore that I had belonged to the Conservative party.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Shame I

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

Harry Leader

Liberal

Mr. LEADER:

I remember that when in

1911 reciprocity was an issue the Conservative party were opposed to reciprocity as they are now, and thinking I was a loyal Conservative and was doing what I thought was right by my party, I voted against -reciprocity and have regretted it ever since. (Now, lest someone should wonder why I am ^on this side of the house, I make this statement; I am over here believing that the Xiberal government intends to do something, and I want to help them. I make this further statement, that should a Liberal government not legislate in the interests of my people I shall not hesitate to vote against them. That is my position in this house. I believe in Liberal principles; I believe that the Liberal party at the present time has a wonderful opportunity to do something of real value for the Canadian people, beyond that of any party that ever succeeded to power in this country, and I believe that they will. Our hope is in the Liberal party and they will not fail us.

This afternoon we are again discussing reciprocity. The measure is introduced by the Liberal party and is again opposed by *the Conservative party. After all, it is not

what one says that amounts to very much, but rather his achievements. I am reminded of the old1 saying, "By their fruits ye shall know them." I believe the agreement will be beneficial to Canadians, and particularly to agriculture, that part of Canadian industry with which during all my life I have been identified, and with which I expect to be identified as long as I live.

May I refer particularly to the agreement as it affects the cat'tle industry. I was pleased to note that while pointing out that the agreement might prove to be disastrous to Canada, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) admitted that it was beneficial to the cattle industry. For a moment I should like to discuss the terms of the agreement. It provides that cattle weighing over 700 pounds will be admitted into the United States at two cents per pound, which is a reduction of 33J per cent from the former rate of three cents per pound. A quota of 155,799 head is stated in connection with the shipment of these cattle. Then, there is the further provision that cattle weighing less than 175 pounds will be admitted at li cents per pound instead of 2i cents per pound, a reduction of forty per cent in the rate of duty. In that category we will be allowed to ship 51,933 head. The rate on dairy cattle weighing more than 700 pounds is reduced from three cents per pound to li cents per pound, or the equivalent of a reduction in duty of fifty per cent. Of 'that class 20,000 head will be allowed in. Last year we shipped 123,501 head of cattle to the United States market. If we fulfil our quota this year we will ship 227,732 head, or an increase over last year of 104,231 head. Surely that is a substantial margin of increase, and will go a great distance towards helping our cattle industry.

I should like to state what this will mean in dollars and cents. At one dollar per hundred pounds it would amount to $12 on a 1,200 pound animal, and less than that on one weighing less. It is estimated that the average benefit from the treaty will be $9 per head. Last year we reoeived 86,295,682 from the total number of cattle shipped to the United States. If at that time the rates of duty indicated under this agreement had been in force this would have added an extra amount of 81,111,509 to the receipts of cattle producers. This amount added to the purchasing power of the Canadian people could not help but boost industry all along the line.

But that is not the whole story, by any means. It is a well known fact that the price

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

we get for our domestic produce is regulated by the export price. In view of that fact I should like to refer to figures handed to me by the Department of Agriculture which indicate that we produce 2,000,000 head of cattle each year. If we multiply that figure by $9 we have a total of $18,000,000. Therein lies the real value of the agreement. We now have two outlets for our Canadian cattle. I should like to give the figures for the last ten years of shipments of cattle to the United Kingdom and the United States. They are as follows:

Calendar Shipments to Shipments toyears United Kingdom United States1926.. .. , . . $ 79,985 $158,2951927.. .. , .. 8,263 283,004192S.. .. . . . 405 242,3541929.. .. 250.5361930.. .. . .. 5,400 54,7161931.. ., . .. 27,149 24,5897932.. .. , .. 16,568 12.8651933.. ., . .. 50,317 5,7341934.. .. . .. 53,953 6,5671935.. .. . .. 6,704 123,501

It appears that prior to 1930 our best market was in the United States, but during the last five years it has been in the United Kingdom. To-day we have these two markets to which we may ship our cattle-a very welcome improvement, so far as cattle producers are concerned. An alternative market adds to the stability and guarantees a fair price. May I read a portion of a communication I received from the Department of Agriculture:

The most recent development in the cattle industry is a revival of interest in Canadian cattle on the part of a number of importing firms in the United Kingdom. Six boats have been booked, having a total capacity of approximately 3,000 cattle and two boats have left the port of Saint John for British ports. The cattle situation in the old country is such that a scarcity of good fresh beef is expected and the market there is for the first time in almost a year returning to an export basis for Canada.

This agreement offers us a better opportunity to get into the United States market. The result is that we have not only the market in the United Kingdom but also the great market to the south of us to which we may ship our cattle. Although the cattle industry has suffered grievously, it would appear that brighter prospects are ahead. May I quote further from the letter from the Department of Agriculture:

The most disturbing factor in the present situation in the domestic market is the tendency to liquidate heavy supplies of unfinished cattle, cattle that are neither good nor common, but of in-between quality and a distinct loss to the producer, since the cost of such stock last fall when put in stables was as high or higher than such quality stock has been realizing during past week.

That is what I mean, Mr. Speaker. It adds stability to have this alternative market and

to be able to ship either to the United States or to the United Kingdom, whichever market is the more favourable. Anyone who has been engaged in the cattle industry knows that you do not make much money out of an animal unless it is fat, and when we have an unstable market the tendency is to get rid of beasts when they are only half fat, instead of fattening them up and thereby getting the maximum return.

While our market in the United Kingdom is very valuable, our natural market is with our neighbours to the south. At the present time, when you take into account the duty, the price of our cattle entering the United States is about on a par with the price in the old country, but transportation charges to the United Kingdom are so much heavier that for all time I think we shall have to rely mainly on the United States market. I have before me a few figures in regard to transportation charges. It costs approximately $26 including duty to ship a 1,000 pound beast from Winnipeg to St. Paul in the United States, and it costs in the neighbourhood of $30 to ship a

1,000 pound beast from Winnipeg to Glasgow or Birkenhead in the old country. There is also the danger of shrinkage in shipping to the United Kingdom market. It is a well known fact that cattle shipped to the old country very often shrink; in fact, the shrinkage often takes away all the gain that would otherwise accrue to the shipper.

As I said a few moments ago, the market at the present time is not so good, but under the stimulus of this treaty we are increasing our shipments of cattle to the United States. From January 1 of this year to date we have shipped 21,220 head of cattle to the United States as compared with 9,802 head for the same period of last year. At this point I should like to say to the government that I believe the time will come when it will be necessary to regulate our shipments of cattle to the United States so that we shall not use up all our quota in the first two or three months of the year, because to do so would work a great hardship on those who had not their cattle fattened in time and must therefore hold back and lose the benefit of shipping to the United States to the extent of the quota stated in the agreement.

I should like to say a word with regard to the quality of our products. If we are going to gain and hold a market in the United States or anywhere else we must produce what the trade demands, and I would submit to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), whom I see in his seat, that great care should be taken by the government to see that the quality of our cattle is improved. I say "improved," because at the present time they

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

are not of as good quality as we should like to see. I heard the statement made at Brandon this winter, that the quality of cattle coming into the Manitoba market at St. Boniface has decreased forty per cent within the last ten years, and there is a reason for that. During these years of the depression farmers have more or less lost their morale and become somewhat indifferent; they have allowed their cattle to depreciate in quality. I would point out, however, that we can improve the quality of our cattle only by using good sires, and I would like to see the government undertake to do for the cattle producers of this country something along the lines followed in Great Britain and Ireland, where they have developed a better sire policy that has proven its worth in those lands. We have in operation in Manitoba and also in the dominion what are called bull loaning policies, but since the dominion government has undertaken to go into that line of work Manitoba has discontinued that policy.

Without appearing prejudiced or wishing to boost any particular breed1 of cattle I want to submit some figures which I think will be significant at least to cattlemen, and I hope they will cause some thought on the part of our Canadian officials. I love a good beast irrespective of breed. When a person speaks of beef cattle one immediately thinks of three outstanding beef breeds: the Shorthorn, the Hereford and the Aberdeen Angus. It does not matter to me what breed the animal is, so long as he is of the correct type, short legged, thick fleshed, deep bodied, the early maturing kind, the kind that will produce the best market animal. That is the sire one should buy irrespective of breed.

Now I want to give some figures in regard to the number of beef bulls that have been loaned in Manitoba from 1929 to 1932. The numbers were two hundred' and fifteen Shorthorns, twenty-seven Herefords, and eleven Aberdeen Angus. Let me give the numbers of the beef bulls that have been loaned for breeding purposes by the dominion Department of Agriculture, and I may say that these figures were handed to me just recently by officials of that department. In the last four or five years it has loaned one hundred and sixty-eight Shorthorn bulls, seventy-one Herefords, and six Aberdeen Angus. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this situation is worthy of very careful thought on the part of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the officials of his department. I am not going into details in regard to the bull loaning policy, but I have the idea that the farmer himself should be allowed to choose the breed that he wants, the bull he thinks it will be

in his best interests to use. I also think the government should step in and provide a bonus to the purchaser of that animal, not to the man who sells it; they should give the purchaser a bonus with the animal he buys. There should also be a bull grading system, and the man who buys an outstanding animal under that system should receive the larger bonus. The animals should be graded No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, and in no case should any bull that is graded below No. 3 be put up for sale for breeding purposes; it should be marketed, via the stock yards.

Perhaps some hon. members have not been very much interested in what I have had to say, but to mie it is a very interesting subject and I am very glad to have had this opportunity to say a word in the House of Commons for the people whom I represent; especially am I glad that I have been able to say something in the interests of agriculture and on behalf of our stock raisers in particular.

In closing, I should like in supporting this resolution to offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon his splendid efforts and success in securing the present trade agreement. It is more than a trade agreement; it is the hand of friendship extended to a nation that is our kin. It is an invitation to other nations of the world to trade more freely with each other and forget their economic wars.

Mr. J. R. MacNICOL- (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Leader) has followed in the wake of other hon. gentlemen, especially those opposite, in supporting the resolution before the house. He was very careful to avoid any reference to the agreement being beneficial or otherwise in connection with the best market that the primary producers of Canada have, the market represented by the purchasing power of 1,000,000 workers employed in the industries of Canada. I do not include in this category the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I believe they are both honest in their convictions, but it would appear that the Minister of Finance has a card up his sleeve in the shape of probable changes which may be made in the intermediate tariff when the budget is brought down. If that card were thrown on the table where we could see it, it would perhaps change the tenor of some of our remarks. I intend to deal with the agreement as it is now before the house and not consider it from the point of view of any changes which may come later.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

Before dealing with the agreement, I should like to congratulate my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) upon the clear statement he made to this house. I understand he stated that he could have concluded an agreement like this, but in his opinion such an agreement would be disastrous to the people of Canada, I congratulate the leader of the Conservative party upon having the courage to refuse to accept such an agreement, even though the acceptance of the agreement might have returned him as prime minister of this country. The Prime Minister referred to the historic policy of this party as being one of retaliation. I always like to go back into history as far as possible, and I have before me a photograph of the original draft of the national policy as drawn by Sir John A. Macdonald w-hen he attended a convention at Shaftesbury Hall, Toronto, in January, 1878. I should like to read three resolutions adopted at that convention, as follows:

1. They are satisfied that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a national financial policy, which by a judicious readjustment of the tariff, will benefit and foster the agricultural, mining and manufacturing interests of the dominion.

2. That no such readjustment will be satisfactory to the interests affected, or to the country, if adopted as a provisional means only -to meet a temporary exigency, or to supply a temporary deficit-nor unless it is made and carried out as a national policy.

3. That until a reciprocity of trade is established with our neighbours, Canada should move in the direction of a reciprocity of tariffs, so far as her varied interests may demand.

That shows that the statement that the national policy was one of retaliation is not founded on fact. The Conservative party has not used the national policy to prevent beneficial trade with the United States. The Prime Minister also said something about not being able to negotiate for other commodities. The inference in that remark is quite clear; he was referring to the Ottawa agreements. I believe the Prime Minister mentioned coal, and in this connection I should like to read a short report of a speech made by Mrs. Mitchell F. Hepburn, the wife of the Premier of Ontario, at a meeting of the Toronto Women's Liberal Association, held in Toronto on October 25, 1934, as follows:

Mrs. Hepburn stressed the matter of trade with the United States, and interpreted Mr. Roosevelt's statement that no trade agreement would be made with Canada until after a general election as meaning that "we cannot have fair exchange with the United States until Bennett is out of office." She deplored the unnecessary expense in bringing coal from

eastern and western Canada to Ontario when Ontario might have freer exchange with the nearest point to the south. "Is there anything wrong with having freer exchange of Canadian wheat and United States cotton? There is stagnation in lumber and pulpwood industry in northern Ontario. Why not freer exchange of these products for iron and steel of the United States?" she queried.

If these remarks outline the objective of such an agreement as this, I doubt very much whether hon. members representing Alberta and Nova Scotia will endorse the doing away with the use of Nova Scotia coal in central Ontario and of Alberta coal in Manitoba. Canada has unlimited deposits of soft coal which could be used to great advantage in Ontario. I put in blowers for soft coal in four buildings and I have cut my coal bill in two. I believe it would be good policy for the government to advocate the bringing in of soft coal from Alberta and Nova Scotia. Where coal must be brought in from outside, the government should encourage the use of coal from Wales. This method would not allow coal to interfere with the British markets.

In connection with the British agreements, I should like to refer briefly to The Monthly Bulletin published by the Canadian chamber of commerce in Great Britain. In the September, 1935 issue it is stated that in the British market Canada holds first place in wheat, third in barley, first in oats, first in wheat flour, second in total grain and flour, second in cattle, second in bacon, second in hams, fifth in total meats, fifth in cheese, thirteenth in total dairy products, second in apples, fourth in canned salmon, first in lobsters, second in unmanufactured tobacco, first in copper, second in hides, second in unwrought copper, second in pig lead, first in total nonferrous metals, third in machinery, fourth in total manufactures of wood and timber, first in patent leather, second in newsprint, fourth in paper, and first in rubber manufactures. If we are to infer from what the Prime Minister said that when the British agreements are up for renewal, drastic changes will be made, I for one have grave fears of Canada continuing to hold her place in the British market.

I should like to refer briefly to what Canada gives away by this agreement. I shall not spend any time in telling the house what Canada obtains by the agreement-and there are some good features-as my hon. friends opposite can do that.

1. Canada gives the intermediate tariff on a large number of American articles.

2. There is a reduction of 2J per cent in the duty of motor cars valued under 31,200.

3. There is a reduction of 7J per cent on motor cars valued at more than 31,200.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

On the higher priced cars the reduction is 10 per cent.

4. The existing tariff on fruits and vegetables is slashed by 10 per cent to 15 per cent.

5. The duty on practically all agricultural implements is cut in half.

6. We have promised to abolish special valuations for duty purposes.

7. Canada gives specific reductions on sixty-eight items.

8. Canada allows free entry on twenty items now dutiable.

9. Canada guarantees not to increase the intermediate tariff on seventy-seven items.

10. Canada guarantees not to impose duties on fifteen items now duty free.

11. Canada will allow Canadian tourists to bring back $100 worth of goods from the United States.

12. There is also the favoured nation treatment which will apply also to twenty-nine other countries.

We had a dose of this kind of medicine between 1921 and 1926, when the government of the present Prime Minister reduced duties in the sessions of 1922, 1923, 1924 and later in 1925. What was the result? The Prime Minister will remember that a large delegation of manufacturers came here on September 4, 1924, and submitted figures to show that as a direct result of these several slashes in the tariff there was a net loss to Canada of 417 industries which closed their doors and threw their men on the labour market. Do we want another dose of that kind of medicine? Speaking as one who ought to know a little about industry and labour, if years at it count for anything, I intend to prove that many of the schedules are a menace to employment of workers throughout Canada.

Let me divide the iron and steel industries into ten subdivisions, taking the figures of 1929-30, the last years during which the Liberal party was in power prior to the election of 1930. I give the list: blooms and billets; castings and forgings; pipes, tubes and fittings; wire; boilers and engines; hardware and cutlery; machinery (not farm); tools and stampings; vehicles; sundry items.

In the year 1929-30 Canada imported from outside countries $278,000,000 worth of these lines of goods. Canadian industries, had they been given an opportunity to manufacture these goods, could and would have manufactured not less than $100,000,000 worth of them. It was because of the decline in the productivity of industries in Canada that the last Liberal government was defeated in 1930; the country had gotten into such a state as a result of the effect of its policies

on industry throughout Canada, thousands of men being out of work, that the workers in 1929 were begging that government to go to the country; and w'hen that government did appeal to the electorate it was thoroughly defeated. The leader of the Conservative party, when he came into power, reversed that policy. I am very much surprised at the way some hon. gentlemen opposite talk; they certainly cannot be familiar with what industry in Canada achieved under the Conservative government, for I make this statement without fear of successful contradiction, that Canada's position would have been infinitely worse than it actually was during the last four or five years had it not been for the tariff of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. I made a survey of a great number of these industries and I know. The tariff structure erected by the leader of the opposition when he was prime minister resulted in bringing into Canada 135 new industries which began to manufacture goods many of which had never theretofore been produced in this country. Those industries occupy

5,000,000 square feet of floor space, have invested in them $40,000,000, and employ 10,000 employees; and in addition to that, hundreds of other established industries employing from

80,000 to 90,000 more men were kept in motion in old lines, making goods that would not have been manufactured had it not been for that Conservative tariff policy.

The former prime minister, I know, received from industrial workers of Canada unbounded credit for what he did, and that was very well reflected in the last federal election in the cities that early benefited from that tariff policy-Toronto, which elected nine Conservatives out of eleven members; Hamilton, two out of two, or rather three out of three, taking the county; and St. Catharines and London, all of which profited considerably by the Conservative tariff.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

Alexander MacGillivray Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

If the hon. gentleman will

look around him in the house he will see what the real result was.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
CON

John Ritchie MacNicol

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MacNICOL:

Well, if the hon. gentleman's party continues in the policy it is now pursuing, the membership of the next parliament will reflect the views of the people regarding that policy.

Let me now take up certain schedules one at a time, as rapidly as I can. The first item I look at is 184d. The new arrangement wipes out the duty on United States magazines. The late government placed on magazines coming from the United States a duty that had the effect of having printed in Canada about fifty of these American publications.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

This resulted in giving employment in various companies to approximately 250 printers and other workers. It resulted in bringing into Canada, from Chicago two plants which operated in Toronto, making ink too, and in which some fifty workers were employed. In other words, the printing industry, backed up by the tariff imposed by the leader of the opposition, then prime minister, resulted in providing directly 300 new jobs, with a monthly payroll of $40,000, and the government received some $6,000 per month in postage from mailing the magazines. I cannot understand1 how hon. gentlemen on the opposite side who are familiar with that situation can denounce legislation that brings about such results.

Coming now to the iron and steel industry,

I take item 378b, bars and rods, not further processed than hammered or pressed. The duty has been reduced from 30 to 25 per cent. The next item, 380, is steel plates, flanged, dished, curved, hot rolled, which has been reduced from 30 to 25 per cent. This will result in a good deal of steel equipment being brought into the country, flanged, dished and curved by the great American plants, so that American workmen will receive that much extra labour in addition to the manufacture of raw steel plates. The next item is 381b, sheets of iron or steel. The reduction has been from $7 to $6 a ton, and that will certainly help the Belgian steel makers of the European cartel; but it will not help the steel makers in Sydney, Nova Scotia or in Sault Ste. Marie or Hamilton. It will mean a harder time for Canadians to keep their plants in operation. Item 382d is cold rolled hoop steel and 383d, 383e, 383f and 383g all have reference to a line of equipment the making of which has recently begun in Canada. A short time ago I went to see the plant in operation in Hamilton and as a Canadian I was greatly pleased to see fellow Canadians making this new line of equipment. In my opinion it is tough on the men who have invested money in these steel plants, which have given work to Canadians, and much tougher still on the men engaged in these plants, to find themselves with the possibility of being thrown out of work. Undoubtedly these plants will be affected to the extent that the reduction in the tariff makes curtailment inevitable. In the last three items we have reductions from 15 to Yl\ per cent; from 25 to 20 per cent; and from 25 to 20 per cent. Take item 387, railway rails, which are made in Sydney, Nova Scotia and in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. The tariff has been reduced from $7 to $6 per ton. Every man in this house knows that the steel

mills in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, have had a hard struggle during the last few years, and I for one cannot understand why the government, now that these mills are beginning to find things a little better, should reduce the duty on rails from $7 to $6 a ton. I feel that the men working in these plants have a grievance against the government as a result of this item in the schedule. The same applies to item 387a, covering railway fish plates and so on. A list of steel mills and forging shops in Canada deal with those items, and these factories will be affected proportionately because of the reduction in duty from $8 to $7 per ton. Then the rate under item 388c, covering iron and steel beams, not punched, is reduced from 17i per cent to 12i per cent. Recently, Mr. Speaker, the steel mills of Siault Ste. Marie commenced to roll beams in additional smaller sizes. This line is new industry in Canada, and should be encouraged to continue to roll wider beams and give work to more men instead of having the tariff reduced in this way. I might say the same with regard to item 388d, which covers iron and steel angles and channels, on which the duty has been reduced from 40 per cent to 35 per cent, and with regard to item 350, covering wire of all metals and kinds, under which the rate has been reduced from 35 per cent to 30 per cent. In the town of Waterloo, Quebec, they have a very good wire mill, I am told, and in addition there are large mills in Montreal, Hamilton and Toronto.

Before going further, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I am not referring to the western provinces simply because I have not made a survey of the towns and cities of the west from an industrial standpoint. Therefore I am not qualified to state what mills out there, if there are any, of this kind are affected as the mills of the east are.

Then item 312 refers to asbestos. We have by far the largest asbestos deposits in the world, but, being a very small consuming country, the asbestos is not manufactured into finished products to the extent one might expect. People have been getting into that business, however, and mills in Montreal and elsewhere have been manufacturing asbestos into pipe coverings and that sort of thing. The men working in these plants will be affected by the reduction in the duty on asbestos from 25 per cent to 22i per cent. Then we have item 388, covering iron or steel angles, beams and so forth, on which the duty is not changed. Item 392 covers forgings. We have very fine forging mills in Belleville and Guelph, Ontario, two of the smaller cities of the province, and in

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink

March 4, 1936