March 26, 1925 (14th Parliament, 4th Session)


Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)


I do not object to my hon. friend making any speech he likes so long as he can speak again at the proper time. He has already spoken half a dozen times but I hope he has not exhausted his right to speak. I am going to develop the point which has been referred to in regard to the great importance of the interest coupons. What my hon. friend has stated as to the result of the railway debacle which existed in the ten years preceding 1913, is perfectly correct. My hon. friend shakes his shoulders but I am going to demonstrate the fact to him and if he is just as fair with me on that point as I hope he is going to be on another question in a minute, he will admit it. _
I am going to invite my hon. friend to go to a country which is the greatest creditor nation of the world, the United States. There is a country that sells without buying very much; there is a country that is collecting the interest coupons of the world. She is not a debtor nation, she is a creditor nation. Let us see how the "ism" works out there? Well, the figures of the United States are progressive figures. For the ten years ending 1893 her excess of exports was $531,073,572; for the ten years ending 1903, $3,839,744,076; for the ten years ending 1913, $4,564,462,410; for the ten years ending 1923, $20,729,457,292. Let us apply our percentage for one minute and see what that means; let us apply the 60 per cent of the cost which goes to labour, low as it is. That means during the period mentioned that while the United States has taken out of all other countries 4 p.m. the sum of $29,664,737,350 the workmen of the United States have been employed at the expense of the workmen in other countries with a resultant gain to themselves of fifteen billions of dollars. Is there any reason why anyone should wonder

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
at the tremendous growth and the tremendous financial strength of the great republic? My hon. friends opposite will not say that that enormous balance has been met by the United States paying debts which she owes. Why, she is trying to collect debts.
How consistently Canada has worked to put her where she is! Let us come to that period of railway exploitation to which I was referring a moment ago. During the first ten years of chat forty-year period our imports from the United States were $486,927,738. In the ten-year period ending 1903, they were $828,485,184. In the period of railway exploitation, Grand Trunk loans which smashed the property, transeontinemtals, Grand Trunk Pacifies, Canadian Northern railways, the load of which to-day is bending our backs, how is that iooked after? Our imports from the United States in the period ending in 1913 were $2,216,293,258. During the war period our imports rose to $5,986,957,558. We see where the world in general comes out as a result of the forty years' trading. Let us see where Canada comes out. The net result of the forty years' trading with the United States is an adverse trade balance for Canada amounting to $4,397,248,129. Was that not a remarkable achievement for a country of our population? Is it not remarkable evidence of-I am going to leave the naming of that action for the moment to the hon. member for Brorae (M". MdMaster). Let us see how much Canada helped the United States in the period of railway exploitation. In the period ending in 1913, the United States enjoyed the comfortable, favourable trade world balance of $4,564,000,000 odd and Canada accounted for no less than $1,303,000,000 odd of that enormous sum. Just think of it I-out of a favourable trade balance of $4,564,462,410, Canada accounts for $1,306,950,513. My hon. friend would think that sort of thing ought to go on; that it should be made still easier to exploit this market instead of something being done to keep Canadian money wording for Canada. There is a great deal of it working for the United States. What we did in that ten-year period in helping to make the United States the world industrial colossus that she i3, is indeed remarkable evidence of the resources and purchasing power of this people, but the thing can be done only at the expense of the purchasing power of today, and where is it? At the same time k is a monumental example of misapplied energy (,nd wasted opportunity.
But there is another way in which this matter could be settled, and that is by grid 100 [DOT]
imports. My hon. friend did not suggest that, and perhaps I had better come to it a little later on.
I would like the government to put this question to themselves: Is it not
about time at least to try to secure
some of this work for Canadian workers, some fairer and better share in the work of Canada for Canadians? What is government policy? Is government policy a policy which is to be a pro-Canadian policy or a pro-American policy? There ought to be a sharp difference between the two. Is there thait sharp difference in the minds of some hon. gentlemen? The government, of course, could very well object to a Canadian answering this question: Is the government pro-Canadian or proAmerican? They might very well say: Political bias, the desire for greed or something else renders you an unfair witness. The best way of judging policies is by their effect, and I am going to call as a witness, no Canadian, but expert American opinion. The United States Department of Commerce is a very well organized and complete department, and it has excellent publications which appear regularly. Its publication of November 3, 1924, has a great deaJl to say about Canada. It first reminds the reader that it is interested in extending his sales in our territory; that Canada affords the second best market for the American seller.' At page 265 of this issue the article on the ^hare of -the United States in the foreign trade of Canada commences as follows:
Economically and socially Canada may be considered as a northern extension of the United States and our trade with Canada is in many respects more like domestic trade than our foreign trade with other countries. The movement of industrial raw materials from Canada into United States and the return flow of a miscellaneous assortment of partly or wholly manufactured goods is not unlike a similar flow between the west and south, and the more industrialized northeastern part of the United States.
Here we have an expert, unbiased opinion as to the result of Canadian policies. This opinion is unpalatable in the extreme to any Canadian that thinks somewhat of his country, that sees in Canada, with her great resources and1 her virile people, a great nation of the future, strong and potential, if her resources are used for Canada and are not exploited by the foreigner, no matter who he may be, or for the benefit of other countries. Hon. gentlemen have all heard a great deal about the losses which this country today suffers from in the exportation of pulp-wood at $10 a cord as against paper at $70, and they are familiar with the payroll that is lost to this country as a consequence. I

The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
merely draw that matter in this connection to their attention. It is another confirmation of the correctness of this expert's opinion. I will give just one other case. Canada produces a very large share of the asbestos of the world. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) nods his head in approval. I am gratified. It is true, she does. What does she get out of it? Exactly what this expert tells us. All we are getting out of
it is simply the wage roll which the first rough operation provides. We are the providers of the raw material for our friends to the south.
Mr, McMASTER: Just as they supply the raw material for our cotton factories.

Full View